Available funds under special act August 1, 1914, etc.-Continued Treasury Maintenance irrigation system Fort Peck Reservation, act of May 18, 1916 (special fund). Maintenance irrigation system Blackfeet Reservation, Maintenance irrigation system Wind River Diminished Maintenance irrigation system, Ahtanum project, act Maintenance and operation, Modoc Point irrigation system, act of Aug. 1, 1914 (special fund). Maintenance and operation, Sand Creek irrigation sys- Maintenance and operation, Nespelem irrigation sys- Maintenance irrigation system, Wapato project, act of Flathead special fund, act of May 18, 1916. Maintenance irrigation system, Colville Reservation, Total.. Disbursing balance cash balance Estimated amount available July 1, 1925 CONTRACT WITH WHITE WATER USERS Mr. CRAMTON. What is the contract with the white water users on the Fort Hall Reservation? Mr. FLICKINGER. You are speaking of the O. and M.? Mr. CRAMTON. The operation and maintenance. Mr. FLICKINGER. The lessees pay their operaiton and maintenance adjustments where a lease is in excess of three years, except in those cases where the leases were executed-——— Mr. CRAMTON (interposing). What is the rate they pay? Mr. CRAMTON. $1.25 an acre, if they pay, and I will put the exact text in the record. (The order referred to is as follows:) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, The COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. MY DEAR MR. COMMISSIONER: Pursuant to the provision contained in the act of August 1, 1914 (38 Stat. 582-583), relating to Indian irrigation systems under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, to wit: " and for lands irrigable under any such system or project the Secretary of the Interior may fix maintenance charges which shall be paid as he may direct," a maintenance charge of $1.25 per acre for each acre of land irrigable from the Fort Hall irrigation system, Idaho, is hereby fixed for the irrigation season of 1924, payment to be made on or before April 15, 1924. To all 1924 charges not paid on or before said date you will affix an additional charge of 5 per cent of the amount due at that time, and a further additional charge of 1 per cent per month for each month or fractional part thereof during which time such charges shall remain unpaid after May 15, 1924. Very truly yours, F. M. GOODWIN, Assistant Secretary. Mr. CRAMTON. These are the white lessees we are speaking about? Mr. FLICKINGER. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMTON. This statement is very interesting. What time was the Indian Office before this committee last year? It was about December, wasn't it? Mr. MERITT. December 20. ORDER FIXING MAINTENANCE CHARGES ON FORT HALL RESERVATION * * Mr. CRAMTON. Well, here is a statement under date of March 20, 1924, an order, signed Assistant Secretary Goodwin, which says: Pursuant to the provisions contained in the act of August 1, 1914 (38 Stat. 582-583), relating to Indian irrigation systems under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, to wit: and for lands irrigable under any such system or project the Secretary of the Interior may fix maintenance charges which shall be paid as he may direct," a maintenance charge of $1.25 per acre for each acre of land irrigable from the Fort Hall Irrigation system, Idaho, is hereby fixed for the irigation season of 1924, payments to be made on or before April 15, 1924. To all 1924 charges not paid on or before said date, you will affix an additional charge of 5 per cent of the amount due at that time, and a further additional charge of 1 per cent a month for each month or fractional part thereof during which time such charges shall remain unpaid after May 15, 1924. That is to say that Mr. Goodwin, under the authority of the act of 1914, which we have already put in these hearings, which makes no restrictions upon the powers of the Secretary, in his fixing of O. and M. charges, on this subject, where the operation and maintenance costs to the Treasury of the United States is about $2 an acre, there being 30,000 acres actually irrigated, at a cost of $58,121.41, making it approximately $2 an acre, the Secretary of the Interior, according to that order, affixed a cost against the whites at $1.25, a little over half what it is costing the Treasury of the United States. I would say that this is touching on a question of policy on which this committee made its attitude quite clear a year ago, and we are going to continue to give this attention, and if the Interior Department will persist in letting these white landowners get their water at less than it costs us to furnish it to them, we will have to quit furnishing it to them, that is all. We will put something in one of these bills that will get the attention of the Interior Deparment. Mr. FLICKINGER. That was based on the total project of 52,000 acres. Mr. CRAMTON. That is the amount that is irrigable under the project? Mr. FLICKINGER. Yes. Mr. CRAMTON. Well, now, it doesn't make a particle of difference in the Fort Hall case to those white owners whether there were 30,000 or 50,000 acres in use. Doesn't the land lie so-isn't the project so arranged that it doesn't affect their costs? How about that? Mr. REED. No; that isn't true. I think you were there. 19671-24-53 Mr. CRAMTON. I have been there, but I am not thoroughly clear in my recollection of it. Mr. REED. The land is checkerboarded all over the whole project. LOCATION OF LEASED LANDS Mr. CRAMTON. It is my recollection, and I have only been there just for a day, and I am not clear-but it is my recollection that the land of these whites laid so that it was feasible for us to shut it off at a certain point and turn it over to the whites that they are not checkerboarded to the Indian lands. Mr. REED. I thought you were speaking of the lands that are leased. But, if you mean the ownership, I will have to explain differently. Mr. CRAMTON. All right, if there is a distinction, let us have it. Mr. REED. There is. The lands in white ownership lie at the end of the project, after the canal passes the reservation. Mr. CRAMTON. So that they are in a body by themselves? Mr. REED. Yes; but I want to explain a little further. It is necessary on account of the contour of the lands to carry through the ditches that supply the white ownership and some of the Indian lands. You remember there is a draw through there through which there is siphon. There is Indian land lying on the south side of that. I remember once taking the matter up to see if it was not possible to cut these white lands off at this point, give them the water, and stop at that, but if we do that, we have to have other construction in order to serve the Indian lands. Mr. CRAMTON. I have also a recollection that you were adjusting that matter under new construction to do away with that situation. Mr. REED. We have not completed that yet. Mr. CRAMTON. But it is under way? Mr. REED. Yes. Mr. CRAMTON. The leased lands are checkerboarded in with the Indians? Mr. REED. Yes. NUMBER OF ACRES IRRIGABLE Mr. CRAMTON. Do you maintain the situation is such there that it is costing us as much now for O. and M. charges for 30,000 acres as it would if the full 52,000 were under irrigation? Mr. REED. Very close. Mr. CRAMTON. Well, how close? Mr. REED. We use the full length of the canal just the same. Mr. REED. A small per cent. I should say not 10 per cent. Mr. REED. It would be the same laterals and the same structures. The only difference would be if these other lands were in we might have to have two or three more ditch riders to turn the water on. Mr. CRAMTON. What do you say about this statement, "Practically every acre of land that can be supplied by existing constructed works on this reservation is being irrigated"? What is your statement as to that? How can that be true in view of your statement that you have now under constructed work 37,000 acres? Mr. REED. The fact that that whole system was once built and is there yet, but was not built to the capacity that was necessary is why that reconstruction is in progress right now. Mr. CRAMTON. When that reconstruction is completed it will make the whole 52,000 acres irrigable? Mr. REED. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMTON. At the present time under the present constructed works only 37,000 acres are irrigable. Why should you figure this acre charge on the acreage that will be available when some works are completed that are now being constructed? Mr. REED. There is a little misstatement there. "Under con structed works." It is all under constructed works, but not to capacity. Mr. CRAMTON. How much is irrigable now under present constructed works? Mr. REED. Thirty-seven thousand. Mr. CRAMTON. Under constructed works? Mr. REED. Yes; that is what is available for irrigation. Mr. CRAMTON. Why not apportion that charge at least with reference to the total acreage under constructed works? If so, instead of being $1.25 an acre that would be about $1.75 an acre. There are 37,000 acres under constructed work and $58,000 for O. and M. charges. It would be above $150 at any rate. Mr. REED. $1.58, I think. Mr. CRAMTON. I don't see why when 30,000 acres is being irrigated and the Treasury of the United States is paying the bill, if there are some whites in there that want the water, they do not pay their percentage in proportion to the acreage that is being irrigated. That is, of the 37,000 acres each ought to pay its proportionate share of $58,000. But even if I am wrong in that I don't think I am-but even if that is not in accordance with the department's policy you can. not justify a charge of $1.25 an acre with 37,000 acres under constructed works. Mr. REED. Well, I think we should increase on that. I believe you are right. Mr. TAYLOR. Let me ask you, will the land bear it? Mr. REED. Oh, yes. Mr. TAYLOR Then, why not increase it? INSUFFICIENCY OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE CHARGE Mr. CRAMTON. I think we had better look at this from the standpoint that the Treasury of the United States has got to be protected anyway. We can not continue to operate this for private landowners where they can not at least pay the O. and M. charges. My recollection is that these people up there did not pay their proportionate cost of construction charges. Through congressional influence at the time they were able to get this land by only paying one-quarter of what it cost the United States to construct it in the first place. Mr. REED. That was a congressional act. Mr. CRAMTON, That was a congressional act and Congress must take full responsibility for it. But that being in the past as one of the members of this committee I will protest against any such order as that of the Secretary of the Interior of March 9, 1924 being issued. It fixes a rate of $1.25 an acre when it should have been nearer $2 in equity, and even under the rules you refer to it would have been above $1.50. An then not one penny of that was paid during this fiscal year. I have been in that country, and I know they had their troubles in 1924, but I don't believe they were so serious that not a nickel anywhere could have been paid of their charges. Mr. REED. I don't think so either, but they took advantage of that order. NOTE. Since above statement was made a statement has been received showing that $21.958.21 was collected as M. and O. during fiscal year 1924. Mr. MERITT. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you that a sufficient charge has not been made in view of the facts brought out, and we will take the matter up with the office and with the department and readjust this matter for the next fiscal year on the right basis. Mr. MURPHY. I would like to ask what sort of a contract do the whites enter into with the Indians that gives them the use of water for three years without coming in and saying what you are charging the white settlers, even the $1,25? Mr. FLICKINGER. The act of 1907 says that land shall not pay any charges if leased for less than three years. Mr. MURPHY. In other words, a white owner can come in and lease for three years without paying any water rent? Mr. FLICKINGER. Yes. Mr. MURPHY. Then, at the end of that three years he can make another three-year lease and not pay? Mr. FLICKINGER. I don't anything like that could happen. Mr. FLICKINGER. The department would not sanction such a thing. Mr. FLICKINGER. I feel quite certain. There is also this to take into consideration: A good many of these leases are improvement leases, and it is to get the land under cultivation, and the lessee can not pay the water charges in addition to placing a lot of improvements on the land, with a view to turning it back to the Indian after the land has been properly cultivated. Mr. CRAMTON. That has reference, you say, to the act of 1907, and it applies to the first breaking of the land? Now, of that acreage of 19,447 acres, please indicate how many acres was subject to the O. and M. charges, and how many acres are still under the first three-year leases. If you haven't that at hand, just put it in. Further, the dollar and a quarter rate applies to all this landperhaps not the particular tenants-but where the land has been under cultivation more than three years. That is it, isn't it? Mr. REED. Yes. Mr. CRAMTON. Now, the lands cultivated by white owners, 3,822 acres, that paid the same $1.25 an acre, didn't it? Mr. FLICKINGER. Yes, sir. Mr. REED. And the other land of the white owners that was not cultivated was charged for? |