At the time of the passage of the Reclamation Act it was assumed that if the government built the reservoirs and the main line canals, the land owners, following the precedents of the pioneer, would build the remaining minor works. This was found to be impracticable unless the government supervised operations and furnished the necessary supplies and a part at least of the machinery and capital. To meet this situation, a novel fiscal expedient was devised. Agreements were entered into with the water users' associations on the several projects for the performance by their members of portions of the construction work, the association receiving in return the right to issue to its members so-called "coöperative certificates," to the amount of the work done. The manner in which these certificates were made available for the payment of land and construction charges may be seen from the following official explanation:

Section 4 of the reclamation act states that the charges made against any farm unit shall be estimated with a view of returning to the reclamation fund the estimated cost of construction of the works and shall be apportioned equitably. This equitable apportionment can be secured if the holder of the farm unit presents to the Secretary certain rights of property, which is a desirable part of the system. By accepting this right of interest the Secretary is enabled to reduce equitably the charges against a particular parcel of land.

This exchange of values or equitable apportionment is entirely independent of the collection of cash charges. These by law are placed in the hands of the Land Office. The transaction as regards equitable exchange must be completed in such a way that the Land Office is called upon to take cognizance only of the cash payment, and not of the details of the reduction of charge due to this equitable apportionment.

All matters of acquiring rights or property as part of the construction of the complete irrigation system are made by the officers of the Reclamation Service, and are completed in such a manner or at such times as will enable the Land Office to consider the cash payments as a separate transaction.1

1

1 Reclamation Service: Coöperative Certificates, Issue and Use by Associations of Settlers and Water Users (1908), p. 6.

It should be noted that the coöperative certificates were not currency nor were they evidence of liability on the part of the government. By their use there was made possible a quick "turn over" or exchange of values without the necessity of cash payments from the Treasury, followed by the collection of an equivalent amount from the settlers.

The plan for the issue of coöperative certificates was approved by the Secretary of the Interior, James R. Garfield, on February 21, 1908, and was put into effect directly thereafter. They were quite widely and successfully used until 1910, when their issue was stopped in accordance with a decision of the Attorney General that the procedure was without explicit warrant of law.

In place of these coöperative certificates or equivalent bookkeeping methods of transfer of credit, it was considered advisable by Congress to make available a larger amount of money than was in sight in the Reclamation Service fund. The original act limited the funds to the proceeds from the disposal of public lands and there was some impatience with the rate of progress imposed by such limitation. Accordingly, by act of June 25, 1910, the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to transfer to the credit of the reclamation fund such sums not exceeding $20,000,000 as were deemed necessary to complete the projects or to protect the water rights, with the proviso that all sums so transferred should be reimbursed to the Treasury from the reclamation fund, beginning five years after date of the first transfer and at the rate of 50 per cent. of the annual receipts to the reclamation fund. As a matter of fact, it was found that there was not as great a necessity for utilizing this money as had been anticipated by its advocates because, under existing conditions of settlement and of labor, it was not practicable to push construction at a rate greatly exceeding the regular income of the reclamation fund. A certain length of time was necessary for the utilization of the works already built. Hence, it was not

until over four years later that the first advances were made on account of the $20,000,000.

In 1906 the sale of surplus power developed on any project had been authorized and in 1911 this policy was extended to permit the sale of surplus water to private or state reclamation works. Restrictions were, however, imposed to assure the beneficial use of such water by the projects buying it.

Important changes in the fiscal policy relative to reclamation works were effected by the so-called Reclamation Extension Act of August, 1914. To meet the difficulty experienced by many of the settlers on the projects in meeting the requirement of the law, that construction charges be repaid within ten years, the act granted twenty years for the payment of all charges still unpaid, and provided that on all entries thereafter made twenty years should be allowed for repayment, no charges whatever, other than the initial charge, being required during the first five years.

By the same act, definite authority was conferred upon the Secretary of the Interior to impose charges for operation and maintenance-an authority long exercised without express legislative warrant.

On the other hand, the Reclamation Extension Act of 1914 imposed a serious limitation on the power which had theretofore been vested in the Secretary of the Interior in the selection of new projects or units for construction. By the original Reclamation Act, as has been stated, the power of selection had been vested solely in the Secretary, subject only to the fiscal limitations of the reclamation fund. By the act of June 25, 1910, which, as already seen, provided for advances to the reclamation fund for the completion of projects already begun, it had been further provided that new projects should be begun only on the direct order of the President. By the Reclamation Extension Act of 1914, it was now provided that the Secretary of the Interior should submit to Congress, in his estimates for the next fiscal year, detailed estimates of the cost of the extension and completion of exist

ing projects and units thereof, and of the construction of new projects; and it was expressly provided that after July 1, 1915, no expenditure should be made out of the reclamation fund except in pursuance of appropriations made by Congress. In the sundry civil appropriation act of March 3, 1915 (38 Stat., 859), this policy was accordingly put into effect, definite appropriations being made for each of the projects then being carried forward by the Service. The same method has been followed for the fiscal years 1917 and 1918. In none of these three acts has appropriation been made for any new project, unless the proposed Lawton, Oklahoma, work be thus considered.

In one other important respect the act of 1914 tended toward the limitation of the operations of the Service. The Reclamation Act had provided that when the construction. charges applicable to the major portion of the lands on a project had been repaid to the reclamation fund, the Secretary of the Interior might turn the management of the irrigation works over to the owners of the lands irrigated, but that the management and operation of the reservoirs and the works necessary for their protection should remain in the government. By the Reclamation Extension Act, however, the Secretary was authorized to turn over to local control "the care, operation and maintenance of all or any part of the project works."

CHAPTER II

ACTIVITIES

The manifold operations of the Reclamation Service may not properly be regarded as distinct and separate lines of activity. They are merely parts of a single activity-the reclamation of arid lands in the west by means of irrigation works. In what follows, therefore, the characteristics of the several types of reclamation projects—the physical conditions encountered and the nature of the works required to overcome them are first outlined under the head "Characteristics of Projects." Account is then given of the specific activities involved in the initiation, construction, and management of the projects.

Characteristics of Projects. The primary works embraced in an irrigation project may be regarded as being made up of two parts-those works, such as dams, canals and tunnels, required to bring the water to a suitable point on the area to be irrigated; and those, consisting chiefly of ditches, required to carry it from that point to the several farms and tracts in the area. Beyond this there lie, of course, the small channels on each farm, which distribute the water over its surface for its final absorption by the soil. These last works are, however, not properly regarded as part of the project proper, being the concern chiefly of the individual whose land they supply and are not in practice constructed by the Service.

The works required for bringing the water to the irrigable area constitute, it is needless to state, far the major problem of the Service. The primary physical factor determining the nature of such works is the adequacy of the available natural water supply for the requirements of the area. If the sup