Mr. CRAMTON. This does not have reference to the power plant? Mr. REED. And irrigation. That all goes together. Mr. CRAMTON. It is completed? Mr. REED. Practically completed; yes, sir. Some laterals probably will have to be completed, but not much. Mr. CRAMTON. The $2,600 is not going to complete the laterals that are needed? Mr. REED. Yes. Mr. CRAMTON. It will complete them, and during the present year? Mr. REED. Yes, sir. RECLAMATION AND MAINTENANCE CHARGES, YUMA RESERVATION, CALIF. Mr. CRAMTON. The next is Yuma: For reclamation and maintenance charges on Indian lands within the Yuma Reservation, California, and on ten acres w thin each of the eleven Yuma homestead entries in Arizona, under the Yuma reclamation project, $$60,000, reimbursable as provided by the act of March 3, 1911 (Thirty-sixth Statutes at Large, page 1063). Mr. MERITT. Our justification for this item is as follows: Tribe, Yuma; population, 959. Area of reservation, 33,771 acres. Irrigable under project, 8,312 acres. Cultivated by white lessees, 5,220 acres. Number whites engaged (owners), none. Number whites engaged (lessees), 178. Construction costs for year ending June 30, 1924, $24,516.44. Construction costs to June 30, 1924, $478,490.65. Operation and maintenance costs for year ending June 30, 1924, $36,817.63. Operation and maintenance costs to June 30, 1924, $208,532.79. Operation and maintenance charges are not collected from water users. Average value of irrigable land per acre, $200 to $700. Irrigation project started in 1904. Work done by Bureau of Reclamation. Average annual precipitation, 3 inches. Source of water supply, Colorado River. Crops produced: Cotton, alfalfa, grain, citrus fruits. Railroad through project. Water rights for the lands of the Yuma Indians are being purchased from the Bureau of Reclamation, these lands lying within the Yuma project. Payments are being made annually on behalf of the construction charges against these lands on a basis of 10 annual installments. The final installment has previously been paid on 6,149 acres of allotted lands lying north of the track of the Southern Pacific Railroad which crosses the reservation, and the eighth installment has been paid on 2,163 acres of allotted land lying south of the railroad. The construction charge for the lands north of the railroad is fixed at $55 per acre and for the lands south of the railroad track at $77 per acre. In addition to the irrigable land allotted to the Indians within the reservation, there are 160 acres unallotted and used as a school farm and 567 acres in tribal land being supplied with water, making a total of 727 acres of unallotted land. Twelve members of the Yuma Tribe homesteaded 40 acres of land each on the Arizona side of the Colorado River, also in the Yuma reclamation project. One of these Indians also owns an allotment of 10 acres of irrigable land on the Yuma Reservation. Water rights for these members of this tribe allotted on the reservation proper are being acquired and paid for out of appropriations made by Congress for that purpose. Those members of this tribe who homesteaded land in Arizona but received no allotment on their reservation in California are entitled to the same treatment as those Indians allotted on the reservation. This item provides for the payment in behalf of the tribal unallotted school farm lands here, the 11 members of this tribe who have no allotments on the reservation proper, but have obtained homesteads on the Arizona side of the river: the intention being to pay from this appropriation the reclamation charges against 10 acres of each of the 11 homesteads-110 acres in all-the owners of which received no allotment on the Yuma Reservation proper as well as the charges on the reservation proper. In addition to the construction charges on the area mentioned. there are the operation and maintenance charges that must be paid. These charges have successively increased from $1.50 per acre per annum when water was first used on this project, to $5 per acre under public notice issued March 10, 1924. This is a minimum charge whether water is used or not, which charge permits the delivery of not to exceed 4 acre-feet of water per acre on certain sandy areas and not to exceed 3 acre-feet of water per acre on other lands in the various divisions of the project, with an additional charge of $1 per acre-foot for all water used in excess thereof; or in lieu thereof the water users are granted the privilege of electing to pay $5.50 per irrigable acre whether water is used or not, which charge will permit of the delivery of not to exceed 3 acre-feet of water per acre, additional water to be furnished at the rate of 25 cents per acre-foot. This lieu provision is considered the most economical for the Indian lands in that it reduces the cost of excess water and more than equalizes the total amount that would have to be paid for such excess water if the $5 provision was taken advantage of. The exact amount of these charges, of course, can not be determined until after the irrigation season is closed and measurements of the water used collected and bills stated. Mr. CRAMTON. For reclamation and maintenance charges on the Indian lands on the Yuma project. $60,000. That is by your contract with the Yuma district? Mr. REED. Well, it was made originally with the Reclamation Service, and we have paid our money into the Reclamation Service. but, of course, it applies on the Yuma project. IMPROVEMENT, MAINTENANCE, ETC., FORT HALL PROJECT, `IDAHO Mr. CRAMTON. The Fort Hall irrigation system in Idaho: For improvement, maintenance, and operation of the Fort Hall irrigation system, Idaho, $40,000. Mr. MERITT. Our justification is as follows: Tribe: Bannock and Shoshone. Population, 1,775. Irrigable under project, 52,000 acres. Under construction works, 37,000 acres. Actually irrigated, 30,517 acres. Cultivated by Indians, 7,249 acres. Cultivated last season by Indians, 7,168 acres. Cultivated by white lessees, 19.446 acres. Cultivated by white owners, 3,822 acres. Construction costs for year ending June 30, 1924, $23,930.83. Construction costs to June 30, 1924, $903,973.82. Operation and maintenance costs for year ending June 30, 1924, $58,121.41. Operation and maintenance costs to June 30, 1924, $607,937.15. Operation and maintenance charges are collected from white water users. Estimated additional cost to complete, approximately, $165,000. Estimated cost per acre when completed, $45. Average value of irrigable land, per acre, $100 to $200. Irrigation project started, 1908. Work done by force account, Indian labor being principally used. Source of water supply, Snake and Blackfoot Rivers and Blackfoot Reservoir. Market for products: General, good. Railroad through project. Practically every acre of land that can be supplied through existing constructed works on this reservation is being irrigated. The canal and lateral system, under an act approved May 24, 1922 (42 Stats. 568), is being rehabilitated, and when the work is completed the total area in the project can then be adequately supplied with water. The operation and maintenance assessments are not levied against Indian lands, as the act of March 1, 1907 (34 Stats. 1024) specifically provides that the land susceptible of irrigation under the system on the reservation and owned by the Indians in severalty or in common shall be deemed to have a right to so much water as may be required to irrigate said lands without cost to the Indians so long as the title remains in the Indians or the tribe. The amount requested, therefore, should not be reimbursable, as it is used principally for the operation and maintenance of the Indian lands. The cost of operating and maintaining this project is somewhat high, owing to the physical conditions of the system and the rapid growth of moss in the main canals and laterals, requiring frequent cleaning. This item covers the cost of regular repair and upkeep of the project, including necessary spring and fall ditch cleaning, repairs to all structures, and the work incidental to the maintenance of the canal system. It does not provide for the enlargement or extension of the main canals. It does, however, include the extension of the distributing laterals to supply lands already under the project in order to bring such lands under cultivation. There is a constantly increasing demand for the delivery of water to new lands under this system, which can be met only after necessary distributing laterals have been constructed and rehabilitation work, which is provided for under separate item, has been accomplished. Mr. CRAMTON. In 1924 you had an appropriation of $50,000. You spent for construction costs $23,930.83; for operation and maintenance costs, $58,121.41, or a total of about $82,000, with an appropriation of $50,000. You received nothing in 1924 from white water users. Is that correct; the white water users paid nothing in 1924? Mr. REED. I have nothing down as collected from them for that year, but we have a total collection there of Mr. CRAMTON (interposing). We went into that question somewhat last year and evidenced a desire to have some information about what they are paying. Are you sure these figures are correct and that you have nothing from Fort Hall for 1924? Mr. REED. Well, I got those figures from the accountant's state ment. Mr. CRAMTON. Now, I don't want any figures here, Mr. Reed, but what you can vouch for. Mr. REED. Well, personally I can't tell about those collections. NOTE. There was collected from the white water users $21,958.21. on Fort Hall Mr. MURPHY. That is not part of your work, is it, Mr. Reed, to know about those collections? Mr. REED. Well, no. USE OF COLLECTIONS FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENACE Mr. CRAMTON. But it is your business when you come before us to be able to give us statistics that we can depend on. You have here $23,000 construction costs and $58,000 operation and maintenance costs. There is $82,000 with only $50,000 appropriated. How do you explain that? Mr. REED. Well, there are collections in the past that were usable, of course. Mr. CRAMTON. Well, now, are you advancing the theory that there have been collections in the past that are carried over that you can use? In the first place, let us find out about the law. Do you understand that the collections for operation and maintenance charges that were made during the fiscal year 1925 can be used by you in 1926? Mr. FLICKINGER. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMTON. And in 1927? Mr. FLICKINGER. Yes, sir; if it is available. Mr. CRAMTON. And so, if we appropriated enough this year to take care of the operation and maintenance charges, the charges that are repaid by white users goes into the Treasury, and next year you can come in and claim them? Mr. FLICKINGER. They are carried as a special fund. Mr. CRAMTON. They are carried as a special fund and available until used. Is that your theory? Mr. FLICKINGER. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMTON. How does the Treasury Department know when you spend $10,000 whether you are spending it from the appropriation or from the special fund? COLLECTIONS DEPOSITED AS A SPECIAL FUND Mr. FLICKINGER. The appropriations are carried in the Treasury. The special fund is deposited in a special fund. Mr. CRAMTON. And we will say, for example, there are $10.00€ appropriated for O. and M. charges on a certain project, and there are $10,000 repaid that same year by white users. That is a violent assumption, but take it for the moment, as an illustration. And on that project the O. and M. charges are $10,000. In the first place, how does the Treasurer know whether that $10,000 O. and M. charges are to be paid out of the appropriation made for the project for that purpose, or from the special funds you have referred to? Mr. FLICKINGER. Well, that is in the record given them. That is the only way they would know. Mr. CRAMTON. When this voucher goes to them, it carries a statement as to whether they take the money out of the general fund or the special fund? Mr. FLICKINGER. Certainly. Mr. CRAMTON. Are you sure about that? Mr. FLICKINGER. I am quite certain. Mr. CRAMTON. I don't dispute you. I just want to make sure that is the system. Mr. FLICKINGER. That appears in the regular records of our office. The special fund is kept separate. Every collection we get is kept separate. Mr. CRAMTON. I know it is kept separate, but when money is taken out, I want to know how it is taken out; whether it ought to go to the Treasury in such shape that they know whether it is to be taken out of the appropriation or out of the special fund? Mr. FLICKINGER. Oh, yes. Mr. CRAMTON. Well, what is your practice, then, when you have some money available for O. and M. charges in the special fund and you have some money available in an appropriation? Which one do you spend first? Mr. FLICKINGER. The appropriation. Mr. CRAMTON. The appropriation, of course, because you can not get a new appropriation until that is spent, can you? Mr. FLICKINGER. No, sir. Mr. CRAMTON. But as this other special fund is available until used, you have always got that to fall back on? Mr. FLICKINGER. Yes. AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR MAINTENANCE OF IRRIGATION PROJECTS Mr. CRAMTON. Wouldn't it be a good idea for you to spend the special fund first, and will you put in a statement or give it to me to-day, showing how much is to-day available in the special funds under each of these projects--or make it what will be available the 1st of July? Mr. FLICKINGER. The information is as follows: Available funds under special act August 1, 1914 (38 Stats. 583), for use in operating and maintaining the several irrigation projects herein mentioned |