Page 54

Zeutschel OS7000, 400 dpi, 8 bit, 9,068,916 byteswater as might be desired for the Indian reservation, and leave a large surplus to be sold to settlers on Government lands under the canal system. It seems certain that it will some day be desirable to furnish the Indian reservation about 20,000 acre-feet if water per annum. This is double the estimated capacity of the Queen Creek reservoir. If this amount of excess were furnished by pumping from wells, this investigation indicates that the total cost, capitalizing the running expenses at 4 per cent, would be in the neighborhood of $1,000,000. Double this sum invested in The Buttes reservoir would furnish a reliable supply of seven or eight times as much water, and the surplus could be used to give value to the large tract of Government land which it would serve, and the Government could this recoup itself for the expense of the construction. There is therefore no question but that, for the provision of this quantity of water, the construction of The Buttes reservoir is by far the cheapest method in the end. Some broad questions of public policy are also involved in this problem, and deserve serious consideration. These two reservoirs are great natural resources, and it is to the public interest that they, together with the public lands which they would water, should be utilized to the greatest possible extent. In order to take the waters of Queen Creek to the reservation they must flow through 20 miles of the most excellent irrigable land, on which they would of course be used if not taken to the Indian reservation, and which can not otherwise be watered, and a large amount of the construction would be saved, as well as great loss of water from evaporation and seepage. On the other hand, the Indian reservation is a part of the territory that would naturally be irrigated from The Buttes reservoir, and could be reached as cheaply as any land that would be served in lieu thereof. A broad economy therefore indicates dictates the choice of The Buttes project, and the Government, being the owner of the lands to be watered, is directly interested in having them reclaimed as economically as possible. As bearing directly upon the question, I beg leave to quote form your valuable paper on ""The public lands and their water supply,"" published in Part II of the Sixteenth Annual Report of the Geological Survey, as follows: It is a fact now generally recognized that any considerable extension of the area irrigated from the streams can come only from the successful operation of large enterprises. These, however, have not been favored by popular sentiment nor by legislation, there being a prevalent feeling that the corporations controlling the necessary funds and conducting operations on a large scale may prove a menace. The land laws have been so framed that it is impossible for large associations to obtain, legally, title to tracts of such size that the sale of these will repay the cost and risk of building a great canal. There are exceptions to this in the cases of the old Spanish grants and of donations to railroad corporations where it has been possible for investors to acquire considerable areas lying adjacent to one another, and here some of the largest irrigation projects of the country have been successfully under taken. The conditions of acquiring ownership to the great bulk of the public lands now vacant, however, are such that it is impracticable to attempt to secure title to contiguous areas, and without such title to the land to be reclaimed it is doubtful whether any large canal can be profitable built; for experience has shown that the only safe investment in this line is where the expense of construction is repaid out to the increased value of the land rather than by the sale of water rights or by annual rentals. The price of these water rights and the amount which can be charged each year for the privilege of taking water through a large system are most in States under the control of the legislature or of county officials, so the corporations in this respect are at the mercy of the people rather than the reverse