ELWOOD MEAD: IRRIGATION ENGINEER AND SOCIAL PLANNER

Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Kluger, James R.

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 09/10/2021 10:58:43

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/290253 71-8429

KLUGER, James Robert, 1939- ELWOOD MEAD: IRRIGATION ENGINEER AND SOCIAL PLANNER.

University of Arizona, Ph.D., 1970 History, modern

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED ELWOOD MEAD: IRRIGATION ENGINEER AND SOCIAL PLANNER

by James Robert Kluger

r

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

19 7 0 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

GRADUATE COLLEGE

I hereby recommend that this dissertation prepared under my direction by James Robert KLuger entitled Elwood Mead: Irrigation Engineer and Social Planner be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement of the Doctor of Philosophy degree of

^ /, 1970 Dissertation Director Date\J

After inspection of the final copy of the dissertation, the following members of the Final Examination Committee concur in its approval and recommend its acceptance:*"

^ Ow, S, /fro

"This approval and acceptance is contingent on the candidate's adequate performance and defense of this dissertation at the final oral examination. The inclusion of this sheet bound into the library copy of the dissertation is evidence of satisfactory performance at the final examination. PLEASE NOTE:

Some pages have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS. STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the Uni­ versity Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allow­ able without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manu­ script in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. PREFACE

Reclamation in the United States is largely a neglected field of historic inquiry. Outside of work on the Mormon triumph in Utah, few studies have been made of the men or accomplishments of this significant aspect of the development of the West, or of its impact on the na­ tion as a whole. Two reasons seem to account for the lack of historical interest in reclamation. First, the sources are widely scattered, requiring expensive travels to gather the necessary materials. Secondly, engineering and tech­ nology are not usually very attractive subjects for historians. Elwood Mead was not an ordinary engineer. True, he mastered the technical requirements of his profession and gained an esteemed reputation among his colleagues. More than this, however, his prime concern, was for the welfare of the benefactors of these engineering advances. Mead saw in the reclaiming of desert lands by irrigation the opportunity to create a new rural Eden. He sought to demonstrate planned rural communities on irrigated land. These projects, he hoped, would be an example to the rest of agricultural America and would lead to a transformation

iii of the countryside into a desirable social and economic entity. In writing this dissertation, I am indebted to a large number of friends and scholars throughout the country. To my advisor, Dr. Harwood P. Hinton, who suggested the topic and guided me through the preparation of this study, I am more grateful than mere words can express. In addi­ tion, I wish to thank the other members of my doctoral com­ mittee—Drs. Herman E. Bateman, Russell C. Ewing, William R. Noyes, and Welter W, Davis—for their assistance, I also want to acknowledge my deep personal appreciation to Dr. Richard A. Cosgrove, Director of Graduate Studies in the History Department at The University of Arizona. Two persons were especially helpful in my research, Thomas Chase Mead, the son of Elwood Mead, and Mrs. George C. Kreutzer, the wife of Mead's closest friend.. Mrs. Kreutzer graciously spent a day answering questions and helping me understand Elwood Mead. Tom Mead not only gave his time, but also loaned me the Mead family papers to use in preparing this study. Without the assistance of these two fine people, this dissertation, of necessity, would have lacked any personal insight into Elwood Mead. I also wish to thank the staffs of the Bancroft Library at the University of California; the University of Wyoming Library; the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library; and the National Archives. The librarians and archivists at these institutions assisted in every possible way, and made the gathering of information for this study both easy and pleasant. Finally, I wish to thank my family for their patience and understanding. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT vii 1. EARLY LIFE 1 2. WYOMING YEARS 19 3. ON THE NATIONAL SCENE 42 4. AUSTRALIA 65 5. WARTIME WORK 87 6. DURHAM AND DELHI 105 7. AROUND THE WORLD 135 8. COMMISSIONER OF RECLAMATION 155 9. BUILDING BOULDER DAM 184 10, CONCLUSION 212 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 226

Vi ABSTRACT

Elwood Mead was one of the foremost irrigation ex­ perts in the history of the United States with interests which went beyond the narrow confines of dam and canal construction. He wanted the reclaimed lands used to pro­ vide homes for actual farmers. As his ideas evolved, Mead sought to create planned rural communities which would be a desirable social and economic entity, and which would serve as an example for the rejuvenation of the countryside. Born in Indiana in 1858, Mead graduated from Purdue University in 1882 and then went to Fort Collins, Colorado,

co teach at Colorado State Agricultural College, It was here that he first came into contact with irrigated farm­ ing. In 1888, he was appointed Territorial Engineer of Wyoming, and when Wyoming became a state two years later, he wrote its water code and devised the administrative system for distributing water for irrigation. The laws and methods he employed in Wyoming became the model for similar legislation in most states of the arid West, as well as in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Canada. Mead's stature rose, and he became a national figure in reclamation. From 1899 to 1907, he headed

vii viii Irrigation Investigations for the Department of Agricul­ ture. However, he was opposed to the Reclamation Act of 1902, and with its passage, his influence ebbed. He did what he could through his investigations to assist the small irrigator, but he was increasingly frustrated in his work. In 1907 he accepted a position in Victoria, Australia. For eight years, Mead was chairman of the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission of Victoria. While there, he became thoroughly embued with the Australian attitude toward so-called state paternalism. He was especially impressed with the government's closer settle­ ment scheme. Farmers were colonized in communities and given direction and liberal credit terms to help them become established. Mead applied this system to irrigated lands as a way of populating the countryside and of justi­ fying the large government expenditures for irrigation works. When he returned to the United States in 1915, Mead was anxious to demonstrate the Australian method in his native country. He failed to secure federal legisla­ tion to provide planned rural communities, but in California he was more successful. There he set up a state colony at Durham in 1918, and one at Delhi in 1920. Durham started well, but the farmers at Delhi were able to support them­ selves only with outside income which the state advanced ix to build a, drainage system. When these funds ceased, the discontent of the settlers grew and then spread to Durham. The two colonies were a failure, as were later attempts by Mead to obtain federal money for planned communities in the South. However, his ideas for rural development finally saw fruition in the Subsistence Homesteads Program of the New Deal. In 1924, Mead played a key role as a member of the Fact Finders Committee in formulating a new policy for rec­ lamation, and then was named Commissioner of Reclamation to implement that policy. Under his leadership, federal reclamation underwent a thorough reordering that returned it as far as possible to its original purpose of providing farms for actual settlers. He took an essentially bankrupt agency and turned it toward solvency. The Depression interrupted that progress, but his innovations softened its impact. Finally, under the New Deal, Mead's planning en­ abled his Bureau to expand its operations in an orderly fashion. Elwood Mead's final triumph was directing the con­ struction of Boulder Dam. This giant structure was dedi­ cated in September of 1935, only four months before Mead's death. It was a fitting tribute to this preeminent champion of arid America that the reservoir which formed behind the huge dam was named Lake Mead in his honor. CHAPTER 1

EARLY LIFE

On February 14, 1936, Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes announced that the reservoir forming be­ hind the recently completed Boulder Dam on the Colorado River would be known as Lake Mead in honor of Elwood Mead, the Commissioner of Reclamation who had died 10 days earlier. It was a fitting tribute to Mead that the larg­ est artificial lake in the world should perpetuate the name of this man who had devoted his life to the development of the dry domains. For over 50 years, he had concerned himself with the problems of irrigation and irrigators, and the capstone of his remarkable career had been direct­ ing the construction of the behemoth concrete wall which created the 115 mile long reservoir. Lake Mead was a monument to this preeminent champion of the conquest of arid America, Elwood Mead was born on January 16, 1858, on the farm of his parents, 23 year old Daniel B. and 18 year old Lucinda Davis Mead, The Meads traced their ancestry back to John Mead, who came from England to Greenwich, Connecti­ cut, about 1737. The family lived in Vermont for a few

1 years, and then moved to Westchester County, New York, where James Mead, Elwood's grandfather, was born in the early 1800*s. James tried his hand at architecture in New York City for a while, but grew restless, and like thousands of others during the period, set out with his family for the promised land to the west. His travels ended about 40 miles below Cincinnati on what was known as the East Bend of the Ohio River, three miles north of Patriot, Indiana. There he purchased a small farm on a bluff overlooking the river. Nineteenth century America was predominately a land of farmers, and Switzerland County, where James Mead settled, was exclusively agrarian. The southern half of the county was populated with Swiss, from whence came its name, and the northern part by English and Scotch-Irish. The Mead family did well and acquired substantial holdings. Eventually James Mead owned some 900 acres, but the land sat high on steep hills, and much of its rich soil washed to the river. Mead built a comfortable home overlooking

•^Elwood Mead to his son, Thomas C. Mead, n.d,, Thomas Chase Mead Papers in possession of T. C. Mead, Boulder City, Nevada; Elwood Mead to F. L. Sanford, March 8, 1923, Elwood Mead Correspondence and Papers, Carton 3, Bancroft Library, University of California? Interview with Thomas Mead, January 3, 1970, Boulder City, Nevada; Daniel Mead entry, Switzerland County, Indiana, Eighth Census of the United States, 1860, National Archives. 3 the Ohio and owned a personal library that local residents o boasted was the largest in the state. Across the river in Kentucky, Elwood's maternal grandparents lived. His grandfather, Thomas Davis, was an orphan; he had been brought as a young boy by an uncle from his home near Mount Vernon, Virginia, to Kentucky. The Davis family reportedly had been wealthy, but young Davis inherited no money. A Negro slave who looked after the lad accompanied him to Kentucky, then disappeared; some claimed the uncle sold him because he told the boy too much. Nevertheless, when Davis reached manhood, he became a moderately successful farmer in Boone County, and was a slaveholder at the outbreak of the Civil War. His daughter Lucinda married Daniel Mead in 1857, 3 After the wedding, the young couple moved to a farm carved from James Mead's holdings. Life was pleasant for Daniel and Lucinda Mead. Elwood was their first child, followed by Emily a year and a half later. In the ensuing years, the two children were joined by brothers James and Scott, and sisters Emma, Edna and Grace. The farm did well; the family grew tobacco and corn, and raised sheep

^Mead Interview, January 3, 1970. Perret Dufour, The Swiss Settlement of Switzerland County, Indiana (In­ dianapolis : Indiana Historical Commission, 1925), 1-9. -^Mead Interview, January 3, 1970. 4 and a few cattle. The Civil War largely passed them by since Daniel was not called to arms. Their only "contact" with the conflict came during the foray of the Morgan's Raiders into southeastern Indiana in the summer of 1863. Lucinda was at home alone when word came that the Con­ federates were approaching. She took the children and hid in a hillside cave at the base of a huge oak tree until the supposed danger passed. Life on the farm soon returned to normal.^ During the late 1860's, Elwood, like most farm boys, was required to help with the chores. His father hired ex-slaves for 50 cents a day during the planting and harvest seasons, and the young boy worked with them in the fields. In the summer, he played in the groves of oak, ash, wild cherry, hickory, poplar and walnut trees along the slopes of the Ohio. He also saw these trees disappear "like mists before the morning sun", as farmers cleared the land to grow corn and tobacco. As these crops had no binding material in their roots, the winter rains soon washed away the fertile surface soil. Elwood himself contributed to this ruthless destruction, splitting wild cherry trees to make fences. At the time, no one regretted

^Ibid.; Emma Lou Thornbrough, Indiana in the Civil War Era 1850-1880 (Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Bureau & Indiana Historical Society, 1965), 203. 5 this waste: everyone under 40 expected to move farther west and share in the bounty of free land.^ Perhaps even more damaging to Elwood's community was the shift in population that took place while he was still a youth. Where once the nearby farms were owner- operated, they were gradually sold to speculators who leased them to tenants. The renters not only ruined the soil by exploitative practices, but they also broke down the community spirit that had prevailed. Most of the new­ comers were Civil War "refugees" from the mountains of Tennessee and Kentucky. They took no interest in local affairs, went to church rarely if at all, and cared little for sending their children to school. On the other hand, they undoubtedly were looked down upon as outsiders and made to feel like intruders in the area, Elwood inherited a great love of the soil from his father and a great love of books from his grandfather. He found that he had little in common with the neighboring boys. Their talk was mainly of hunting, fighting or chasing girls. The social atmos­ phere of rural life stifled him, and he planned to go to

^Mead to Jennie A. Bristol, March 14, 1923; Mead address, "The Meeting of Orientals and Occidentals in the Pacific Coast Area", August 11, 1920, Mead Papers, Cartons 3, 12. Elwood Mead, "Rural Life in America", The American Review of Reviews, LXXIII (March 1926), 303. 6 college not so much because of the lure beyond as because it was "the surest road" away from life as he knew it. After he completed his studies at the township school, Elwood taught for one term and continued farming while he waited for word on his application to West Point. His earliest ambition had been to attend the Military Academy, and in 1877 he was accepted at "the Point", He entered the school in the fall, but stayed only a few weeks. An illness, diagnosed as malaria, forced him to return home. The following fall he entered four-year-old Purdue University at Lafayette, Indiana.7 Elwood earned his way through college. At the age of 14, he had been employed as a rodman for the county surveyors, and in subsequent summers until his graduation he worked as a surveyor. Annual expenses at Purdue were $169, but the state legislature provided four-year scholar­ ships to two superior students from each county. These carried an exemption from entrance, incidental, and room, heat and light fees. An outstanding scholar from

®Mead, "The Meeting of Orientals", Mead Papers, Carton 12. Mead, "Community Farming", The New Republic, XLI (February 18, 1925), 327. ^Mead Interview, January 3, 1970. R. F. Walter and William H. Code with the assistance of Frank Adams, "Elwood Mead, M. Am. Soc. C. E.", American Society of Civil Engineers Transactions, CII (1937), 1617. 7 Switzerland County, Elwood received a $33 a year reduc­ tion. The University also hired students at 10 cents an hour, and he was given employment as a janitor. As the job left little time to study, he developed the habit of rising early in the morning and doing his assignments before classes began.® When Mead first arrived at Purdue, the fraternity men regarded him as something of a country bumpkin. He came from such a remote part of the state and they quickly noted that he slept in the same shirt he wore to class. Although he had no interest in joining the Greek societies, he soon showed them that he was no "Hoosier hick". Elwood had read extensively in his grandfather's library—he was especially fond of Mark Twain—and that, together with an extraordinarily facile mind, more than compensated for any inferiority in his country school education. His magnetic personality quickly endeared him to his fellow students and he easily proved himself in the classroom. Q The faculty likewise recognized the talents of the young scholar from Switzerland County. Professor Harvey

®Ibid.; Paul K. Conkin, "The Vision of Elwood Mead", Agricultural History, XXXIV (April 1960), 88; William Hepburn, Purdue University: Fifty Years of Progress (Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press, 1924), 65. ^Mead Interview, January 3, 1970. 8 W. Wiley, who later gained national fame in connection with pure food legislation, encouraged Mead to work with him in chemistry, but Elwood's interests were elsewhere. Instead, he studied under Dr. Charles Lee Ingersoll, who had been brought to Purdue in 1879 by President Emerson E. White to upgrade the School of Agriculture. White wanted a closer link between the classroom and the farm—the theoretical and the practical. Ingersoll's job was to conduct experimental work and to establish a model farm. Elwood's senior thesis demonstrated the ideal the presi­ dent sought. Writing about tobacco, he combined the experi­ ences on his father's farm with the knowledge gained at Purdue. At his graduation in June of 1882, Elwood was granted a diploma bearing mention of special work in agriculture and science. After graduation, Mead's first job was with the Army Engineer Corps as an assistant engineer in the survey and improvement of the Wabash River. He lived in In­ dianapolis, but spent most of his weekends in Lafayette, where he was courting Florence S. Chase, the daughter of i

•*-Qlbid.; Hepburn, Purdue University, 67-69; Clifton J. Phillips, Indiana in Transition: The Emergence of an Industrial Commonwealth, 1880-1920 (Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Bureau and Indiana Historical Society, 1968) , 142-43. Mead, "Tobacco", handwritten thesis in Agriculture, Purdue University, Thesis #30, 1882. 9 a prominent lawyer and banker, Hiram W. Chase. After their marriage on December 20, 1882, the couple spent their honeymoon travelling to Fort Collins in northern Colorado. His former mentor at Purdue, Dr. Ingersoll, had become president of Colorado State Agricultural College there in the fall of 18 82, and had persuaded the young Hoosier to join the faculty as professor of mathematics and physics.^ When he arrived at Fort Collins, Mead found the situation quite similar to Purdue—a struggling institu­ tion in a small farming town. The basic difference was that the Colorado community, on the Cache la Poudre River, obtained its water for agriculture from an irrigation system. Coming from the humid East, the Indianian knew little about the problems of the arid West, but he had practical experience both in farming and in river control problems. While his academic duties had nothing to do with irrigation, Mead saw a challenge and began to assist E. S. Nettleton, the newly appointed state engineer, in

^Secretary of War to Secretary of Interior, May 8, 1928, file 22-63 (Elwood Mead), Appointments Di­ vision, Department of Interior [ADDl], Record Group 48, National Archives; Mead to C. E. Nordyke, April 3, 1922, Mead Papers, Carton 1; James R. Miller, "Pioneer College Presidents", typescript, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, 1962, 184. 10 superintending the distribution of water in the Fort Collins area. 12 Larimer County, where Fort Collins was located, provided Mead with a first hand experience in dealing with the arid regions of the county. It was in this area that the first large-scale irrigation in the West, outside of the Mormons in Utah, was begun; and it was here that a dispute led to the first state-wide system of public con­ trol of water rights. Colorado had enacted legislation for the orderly distribution of streams for irrigation as early as 1861, but it was not until the late 7 0's that an increase in the size of ditches necessitated actual regulation. The problem began when the Union Colony founded Greeley in 1870, and dug a large diversion ditch from the Cache la Poudre River. Two years later, John C. Abbott and Benjamin H. Eaton went upstream and built the Lake Canal. Meanwhile, General R. A. Cameron organized the Larimer County Land Improvement Company, boomed Fort Collins, and in 1873-74 built a canal larger than the Lake

-*-^Ruth J. Wattles, "The Mile High College: A History of Colorado A & M", typescript, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, n.d., 25. There was no regular assistant state engineer at this time. The state engineer hired local engineers for specific jobs when he needed help. Second Bienniel Report of the State Engineer of the State of Colorado, 1883-1884 (Denver: Collier and Cleaveland Lith. Co., 1885), 5. 11 Canal. This activity resulted in a heated controversy between Greeley and Port Collins over the character of their water rights with Greeley demanding recognition of the principle that priority of appropriation gave priority of use. The issue was temporarily solved because Fort Collins acquiesed to Greeley's demand for water. Then in 1878, Eaton started to construct an even larger canal farther up the river. This proved to be the catylst in formulating a system for public adminstration of water TO rights m Colorado. The Colorado constitution of 1876 recognized the principle of priority of appropriation and asserted that the right to divert unappropriated water to the beneficial use of the people should never be denied. As the result of the Eaton scheme, however, legislation was enacted which clearly defined what became known as the Colorado System. In 18 79, 10 water districts—most of them covering an

•^Robert G. Dunbar, "The Origins of the Colorado System of Water-Right Control", The Colorado Magazine, XXVII (October 1950), 241-45, and "Water Conflicts and Controls in Colorado", Agricultural History, XXII (July 1948), 180-86; Ralph Hess, "The Beginnings of Irrigation in the U.S.", Political Economy, XX (October 1912), 827- 28; David Boyd, Greeley and the Union Colony of Colorado (Greeley, Colorado: The Greeley Tribune Press, 1890), 88-141; Alvin T. Steinel and D. W. Working, History of Agriculture in Colorado (Fort Collins, Colorado: State Agricultural College, 1926), 395-96. 12 entire watershed-—were established, with a state commis­ sioner to divide the water according to the prior rights of the various ditches. The state district courts, acting as administrative boards, then issued decrees allocating priorities. After two exceptionally dry seasons, addi­ tional laws were passed which provided for lawsuits to challenge priorities, set up the office of state engineer to measure streams, created water divisions for the South Platte, Arkansas and Rio Grande basins, and required that persons appropriating water file a record of it in the county clerk's office.^ Mead's only official contact with the regulations was as a part-time engineer in Larimer County, but this stirred his interest in the whole problem of water rights in the arid domain. Most of the time he found away from his teaching duties, he devoted to this question. In addition, he helped President Ingersoll and Professors A. E. Blount and James Cassidy organize an agricultural experi­ ment station for the benefit of the community. His primary function, however, was in the classroom. 1 J*5

•^Dunbar, "Origins of the Colorado System", 244- 45, 251-62; Mead, Irrigation Institutions (New York: The Macmillan Co,, 1903), 143.

•^Wattles, "Mile High College", 11, 16. The young Hoosier was popular with the students. His introduction as a faculty member came the morning after he arrived. He and his bride lived in the dormitory, and they came down after everyone else had begun breakfast. With an "intriguing smile", the five foot seven inch, blond professor bowed formally, introduced Mrs. Mead, and then greeted each person in the room individually. This became a routine, and soon Mead knew everyone's name. Debonair and approachable, he commanded respect and confi­ dence from the entire campus community. He and Florence further endeared themselves to the students when they be­ came the first members of the faculty to attend the occa- sional student dances. Because of limited funds and small enrollments at Colorado State, professors taught a wide variety of sub­ jects. Mead was supposed to instruct in mathematics and physics, but one semester he gave the course in physiology, which he admitted he knew nothing about. Physics presented a special problem. Mead performed "something of a stunt" by teaching it without any apparatus. Part of the course was devoted to "lessons in measurement and flow of water

16Ibid., 8-9. 14 for irrigation". Mead lost few opportunities for dis­ cussing this all important question.^ After three semesters at Fort Collins, Mead re­ signed at Colorado State and moved back to Lafayette, Indiana. In 1883 he received a civil engineering degree from Iowa Agricultural College at Ames, and was awarded a master of science from Purdue the following year. But he still had not decided on a career. He liked teaching, but he had also liked engineering and farming. He returned to Indiana mainly at the urging of Hiram Chase, his father- in-law, who wanted him to form a partnership in his legal firm. Mead "read" law under Chase, and even tried one case—which he lost. Apparently it was not discourage­ ment over this failure, however, as much as it was ill health that caused him to look west again. In July of 1885, the Meads moved back to Colorado. 1 °ft Mead's return to Indiana had not been a total loss. In addition to his graduate degree from Purdue, he had acquired a valuable knowledge of law. This combination of legal procedure and engineering would stand him in good

^•^Ibid. , 9, 27; Mead to E. B. House, February 24, 1922, Mead Papers, Carton 1. I8ibid.; Mead Interview, January 3, 1970; news­ paper article, n.d,, T. C. Mead Papers; Iowa State Uni­ versity Archivist, Dorothy Kehlenbeck, to author, February 24, 1970. stead in the difficult task of adjudicating water right disputes. He began working for State Engineer Nettleton as his first regular assistant, and in the fall of 1885 he was reappointed to the faculty at Fort Collins. As the place in mathematics had been filled, President Inger- soll, who was eager to have Mead back, named him professor of irrigation engineering. It was the first such position in the United States.^ At the age of 27, Mead had finally found his life's work. His two jobs, as a teacher and as assistant state engineer, enabled him to devote all of his energies to one end—"the study of all the physical, human and legal problems of turning on water with a shovel". In preparing his lectures, Mead became intrigued with the history of irrigation, and he began studying the water laws of other countries. This not only made his classes more interesting, but it aided him in making recommendations for the improve­ ment of Colorado water statutes. Nor were his students confined to the building. Those who registered for his courses—and even girls enrolled—found themselves out gauging water flow, examining irrigated fields, or fighting

1 Q JThird Bienniel Report of the State Engineer of the State of Colorado, 1885-1886 (Denver: Collier and Cleaveland Lith. Co., 1887), 6; Wattles, "Mile High College" 9-10. 16 their way into cat tails to conduct surveys for draining the swampy streams which ran through the campus.2® During the summer, Mead visited the lands adjoin­ ing the rivers of Colorado, talking to ditch operators and farmers. He came to know all the benefits and short­ comings of the state's water laws. As his ideas matured, he developed a deep concern for the irrigator. Perhaps he remembered the gentleman farmer and his tenants in southern Indiana who had spoiled the idyllic community of his youth—and he saw the same thing happening in the West. In a widely publicized address to a Farmers' In­ stitute at Fort Collins in 1887, Mead warned against the dangerous trend in Colorado irrigation. When irrigation first began, he noted, canal construction was a co­ operative venture of users, and in essence the land and water went together. However, as the agricultural pos­ sibilities of the state became known, an era of speculative building took place, and the state was gridironed with canals in advance of needs. The companies who constructed these systems believed that by securing the water rights, they could control land values and earn tremendous profits.

2®Wattles, "Mile High College", 9, 27; Mead, "Recollections of irrigation legislation in Wyoming", typescript with letter to Grace Raymond Hebard, March 27, 1930, Hebard Collection, Western History Research Center, University of Wyoming, Laramie; Mead to E. B, House, February 24, 1922, Mead Papers, Carton 1, The cost of water rose with advances in real estate „p2TlC6S • < 21 Such speculative activity discouraged immigra­ tion, Mead said, and hindered the development of Colorado. Besides, it created an intolerable burden on the farmers who held contracts with these companies. Echoing the words of Major John Wesley Powell, the first national figure concerned with the arid West, Mead stressed that "the right to use water should inhere in the land to be irrigated, and water rights should go with land titles". In his address at Fort Collins and in his visits through­ out the state, Mead urged the farmers to lend their in­ fluence to secure legislation favorable to guarding and protecting the interests of the actual user against a "water-right aristocracy", ^ No additional water legislation was enacted while Mead was in Colorado, but in 1888 and 1889, the State Supreme Court declared that ditch companies were common carriers only, and that the carrier could not become the proprietor of the water diverted. How much influence the young assistant state engineer had on these decisions

2^Mead, The Ownership of Water (Denver: Times Printing Works, 1887), 5-8. 22Ibid., 4, 5, 18 cannot be ascertained, but their effect was to prevent the monopoly he warned against.^3 Mead .spent three years in his dual role as assistant state engineer and professor of irrigation engineering. In that time, his reputation as an authority on irrigation and water rights spread beyond the borders of Colorado. Wyoming leaders had consulted him when they were creating the office of territorial engineer, and upon setting up that position in 1888, offered him the job. Colorado had been a valuable training ground, but this was a real opportunity. Perhaps he could influence and direct irrigation along the lines which he felt were necessary for it to become an important and stable factor in Western development. Elwood Mead moved to Cheyenne.

^Steinel and Working, History of Agriculture, 221. CHAPTER 2

WYOMING YEARS

Mead went to Wyoming with the hope that he would be able to influence irrigation law and development along the lines he envisioned. As Wyoming's first Territorial

Engineer, he was expected to supervise the distribution of water by statutes similar to the Colorado code which he had found so inadequate. Fortunately, Wyoming became a state two years after he arrived, and Mead was given an opportunity to write the constitutional provisions on water rights, and to organize the administration of a system for the orderly division of streams. Through his work on irrigation matters in Wyoming, he earned a national reputation, and became a prominent spokesman of irrigation in the country. For 10 years, he also pushed ideas for the development of Wyoming which he hoped would transform it into a prosperous, agricultural state. When Elwood Mead arrived in Wyoming in 1888, he quickly became aware of the economic and political condi­ tions that had affected his appointment and would influence his future plans. The previous winter had seen chilling cold decimate large herds of cattle throughout the Northern Plains, Although Wyoming lost only 15 percent of its

19 20 livestock, the value of the remaining animals was reduced by at least 30 percent. Experts claimed that want of water was as important a factor as lack of food in the deaths of the steers. The decrease in their herds had lessened but not broken the power of the Wyoming cattlemen as a political force, but the character of the range in­ dustry had changed, Wyoming was also wrestling with a tripartite struggle among Democrats, Republicans and Governor Thomas Moonlight, In 1887 President Grover Cleveland had appointed Moonlight, a recently defeated Kansas politican, after Wyoming Democrats could not agree on a resident nominee. When the territorial legislature opened in January of the following year, the Republicans controlled the upper house, the Democrats had a majority in the lower chamber, and Governor Moonlight seemingly pleased no one. In fact, his appointment and subsequent opposition to almost everything the legislators proposed convinced most Wyoming citizens of the necessity for statehood. There were few positive results from the territorial assembly in 188 8, but it was during this stormy session that a bill creating the office of Territorial Engineer was passed, largely through the

^Taft A, Larson, History of Wyoming (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965), 190-94. 21 efforts of James A. Johnston, Gibson Clark, and Francis E. Warren.2 Both Johnston and Clark had lived in Fort Collins, knew Professor Elwood Mead, and urged the governor to name him to the new post of Territorial Engineer. Moonlight, who was regarded as a carpetbagger, was reluctant to appoint another carpetbagger, but the two men persisted. The ter­ ritorial council confirmed the nomination by a seven to five vote on March 12, 1888, and Moonlight offered Mead the job for two years at an annual salary of $2500. Before accepting the position, Mead went to Cheyenne to meet the territorial officials. The governor was concerned about the engineer looking so young and told him in private that he hoped Mead would decline the proffered post because he was sure he would be a failure. Mead returned to Colorado to make up his mind. Francis Warren, meanwhile, had gone to Fort Collins on business, and was introduced to Mead for the first time. He too was struck by his youthful appear­ ance—Warren later said Mead was "still wearing pinafores" when he came to Wyoming. Nevertheless, Warren saw great

2Ibid., 150, 153-58, 162; Lewis L. Gould, Wyoming, A Political History, 1868-1896 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), 100, 106. Mead, "Recollections of Wyoming", Hebard Collection. See also W. Turrentine Jackson, "Ad­ ministration of Thomas Moonlight, 1887-89", Annals of Wyoming, XVIII (July 1946), 139-62. 22 possibilities for the 30 year old professor, and urged him to accept.^ Mead already was familiar with the water procedures in Wyoming when he moved to Cheyenne and took up his duties. The territorial water laws, which were adopted in 1886, were practically a copy of the Colorado code. Under these statutes, the Territorial Engineer's office was charged with the "supervision of the diversion and distribution of the public waters". It was a big job: Wyoming sur­ passed all the states and territories of the arid region in the number of streams available for irrigation. Wyoming was divided into four water districts, and included over 400 streams from which water was being diverted. Mead's first task was to determine the amount of water available, how much had been appropriated, and the extent of irrigable lands. He spent the summer of 1888 travelling throughout the territory in a horse and buggy, inspecting ditches, gauging streams and examining water titles. In his report to Governor Moonlight in November, he estimated that a

^Mead, "Recollections of Wyoming"; W. E. Chaplin, "Memoir of the Constitutional Convention"; William C. Deming, unidentified newspaper article, Hebard Collection, [Wyoming Constitutional Convention], a typescript dated June 10, 1925, file 22-63, ADDI; Thomas Moonlight to Mead, March 12, 1888, Letterpress books of the Governors, 1869- 1907, Wyoming State Archives and Historical Department, Cheyenne, 23 million and a half acres were capable of being irrigated with the existing ditches, but that this was only a small fraction of the potential. With proper development, he observed, Wyoming could "take rank as an important agri­ cultural commonwealth".^ In the same report to Moonlight, Mead also called attention to the deficiencies in the Wyoming water laws. He noted that the trouble with all irrigation regulation in the United States was that it had been tentative and fragmentary. No attempt had been made to frame a complete water code; statutes had been enacted only as needed. As the result of a rapid increase in irrigation, legislation for its regulation had not kept pace with the conditions developed by its growth. Although Wyoming had perhaps the best water laws in the arid west, they too were woefully C inadequate.. Mead attempted to bring some order to the existing rules. A person acquired a water right in Wyoming by posting a notice of intent at the point of diversion and then registering his claim with the county clerk. When

^Mead, Irrigation Institutions, 249. Mead to Moon­ light, November 10, 1888, typescript, State Engineer's Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming [SEOW]; [Wyoming Constitutional Convention], file 22-63, ADDI. ^Mead to Moonlight, November 10, 1888, SEOW. Mead set out to secure a record of such water filings, he discovered over 3,000 claims with varying degrees of pre­ cision as to the amount appropriated, the ditch location, and the date of initial diversion. Irrigators seemed to have no idea how to measure the capacity of their ditch, the amount of water they needed, or the amount they took. The units registered in the clerk's offices included square inches, agricultural inches, California inches and miner's inches—in a territory where the law recognized only cubic feet per second. Claims escalated all the way from a reasonable amount up to the entire flow of a stream. Mead observed that if the amount of water claimed actually existed, Wyoming would have been a lake.^ Attempting to plat the diversion ditches presented still another difficulty. County surveyors were supposed to certify the capacity of the ditches, but this was often done without actual inspection. Mead found a record giving the location of one diversion "at the place where I now stand". Another said the ditch was somewhere on the west­ ern slope of the Big Horn Mountains. Equally frustrating was the determination of priorities. Many streams flowed

Ibid.; Mead, "Recollections of Wyoming", Hebard Collection; Frank Adams to Willa Klug Baum, winter and spring, 1958, 86, typescript interview in Regional Oral History Office, University of California, Berkeley [ROHOUC], 25 through several counties, so that the records might be in as many as six places. In addition, there was confusion about the method of dating diversions. Did one's claim begin when he announced his intention to build a ditch, when he finished it, or when he first applied water from it to the land?^ Adjudication of conflicting claims fell to district judges, who had no competence in irrigation matters. De­ crees were handed down only to actual claimants before the court. One case, for example, dealt with six out of 42 ditches on a stream, leaving the rest for future litiga­ tion. Nor were these judicial rulings made with any con­ sistency. An irrigator of 300 acres was given five acre feet per second per day, while another with 28 acres was given 11. When Mead assumed his duties, a mere five per­ cent of water right priorities had been determined by the courts, and the attorney general advised him that, according to the law, the Territorial Engineer could not regulate the O remaining 95 percent until the courts ruled on them.

^Mead, "Recollections of Wyoming", Hebard Collec­ tion; Mead to Moonlight, November 10, 1888, SEOW; Adams Interview, 85-86, ROHOUC. Mead, Irrigation Institutions, 249. ®Mead, "Recollections of Wyoming", Hebard Collec­ tion; Mead to Moonlight, November 10, 1888, SEOW. Mead, Irrigation Institutions, 250-51. 26 The chaotic nature of the Wyoming water laws was frustrating, and Mead immediately set about to bring order to the system. He compiled lists of diversions on each stream and arranged them according to priority. He set up instruments and began measuring the flow on all the waterways in the territory to determine just how much water was available. He also devised a standard form for claims, so that water applications would contain all the data neces­ sary to determine rights. These actions were a beginning, but, as Mead told Moonlight in his 1888 report, what was really needed was a comprehensive water code. The oppor- a tunity to formulate such a law came the next year. In April of 1889, Francis E. Warren succeeded Moonlight as Governor and issued a call for a convention to meet in September at Cheyenne to draft a state consti­ tution. When they convened, the delegates considered carefully all aspects for the proposed constitution. In the end, they produced a document similar to ones in effect in North Dakota, Montana and Idaho, with one important ex­ ception. This dealt with the water laws. Here the ideas of Elwood Mead were adopted almost exactly as he proposed them,

^Mead to Moonlight, November 10, 1888, SEOW, ^Gould, Wyoming, 112-13. 27 Although Mead was not a member of the convention, the committee on agriculture, irrigation and water rights was chaired by James A. Johnston, one of those responsible for his appointment as Territorial Engineer. Another sup­ porter was Charles H. Burritt, a lawyer from Johnson County, who became the spokesman for this committee in convention debate. These men met nightly with Mead, hammering out an effective statement that would end con­ fusion in the water code. They feared especially the op­ position of the legal profession which had a lucrative business defending irrigation claims. When the prestigious law firm of Lacey and VanDevanter endorsed their ideas, • this apprehension vanished, and swung the balance. The proposition (Article VIII) which dealt with irrigation 11 and water rights was adopted by the delegates 35-2. Article VIII, which was part of the constitution approved by the Wyoming voters on November 5, 1889,. became the basis for finally correcting the shortcomings of water

H-Chaplin, "Memoir of Constitutional Convention"; Mead, "Recollections of Wyoming"; unidentified newspaper articles from time of convention, Hebard Collection. Mead to John A. Whiting, October 27, 1931, file 143-53, General Correspondence, Reclamation Bureau [GCRB], Record Group 115, National Archives. Journals and Debates of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Wyoming (Cheyenne; The Daily Sun, 1893), 497-512, 534-37.

.«IflHJI 28 statutes, TJ;.i.s article declared the water of all natural streams, springs and lakes to be the property of the state. Priority of appropriation for beneficial use was given the first right in claims for this resource. A Board of Con-, trol was created to supervise the appropriation, distribu­ tion and diversion of water. This panel consisted of the superintendents of the four existing water districts in the state, and the State Engineer, who was to serve as its president. The decisions of the board were subject to review by the state courts.12 On July 10, 1890, President Benjamin Harrison signed the statehood bill, putting the constitution into effect. Mead was named State Engineer by Governor Warren, and his suggestions for implementing Article VIII were enacted into law by the first Wyoming state legislature in 1890-91. According to these statutes, a person desiring water filed an application with the state engineer's office, showing the location and nature of the proposed distributing works, the amount needed, and the purpose for which it was to be used. If the claim was not detrimental to the public in­ terest and water was available, the applicant could begin construction of his diversion ditch. Final certification

•^Second Annual Report of the Territorial Engineer of Wyoming, 1889 (Cheyenne; Bristol & Knabe Printing ~ Company, 1890), 91, 29 was not awarded until the water was actually used in accordance with the original request.1"* Mead next turned his attention to the difficult problem of clearing up the claims made prior to state­ hood. Many of these were extravagant grants which bore little or no relation to actual conditions. At Mead's suggestion,on January 1, 1891, the Board of Control took charge of the adjudication of these questions, subject to a review by the courts. Mead and his four water district superintendents measured the ditches and surveyed the irrigated and irrigable lands of the appropriators. Then they compiled charts showing the amounts of water avail­ able, the amounts claimed, and the amounts actually needed. Irrigators, meanwhile, were sent blank forms to file re­ garding the details of their claims. At meetings around the state, Mead and his assistants showed farmers that only

^Ibid., 96-99; Mead, Irrigation Institutions, 266-71. Mead, "Recollections of Wyoming", Hebard Collec­ tion; Mead to Whiting, October 27, 1931, file 143-53, GCRB. Mead sometimes carried forms to an extreme. He wrote one farmer that his plat was unacceptable because it was not to a two inch scale, and because of its appear­ ance: "It is of importance to you that it should not only be correct, but should also impress the board. This will hardly be the case with a plat made with a lead pencil and defaced with writing and figures on the back." Mead to W. E. Grimes, November 5, 1891, State Engineer's Cor­ respondence, Wyoming State Archives and Historical Depart­ ment, Cheyenne [SECWA]. a small percentage of rights could be honored if the grants as recorded were allowed. For example, of the 132 irri­ gators on one stream, there was actually enough water for the first six or seven appropriators if they were given the amount they claimed in their original applications. The other 125 would have to buy water from them.*^ Mead pointed out to the claimants that with an equitable distribution of water, there was plenty for all if the excessive claims were disallowed. He based his cal­ culations on the "duty of water" (the amount of water needed to irrigate an acre) at one acre foot for 70 acres. The whole process tended to disarm critics by its order . and efficiency. Mead's warm smile and pleasant personality also won people to his views; he always showed a sincere concern for the problems of others. Besides, it cost the irrigators only a nominal fee for the preliminary state­ ment, in marked contrast to the expensive litigaticpn re­ quired under the old system. Naturally there were some complaints from the earliest appropriators, but very few cases were appealed. By the end of 1894 over 60 percent of the unadjudicated claims had been settled by the state

•^Mead, "Recollections of Wyoming", Hebard Col­ lection, Territorial Engineer's Report, 1889, 93-95; Mead, Irrigation Institutions, 252-66, 31 board, compared with only five percent in the preceding five years in which courts ruled. By 1894, Elwood Mead had made a significant con­ tribution not only to the water laws of Wyoming and the western United States, but to the arid regions throughout the world. The Wyoming laws and the administrative system he devised also became the model for similar legislation in Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and Canada. With the adoption of Article VIII of the Wyoming Constitution, enactment of measures to carry it into effect, and the settlement of claims made prior to 1890, irrigation legisla­ tion in Wyoming finally caught up with irrigation develop­ ment."^ Mead's accomplishment of bringing order to irriga­ tion law coincided with three national developments closely tied with the question of the arid domain: the closing of the frontier, the end of inexpensive irrigation, and falling farm prices. The census of 1890 revealed that the era of easily developed farms was over. This was also true for irrigated areas; most of the acreage which could

•^Adams Interview, 89, ROHOUC. Second Biennial Report of the State Engineer of Wyoming, 1893-1894 (Cheyenne: Bristol & Knabe Printing Company, 1895), 16; Mead, Irrigation Institutions, 247, 257.

•^John c. Page, "Memorial to Dr. Elwood Mead", The Reclamation Era, XI (November 1936), 249. 32 be watered inexpensively was claimed, much of it by specu­ lators and cattlemen. Many of the speculators had de­ veloped lands and literally held settlers in a kind of "water peonage", while ranchers used their claims waste- fully. At the same time, falling farm prices in the open­ ing of the final decade of the nineteenth century culminated in the Panic of 1893, and drove large numbers of small irrigators back east as projects folded.^ Elwood Mead, an eternal optimist, took up the cause of the small irrigator with a religious fervor. He had seen in Colorado, and in some places in Wyoming, the con-, tented cultivator of his youth on a small irrigated farm. He knew the blessings of irrigation as well as the benefits of agriculture, and now he wanted to create in his adopted state an agrarian Eden, But he wanted to adapt this to the peculiar conditions of the region. What he envisioned were small irrigated farms with a larger contiguous area of grazing land. In this way a settler could have a cash crop and an assured supply of winter and summer feed for his stock. This system would provide the basis for Wyom­ ing's future prosperity. It would provide the state with a home food supply, it would prevent another disaster to the

l^Mead, Irrigation Institutions, 344-45? Roy M. Robbins, Our Landed Heritage, The Public Domain, 1776-1936 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1942), 326-27, 33 range industry because of a guaranteed feed supply, and it would entice settlers to the state. 1 R The problem that had discouraged small irrigators in Colorado was exhorbitant water charges by ditch owners. Mead corrected this problem in Wyoming by enacting safe­ guards against excessive water charges. However, a ' w difficulty rose because most of the undeveloped irrigable land in the state was in the hands of the federal govern­ ment. To make these vast areas productive, it would be necessary to build expensive works, but capital could not be attracted to such ventures without guarantees that it could recover its investment. Under existing federal statutes—the Homestead, Timber Culture and Desert Land acts-—a speculator could acquire over 1,000 acres of federal land under a ditch without any obligation to the ..irrigation company, even though the company's development increased the value of the land from 50 cents an acre to 10 or 15 dollars an acre. The solution lay in some scheme to bring federal land and state water titles together. 19 Mead was one of the earliest proponents of cession of federal lands to the states. The failure of the Desert

•^Mead to Charles H. Burritt, January 29, 1892, SECWA; Cheyenne Leader, December 24, 1893,

•^Territorial Engineer's Report, 1889, 52-63; Dunbar, "Origins of the Colorado System", 253. Land and Timber Culture acts to further the development of irrigation in the West had convinced him of the in­ effectiveness of a federal policy. The states, he believed were best able to deal with the land problems peculiar to their locale. Moreover, if the federal government should not or would not develop these areas, it ought to give them to those who would. Otherwise the Western states would forever remain underpopulated and underdeveloped. To Mead the problem was more than just making arid areas productive there was a need to populate these regions, ? nu Mead converted his friend, Governor Francis E. Warren, to the cause of cession, and worked closely with him on these matters. In 1891, after he became a senator, Warren introduced a bill in Congress calling for cession of federal lands to the states, with the states using the funds from the sale of such lands to build irrigation faci­ lities. Settlers were to be limited to 160 acres of irri­ gated land. Later that year, Mead and his assistant, Frank Bond, attended the first National Irrigation Congress at Salt Lake City and pushed this idea. This organization, formed largely at the instigation of William E, Smythe, a journalist with the Omaha Bee, endorsed the cession plan. In spite of this action, Warren's bill did not pass nor

^Cheyenne Tribune, January 10, 17, 1894, 35 did another Warren proposal the following year which called for the donation of all the arid lands to the states with- out restriction. 21

In 1893t Mead attended another Irrigation Congress at Los Angeles, but the delegates could not agree on a policy. They feared that a show of disunity would weaken chances for any congressional action to aid the arid west and, by way of compromise, appointed a commission to in­ vestigate conditions in each of the 17 states and terri­ tories and to formulate a national policy. Mead was con­ vinced that cession was necessary for Wyoming's development into an agricultural state. Opponents claimed that such action would mean that these lands would fall into the hands of jobbers and corporations, while others urged that the federal government should build the necessary works. Meanwhile, Senator Joseph M. Carey of Wyoming attached to an appropriations bill an amendment bestowing one million

^Mead to Francis E. Warren, March 21, 1892, SECWA. Gould, Wyoming, 130-32; Anne Carolyn Hansen, "The Con­ gressional Career of Senator Francis E. Warren", Annals of Wyoming, XX (January 1948), 39. For a brief character­ ization of Smythe, see Walter Prescott Webb, The Great Plains (New York: Ginn and Company, 1931), 357-58? and Smythe, The Conquest of Arid America (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1911). acres on each state if the land were irrigated within three years,^2 Mead probably had some influence on this piece of legislation. When Carey was a territorial judge in Wyoming, he and Mead had become friends and, of course, the Territorial Engineer expounded his ideas on irrigation to him. Mead's association with Warren, however, must have caused some cooling between the two; political dif­ ferences between Carey and Warren grew to open hostility by 1890. Anyway, Mead was not particularly enthusiastic about Carey's proposal. He did not regard it as "an ade­ quate and altogether satisfactory solution of the land question", but felt that if the time allotted to do the work was changed from three years to 10 years, it would be "a great improvement over present conditions". Mead's suggestion was incorporated in the final bill, which was passed on August 18, 1894.

^Chicago Tribune, September 1, 1894, Gould, Wyoming, 132-33, 202-03. ^Mead to A. A. Johnson, April 10, 1894, SECWA; [Wyoming Constitutional Convention], file 22-63, ADDI. State Engineer's Report, 1893-1894, 30; Gould, Wyoming, 118-19. Mead's specific objections to the Carey Act in­ cluded: (1) the delays and expense in procedural matters between Washington and the states; (2) the costs and re­ sponsibility for disposing of the land fell to the state while any profit went to the federal government; (3) it provided no comprehensive plan for canal construction; (4) it did not deal with any method of uniting grazing and ir­ rigable land. Mead, Irrigation Institutions, 26-27. Two weeks after the Carey bill became law, the third National Irrigation Congress was scheduled to meet in Denver, and there was still a wide divergence of opinion among the members as to policy. Before the meeting opened, Mead wrote to friends that he was anxious to prevent "any unwise or unjudicious action" that would damage the cause of reclamation. His interest was only to see irrigation made a "safe and reasonably lucrative business". Above all, the Wyoming state engineer was opposed to involvement by the federal government in constructing irrigation works. His experience with the engineers' corps had taught him "the enormous cost, extravagance and waste which character­ izes national public works and the harrowing delay and un­ certainty of work dependent on congressional appropriations. Furthermore, he feared that such legislation would foster favoritism for the larger states—such as California—and would result in a federal policy which would not be adapt- able to the needs of the diverse areas of the arid west. 24 The Denver meeting was a success for those who wanted to give the Carey Act. a "fair trial". After the meeting, Mead wrote his assistant, Frank Bond, that they

^Mead to S. B. Robbins, July 30, 1894; to J. L. VanDerwerker, August 31, 1894; to Fred Bond, September 11, 1894, SECWA. Mead, Wyoming as an Agricultural State (Cheyenne: Tribune Job Printers, 1894), 11-13. "managed to prevent the people who still wanted unrestrict­ ed cession and the others who wanted the government to do •everything to keep silent". Mead was especially critical of Smythe, whom he felt had "nothing in view except his own interests and the interests of [his propaganda magazine] Irrigation Age"• He called Smythe "a visionary enthusiast who, if left alone, would make the whole movement ridicu­ lous". By 1897, when the Irrigation Congress met in Chey­ enne, Mead was thoroughly disenchanted with the "cheap crowd" that ran the organization. He felt that they were "simply concerned in the pickings which come from these Congresses and in exploiting themselves before the public". Others harbored similar sentiments; in 1897 George Maxwell started a new organization, the National Irrigation Associa­ tion, to promote irrigation by appealing to Eastern business­ men.^ Meanwhile, Wyoming had proceeded with plans to take advantage of the Carey Act. This law called for the federal

^Mead to Fred Bond, September 11, 1894; to S. M. Emery, October 12, 1897, SECWA. John T, Ganoe, "The Origins of a National Reclamation Policy", Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XVIII (June 193lJ^ 39. In spite of these harsh words, Mead continued to correspond with Smythe and their relations seemed friendly. Smythe was laudatory of Mead's work, and when Mead learned of the suspension of Irrigation Age, he offered to help wherever possible should Smythe "reopen it". Mead to Smythe, October 16, 1895, SECWA. government to donate up to a million acres to a state on condition that the state cause the land to be reclaimed and settled with actual farmers on small tracts. The respon­ sibility for formulating a state program and working with the Interior Department to guarantee that the provisions were carried out fell largely to Mead. Characteristically, he predicted a great surge of construction and immigration which could lead to "a new era of growth and prosperity" for Wyoming. He framed the state laws to qualify for the federal donation of land, and the first entries to the land under those laws was made early in 1896. Six private pro­ jects were approved that year. In the Big Horn Basin, William (Buffalo Bill) Cody launched a company that en­ visioned irrigating over 500,000 acres. Unfortunately, however, little private capital could be induced into such ventures. Applications for land were substantial, but less than one percent of the estimated 12 to 15 million irrigable acres in Wyoming received final patent while Elwood Mead was State Engineer. ° Although Mead had endorsed the Carey Act and was instrumental in its implementation in Wyoming, he did not

^Cheyenne Sun-Leader, February 1, 1896; New York Journal, May 23, 1897. State Engineer's Report, 1893-1894, 30; Larson, Wyoming, 302-304,348-51; Charles Lindsay, The Big Horn Basin (Lincoln: [University of Nebraska], 1930), 160-234. believe that it was the real answer to the state's prob­ lems. As early as 1893, he had observed that the open range was destructive to grazing lands, the great natural resource of the state. As long as the range was free, he believed that there was no incentive to improve it or to reform wasteful practices. Everyone was out for himself. In 1897, he proposed a scheme whereby the millions of acres of public grazing land would be given to the state to lease and the proceeds would be used to finance irrigation pro­ jects. Settlers could buy 160 irrigable acres and rent 2,560 acres of range for a cent an acre. The lands not taken by settlers would also be leased to prevent their destruction by careless cattlemen or sheep ranchers. This policy recognized the movement to supporting cattle on irrigated land, a policy which grew out of the lessons of the disastrous winter of 1886-1887, Mead also thought that it would end the long standing conflict between the sheep and cattle men by assigning to each a specific area. Although his ideas were given favorable notice in news- papers around the state, nothing came of the proposals. 27 By 1897, Mead had advanced professionally as far as he could in Wyoming. He had written the water code, set

^Mead to Richard J. Hinton, October 9, 1895; to Alva Adams, February 15, 1897, SECWA. Laramie Republican, January 29, 1897; Cheyenne Sun-Leader, January 26, 27, 1898, State Engineer's Report, 1893-1894, 30-32, 41 up the administration for running it, and had formulated the state's participation under the Carey Act, That year, his wife Florence died of a toxic goiter, leaving him with three small children under the age of seven. At the same time, he was reluctantly being drawn to the view that some federal action would be necessary to realize the full benefits of reclamation. In November, Senator Warren ap­ proached Secretary of Agriculture James A, Wilson about reestablishing the Division of Irrigation in the Agriculture Department, Mead began to work as a part-time consultant to the Agriculture Department, and when congressional approval was finally obtained early in 1899, he resigned as state engineer and moved to Washington, D.C,, to direct irrigation investigations. 2 8

^Chicago Record, January 26, 1898; Cheyenne Tribune, February 26, 1899. Mead Interview, January 3, 1970. Mead told Anson Marston that he had been offered the job of directing irrigation investigations in 1892, but did not feel justified in accepting it at that time. About 1895, the irrigation work of the Agriculture Depart­ ment had been transferred to the Geological Survey, Mead to A. A, Marston, November 22, 1897; to F. H. Newell, February 11, 1898, SECWA. CHAPTER 3

ON THE NATIONAL SCENE

In 1899, Elwood Mead was named full-time expert in charge of irrigation investigations for the Office of Experi­ ment Stations of the Department of Agriculture. The appoint­ ment put him on the national scene at a time when the fed­ eral government was moving toward direct involvement in reclamation. As Mead opposed large-scale action in reclama­ tion by the federal government, his views conflicted with most of the prominent officials in Washington. Although his advice was sought,it was largely ignored. After the passage of the Reclamation Act of 1902, his influence fell further, and he was tempted by the offer of a teaching position at the University of California. Nevertheless, he persisted in his job with the Agriculture Department for eight years. In his position as head of irrigation investigations, Mead was concerned primarily with the application of water to the land. His job was to gather and disseminate informa­ tion of interest to the small irrigator. His duties were to ascertain the amount of water necessary for the cultiva­ tion of different crops in various regions, to analyze soils, and to determine the fruits, grains, and vegetables

42 43 that grow best under irrigation. He was also to examine the laws concerning water rights in the arid regions, and to point out any defects in them or their method of ad­ ministration. Moreover, Mead was to assist farmers in securing and protecting their rights, as well as to instruct them in the most economical use of water for irrigation. Agricultural colleges and the experiment stations throughout the country were to co-operate in this task.^" As a complement to Mead's assignment, Frederick Haynes Newell, head of the Geological Survey in the In­ terior Department, was instructed to examine the fluvial system of the West. This included studying the quantity and value of rainfall and the water from melting snows, the courses and habits of streams, the area which could be irrigated by them, and the best methods of distribution. In addition, a hydrographic map was to be prepared to assist in utilizing the waters for agriculture. Mead's group, then, was to work with the practical aspects of irrigation, while Newell1s staff was concerned with the technical. 2 One important flaw marred this co-operation in reclamation by the Interior and Agriculture Departments:

•'•Unidentified newspaper clippings, T. C. Mead Papers.

2Ibid. 44 Mead and Newell already had tangled over both personal and ideological differences. Mead had been critical of the work of the Geological Survey for a long time. In 1895 Newell had asked Mead for help in securing appropriations to continue stream gauging by the Geological Survey. In seeking assistance on this matter from Wyoming's Senator Carey, Mead gave half-hearted support, noting that although he had a poor opinion of the topographical surveys made by the Geological Survey, he felt Newell's work had "con- siderable practical value". In 1895 Mead also began a movement to have the Geological Survey leave monuments or tracings in the field so that its work could be identified on the ground. Other­ wise, he felt that the surveys had "no practical value". He even designed a marker to be placed at the corner of a township. Newell objected to the idea of placing markers, but when Congressman Frank Mondell of Wyoming introduced a bill to require them Newell wrote that he was adopting the idea, In March of 1896, Mead wrote a friend, 0. V. P. Stout, that he was gratified "after 20 years of blindness on this matter that the light should at last penetrate the recesses of the survey". Nevertheless, he thought it "only

•^Mead to Joseph M. Carey, February 15, 1895, SECWA? Adams Interview, 98, ROHOUC; Mead Interview, January 3, 1970. 45 prudent" that Congress should place the matter beyond ques- tion by the enactment of a law. 4 Mead's interference must have irritated Newell, but not so much as the creation of Irrigation Investiga­ tions in the Agriculture Department in 1899. This division took a sizable part of work away from him—a serious threat to a bureaucrat. He complained to Mead and to Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson. He told Wilson bhat Mead was trying to draft engineers from the Geological Survey. Mead denied this and pleaded with Newell to end the "bick­ ering" between them. This was to no avail.^ Ideologically, the split between the two men was more serious because the conception of reclamation that Mead held was far different than that of Newell and his associat­ es. The Geological Survey looked at irrigation from an engineering standpoint, and was interested in building dams and reservoirs, and covering the largest area possible with water. Mead, on the other hand, was much more conservative in his approach to the question. He agreed that federal construction of reservoirs was a necessity in order to regulate the flow of streams and thus to obtain maximum

^Mead to R. B. Howells, November 15, 1895, March 3, 1896; to 0. V. P. Stout, March 20, 1896, SECWA. ^Mead to Newell, February 11, June 20, 1898, SECWA; Washington Star, March 13, 1899. use of the water available, but he emphasized that the need to settle the lands already under ditches should take precedent over new projects. He wanted the federal govern­ ment to solve existing problems, not to launch new pro- /T grams. Mead's ideas eventually put him in disfavor with (George Maxwell, another leader of the reclamation movement who had founded the National Irrigation Association in 1897. The drive for federal involvement in reclamation had begun that year with Captain Hiram W. Chittenden's report on his survey of possible reservoir sites in Wyoming and Colorado. Chittenden urged the government to construct storage reservoirs to regulate the flow of streams and for flood control, but to leave irrigation matters to the states. Capitalizing on the publicity from Chittenden's recommendations, Maxwell, a lawyer-turned lobbyist, set out to convince Eastern legislators and businessmen of the benefits that would accrue to the rest of the country from development of the West. His organization, a kind of sup­ plement to the National Irrigation Congress, sought greater federal aid for reclamation. The mainstay of his support came from the five railroads that crossed the arid region.

^Unidentified newspaper clipping, T, C. Mead Papers; Adams Interview, 82-83, ROHOUC. Mead, Irrigation Institu­ tions , 346; Mead, "Problems of Irrigation Legislation", The Forum, XXXII (January 1902), 576. The Great Northern, Northern Pacific, Union Pacific,

Southern Pacific, and Santa Fe lines each contributed $500 a month to finance his activities and propaganda. 7 When he first learned of the proposed financial arrangement between Maxwell and the railroads in 1899, Mead wrote to H. G. Burt, president of the Union Pacific, and outlined his own views—and his objections to Maxwell's concept of the problems of the arid region. Mead favored letting the Western states lease the lands within their boundaries for grazing, with the federal government re­ taining title. The proceeds would be used by the states to build reservoirs and other appurtences, while the fed­ eral government would construct the limited number of works which could properly be classed as necessary for flood con­ trol or navigation. The projects would and should be justified in the same manner as river and harbor improve- O ments carried out in the Eastern states.

"^Mead to Delegates to the National Irrigation Congress, October 15, 1902, Mead Papers, Carton 12; Adams Interview, 80, ROHOUC. Great Falls Tribune (Montana), July 29, 1900; Denver Republican, August 20, 1901. Hiram W. Chittenden, "Preliminary Examination of Reservoir Sites in Colorado and Wyoming", House Document 141, 55 Cong., 2 Sess. (Serial 3666), 6; Ganoe, "Origins of National Re­ clamation", 40-41; Webb, Great Plains, 358-61. ®Mead to H. G. Burt, n.d., and April 21, 1899, appended to Adams Interview, 4 26-42, ROHOUC. 48 According to Mead, Maxwell's program was based on an entirely different concept. Maxwell made government reservoirs the principal feature, but Mead feared that government control of irrigation would be the ultimate result of such undertakings. Maxwell stated that sales from reclaimed land would return a larger sum than ex­ pended, and he estimated that $100,000,000 could be added to the treasury by this program. Mead exposed the fallacy in this, pointing out that if private enterprise had not earned profits from irrigation projects, why would the government. Reservoirs were demanded not by people who desired to occupy land, but by those who already owned land with an insufficient water supply. Moreover, Maxwell wanted a survey of all the land to be reclaimed, and plans for all the necessary work to be drawn by the government. Mead argued that the irrigible areas were already well known, and that if the states were going to build the res­ ervoirs, they ought to prepare the plans themselves. To Mead this idea must have smacked of E'rederick Haynes Newell and the Geological Survey.9 In the beginning, relations between Maxwell and Mead remained friendly, at least on the surface. Maxwell had written a warm letter of endorsement in 1898 to

9Ibid. 49 Secretary of Agriculture Wilson when Mead was mentioned for the irrigation investigations position. Two years later, the amity ended. In 1900 when the National Irrigation Congress met in Chicago, Mead was president of the organiza­ tion despite his disagreement with many members. He asked J. S. Dennis, an irrigation expert from Canada, to speak on his country's irrigation law which had been patterned after Wyoming's statutes. Maxwell, who was executive chair­ man, accidently intercepted Dennis' acceptance. He accused Mead and Dennis of having an understanding regarding the discussion of inter-national water rights at the conference. Mead was forced to rescind the invitation. At the Chicago meeting, the Irrigation Congress dropped its demand for cession to the states, and urged federal reclamation of the arid West.10 Both major political parties in 1900 endorsed planks calling for federal reclamation. Two prominent proponents of this policy, Newell and Maxwell, were close friends of the Chief Forester Gifford Pinchot, Irrigation- ists had always stressed the importance of closing and

l^Mead to J. S. Dennis, October 20, 1900, Mead Papers, Carton 12; George Maxwell to James Wilson, April 29, 1898, file 188-1923, Experiment Stations, General Corres­ pondence, Department of Agriculture [ESGCDA], Record Group 16, National Archives. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Ses­ sion of the National Irrigation Congress, 1900 (Chicago: n.p., 1901), 27 0-71; E. Louise Peffer, The Closing of the Public Domain (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1951), 21. 50 preserving the watersheds as part of their program. The western states, however, opposed any attempts to close the public domain, claiming that such an act would retard their economic development. Meanwhile, Representative Francis G. Newlands of Nevada had introduced a bill calling for the money from land sales to be spent for reclamation projects, but Congress was slow to act. When Theodore Roosevelt—with his strong conservation bent—became Presi­ dent in 1901, the opportunity was presented to combine the two issues—closing the forest lands and opening the arid acres—and to focus attention on the entire question of the public domain. Roosevelt, in his autobiography published in 1916, credited Newell and Pinchot with formulating his conserva­ tion and irrigation policy, and for preparing the material on it for his first state of the union message in 1901. This was only partly true. The President had to please others in the West besides these two. For example, Francis Warren and Frank Mondell, both prominent and powerful legislators, wanted to provide for more local autonomy in the operation of the Newlands bill. When Roosevelt was preparing his message, he talked to Senator Warren who

•^Peffer, Public Domain, 21-22, 30-32, 38; Gifford Pinchot, Breaking New Ground (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1947), 188-91. 51 suggested that Mead should be consulted. After a lengthy interview, the Chief Executive asked Mead to submit ideas for inclusion in his message to Congress. The irrigation expert wrote a letter outlining his views, modified to meet Roosevelt's wishes, and his assistant Frank Adams took it to the White House.^ In large part, the section on irrigation in Roose­ velt's message in December of 1901 might have been written by Mead, Pinchot or Newell. Much of it depended upon the interpretation and stress placed on its various points. Everyone interested in reclamation spoke of the benefits which would flow from providing homes for the greatest number of settlers. And everyone agreed that the federal government would have to construct major works necessary

I2f.iead Interview, January 3, 1970; Adams Inter­ view, 84, 446, ROHOUC; Mead to Benjamin Ide Wheeler, November 12, 1901, University of California Archives, Berkeley [UCAB]. Theodore Roosevelt, An Autobiography (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1916), 408-11; Henry F. Pringle, Theodore Roosevelt, a Biography (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1931), 431; Arthur B. Darling (ed.), The Public Papers of Francis G. Newlands (2 vols., New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1932), I, 67. Pinchot claims in his autobiography that he, Newell, Maxwell and W. J. McGee of the Bureau of Ethnology wrote the reclama­ tion part of the message and that Roosevelt "accepted sub­ stantially everything we wrote as we wrote it". He quotes part of the message, but omits any passage relative to water laws. Breaking New Ground, 188-91. See also M. Nelson McGeary, Gifford Pinchot (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960), 54. for maximum utilization of the available water. Yet the document bore unmistakable evidence of Mead's influence. The need to respect existing state water laws in accomplish­ ing these tasks, and an oblique reference to the excellence of Wyoming's statutes, certainly was not anything Newell would suggest; nor was he concerned about strengthening state control over water ownership and studying irrigation laws and conditions. These were the very things Mead was doing in his investigations. Finally, the statement urging caution in attempting to do too much, too fast did not square with Pinchot's zeal and enthusiasm.13 Mead had little to do with the writing of the Reclamation Act of 1902, although he advised many Western legislators on it. Apparently he felt it best not to be­ come too involved in opposing what the President seemed to want. Perhaps he was afraid that he would lose his job. Representative Mondell had quarrelled with Roosevelt over the bill and the transfer of the Forest Service to the Agri­ culture Department because of his dislike of Pinchot. In a letter to University of California President Benjamin Ide Wheeler, Mead indicated his fear that Pinchot would

•^Mead to Wheeler, November 12, .1901, UCAB; Mead Interview, January 3, 1970; Adams Interview, 83-96, ROHOUC. Free! L. Israel (ed.), The State of the Union Messages of the Presidents, 1790-1966 (2 vols., New York: Chelsea House - Robert Hector Publishers, 1966), II, 2030-33. 53 think he had some influence on Mondell. Characterizing the Wyoming congressman as "opinionated and somewhat bump­ tious", Mead said that if he had exerted influence, Mondell would have kept out of both forestry and irrigation "be­ cause he don't [sic] know enough about either to deal with them intelligently"."*"^ In the same letter Mead hinted at a more probable explanation for his reluctance to push his ideas. Owing to the "recent disclosures of the strength of the Railraod Lobby and its ability to control the location of irrigation works", he did not believe the Reclamation bill would pass. The country would "not lose much if it fails", he added. In February of 1902 he had expressed similar sentiments to Wheeler, noting that the "foolish talk" about hundreds of millions of acres of land and hundreds of millions of dollars had scared Eastern farmers sleepless. He did not care if the bill was defeated because "there was too much of demogogy [sic] and dishonesty in this campaign . . . for one to enthuse over it". Mead's 1902 report on the activities of his department described a number of successful

•^Mead to Delegates of National Irrigation Congress, October 15, 1902, Mead Papers, Carton 12; to Wheeler, April 24, 1902, UCAB. Darling (ed.), Newlands Papers, I, 68; Roosevelt, Autobiography, 411. Mead1s lack of enthusiasm for the Reclamation Act can also be noted in his final chapter of Irrigation Institutions, 344-83. 54 private irrigation projects, and contained a veiled hint that the government would do well to keep out of irriga­ tion.-^ On June 17, 1902, the Newlands Act was passed as the result of Roosevelt's commitment to reclamation. The basic provisions set up a revolving fund of the revenue from the sale of public land to be used for major reclama­ tion works. The water users were to repay the construction costs over a 10 year period and this money was to be added to the fund. It provided for homestead entry without com­ mutation and limited the amount of land any one landowner could irrigate to 160 acres. Farmers were expected to build their own distribution canals and prepare the land for cultivation. The bill had several serious flaws that plagued reclamation for over a quarter of a century. In order to placate all of the Western states, the law called for the expenditure of the funds within each state in proportion to the sales of land in those states "as far as practicable". This was unwise. Nevada, for example, had few lands that

"^Mead to Wheeler, February 6, April 24, 1902, UCAB; Washington Times, n.d., T. C. Mead Papers. United States Department of Agriculture Yearbook, 1902, 735-37, •^U.S, Statutes at Large, XXXII, 388-90. 55 anyone would purchase, and a great need for irrigation; while Oklahoma had considerable land sales and little need for irrigation. Added to this was the pressure from every state to benefit as soon as possible, and the discretion allowed the Secretary of the Interior to begin works which he felt were financially feasible. The result was 24 pro­ jects within five years, far above need and even farther above their estimated cost. 17 In his letter to H. G. Burt, Mead had accurately predicted what the outcome of Maxwell's scheme would be. Fortunately, Mead had nothing to do with subsequent develop­ ments. He was effectively shunted aside, but continued to direct the irrigation investigations in spite of the efforts of Newell to have this service abolished. In his modest way, he did what he could to improve conditions for the small settler who suffered most from the defects in irriga­ tion practices.

•^Alfred R. Golze, Reclamation in the United States (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1952), 102-104; Dorothy Lampen, Economic and Social Aspects of Federal Reclamation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1930), 47- 69; James Penick, Jr., Progressive Politics and Conserva­ tion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), 64-65. "^Adams Interview, 426-42, ROHOUC, Samuel P. Hays, Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959), 244. 56 The scope of irrigation investigations had steadily expanded since 1898 when Congress appropriated $10,000 to look into water right problems in the arid states. That sum was raised to $35,000 in 1900, and to $50,000 the fol­ lowing year. In 1899, Mead had made a study of water rights in the Big Horn Mountains and on the Missouri River, as well as an investigation of the use of water in irrigation. These reports were so well received that a group of promi­ nent Californians petitioned Dr. A. C. True, Director of Experiment Stations, to have Mead do a thorough survey of irrigation in that state. The California Water and Forest Association raised $10,000 to help finance the survey, and professors from Stanford and the University of California agreed to work on the project. One of the backers of the proposed state survey was President Wheeler of the University of California. He was concerned that everyone in the state recognized the importance of irrigation, but that his institution was

•^Mead to Elon H. Hooker, May 31, 1900, UCAB; Adams Interview, 67, ROHOUC. San Francisco Call, August 22, 1899; San Francisco Chronicle, December 4, 1899; Los Angeles Times, April 12, 1899. USDA Yearbook, 1899, 530; USDA Yearbook, 1900, 67. Mead, Water Rights on the Missouri River and Its Tributaries (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1899); Water Right Problems of the Bighorn Mountains (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1899); The Use of Water in Irrigation (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1900). contributing very little to its development. Wheeler de­ cided to establish a Department of Irrigation, and offered Mead a professorship in November of 1900. Mead was tempted but he wrote that he wanted to finish a study of the prob­ lems of the arid region. He particularly wanted to complete the California investigations then underway, as well as one started in Utah, and see them reach "printer's ink". Furthermore, the Department of Agriculture had arranged for him to go to Europe in 1901 to study the water laws and customs there, and he did not want to lose that opportuni- ty., 20 Mead did agree to come to Berkeley in the spring of 1901 and present a six-week course, and to supervise the organization of the department which the president desired. Wheeler appointed him Professor of the Institu­ tions and Practice of Irrigation. Mead's lectures proved to be very popular, and in 1903 they were published as Irrigation Institutions. The book received widespread acclaim and was regarded as an authority on the laws and principles governing the use and proprietorship of water

^Wheeler to Mead, November 5, 12, 1900; Mead to Wheeler, November 9, 1900, UCAB. Adams Interview, 68, 149-50, ROHOUC. 58 for reclamation. He planned to return to the University again in the spring of 1902. 21 Shortly after returning to Washington from Cali­ fornia Mead attended a baseball game, one of his favorite hobbies. He caught a trolley car for home, and as it neared an intersection where he was to transfer, he saw the other car and feared that he would miss it. A man who deplored wasting time, he jumped from his car and dashed to the other. As he started to climb aboard, Mead lost his balance and fell beneath the trolley. One wheel passed over his out­ stretched right arm, nearly severing it. He was rushed to a hospital where the crushed limb was amputated. Mead accepted the misfortune with characteristic good nature, writing Wheeler that "if I understand my field, I can do as well without any hands as with both of them". Perhaps he thought of that other one-armed giant of the arid region, John Wesley Powell. Summoning Frank Adams from

^9 x1Wheeler to Mead, February 9, 19 01; Mead to Wheeler, January 16, 1901, UCAB. Both the Civil Engineer­ ing and Agriculture faculties wanted the irrigation studies affiliated with their departments. To avoid conflict, Wheeler set up a separate department, although it became closely aligned with Agriculture because Mead's irriga­ tion investigations cooperated with the Agriculture Ex­ periment Station, Adams Interview, 153, 179, ROHOUC. 59 California, Mead went to Atlantic City to recuperate and to learn to write with his left hand. Mead was torn for several years between his work with the Agriculture Department and a desire to return to the classroom. He gave special courses at Harvard in 1901 and 1902, and officials there urged him to join the staff. He declined the offer because he preferred his arrange­ ments with the University of California. Mead was con­ cerned about the irrigation department at Berkeley and watched its operation closely. Although not continuously on campus, he took an active interest in the curriculum and in procuring people to teach courses. The personnel of the Irrigation Investigation staff in California filled in whenever their boss could not meet his classes. Every­ one cooperated to make the new department a success. Wheeler was anxious to have him as a regular member of the faculty, and gave him wide leeway in arranging his commit­ ments to the two jobs.23

22jyiead Interview, January 3, 1970; Adams Interview, 70, ROHOUC; Mead to Wheeler, June 21, 1901, UCAB; Un­ identified newspaper clipping, T. C. Mead Papers. 2-^Mead to Wheeler, February 6, August 29, September 2, 23, 1902, January 2, 21, 27, June 1, 1903; Wheeler to Mead, September 29, 19 02, UCAB. Adams Interview, 151, ROHOUC. Mead to George C. Pardee, April 13, 19 04; A, C. True to Pardee, November 30, 1904, Pardee Papers, Bancroft Library, University of California. 60 The one-armed professor carried forward his work for the Agriculture Department with great vigor. In 19 02 his title was changed to Chief of Irrigation Investiga­ tions. He and those under him continued to survey water rights and methods of irrigation throughout the west. Mead was willing to look into anything that might aid the farmer. In 1900, for example, one of his bulletins discussed grow­ ing tea by irrigation, and two years later another examined rice cultivation. C. T. Johnson, an assistant, meanwhile, went to Egypt, and Mead travelled to Italy to report on practices in those countries. Other bulletins dealt with practical matters such as building ditches and levelling land. Most people praised Mead's efforts, but Newell con­ tinued to watch him "like a hawk", and Maxwell tried to frustrate his plans whenever he could. After the passage of the Newlands Act, for example, Mead requested that more money be expended to prepare and advise the increased num­ ber of settlers about irrigation farming. Instead, it became increasingly difficult to obtain congressional appropriations.^

^Mead to Wheeler, January 23, 27, February 26, 1903; Mead address to California Water and Forest Associa­ tion, April 22, 1904, UCAB. Mead to E. W. Hilgard, December 20, 1902, Hilgard Papers, Bancroft Library, University of California. Sacramento Bee, May 30, 1900; (Sacramento) Record Union, November 2, 1902. Two unidentified news­ paper clippings, T. C. Mead Papers. Mead's annual reports, 61 The attacks by Maxwell and Newell degenerated into personal haggling. In 1903 Mead backed (and probably helped write) the so-called Works Bill, an attempt to bring some order to California's water code. His two antagonists used this as an excuse to discredit him and supplied am­ munition to fight the proposed legislation in general, and the Investigations chief in particular. Many newspapers in California, especially in the southern half, opposed the measure. The editor of the Los Angeles Times demanded to know why Mead, an official of the Agriculture Department, was interferring in California's affairs. Maxwell sent clippings of these editorials to Secretary Wilson. The controversy became quite heated, but Mead stood his ground and his superiors in Washington backed him. When his con­ nection with the University was assailed, he offered to resign, but Wheeler would not hear of it. ? C The unpleasant aspects of fighting for what he believed in were frustrating, but there were compensations. In 1904, Purdue University recognized Mead's accomplishments

1899-1907, in USDA Yearbooks; Mead, Irrigation in Northern Italy (2 vols.; Washington, Government Printing Office, 1904-07). ^Maxwell to Wilson, January 13, 1903, file 188- 1923, ESGCDA; Mead to Wheeler, February 26, March 4, 1903. Redlands Citrograph (California), January 17, 24, February 14, March 4, 1903; San Francisco Chronicle, n.d., T. C. Mead Papers. The bill was defeated. in irrigation by conferring on him its first honorary doctorate in engineering. Mead was extremely proud of this honor from his alma mater, and was thereafter called "Doctor". The title enhanced his name, but did not improve his posi­ tion. The bickering and the annual fight for appropria­ tions bothered Mead, and he found the administrative chores time consuming and oppressive. He had less and less time to do research and writing. He wanted to go to Berkeley full time, but they could not match his government salary of $3,000. After the San Francisco Earthquake in 1906, the University budget became even tighter, and Wheeler asked Mead to forgo his $1,000 stipend that year, saying that he did not devote enough time to his duties. The Investigations Chief did some consulting work for New York and Boston financiers and flirted for a while with the idea of going into private industry—one of the few times he considered leaving public service.^ Mead was a shrewd businessman who managed his per­ sonal finances remarkably well. Many of his investments were in real estate and he generally realized a good return on his money. In 1891 he had purchased two farms adjoining

^Mead interview, January 3, 1970. 2^Mead to Wheeler, May 14, 19 06; Wheeler to Mead, May 8, 1906, UCAB. his father's land in Indiana and in both cases bought them below their value. While in Wyoming, he invested in ir­ rigation projects; at one time, he owned a thousand acres on Elkhorn Creek. Later he became a partner in a canal company and purchased a 169 acre farm. After he joined the Agriculture Department in 1899, he subscribed $5,000 for land company stock in California. Mead made no secret of these holdings or of his consultations for private firms, although such activities would appear to raise questions of conflict of interest and cast doubts on his inveigling against land speculators. He justified his profits because he firmly believed that a person who risked capital in irrigation was entitled to adequate returns as long as they were not at the expense of settlers. Moreover, he always had an abundance of enemies ready to discredit him had he taken advantage of his position or made excessive profits.^ By 1906, Mead was becoming restless and cast about for a new endeavor. On September 28 of that year, he had

2®Selar Mead to Mead, January 15, 17, 26, February 14, 1891; Daniel B. Mead to Mead February 28, 1891, T. C. Mead Papers. Mead to George Bond, August 12, 1891, SECWA. Mead to E. F. Benson, March 13, 1926; to Reed Smoot, March 18, 1926, file 515, Colonization and Settlement, General Correspondence Reclamation Bureau [CSGCRB], Record Group 115, National Archives. Mead to L. R. Grimes, December 14, 1922, Mead Papers, Carton 1. Mead to Wheeler, April 22, 1903, October 20, 1906, May 14, 1907, UCAB. 64 married Mary Lewis of Scranton, Pennsylvania, who had been a surgical nurse at the operation when his arm was amputated. He began a "second family" and this, of course, raised his living expenses. The University of California was not in a position to pay him what he considered adequate, and his future in Washington was not promising. Then, in October state officials in Victoria, Australia, invited Mead to come there as head of the State Rivers and Water Supply Commis­ sion. They offered $6,000 per year, double his government salary. He was reluctant to become deeply committed to a job so far from the United States, and so he decided to go to Australia for only six months. President Wheeler gave him a leave from the University in August of 1907, and he agreed to return there as a full-time member of the faculty the following fall. On October 11, the Mead family sailed from Vancouver for Melbourne.^9

^Mead to Wheeler, October 20, 1906, July 16, 1917; Wheeler to Mead, August 5, September 27, 1907, UCA3. Mead Interview, January 3, 1970. CHAPTER 4

AUSTRALIA

The Meads arrived in Melbourne in November of 1907. As they planned to be in Australia for only six months, they had stored their household goods in Washington, and intended to have them shipped to Berkeley as soon as this "season of travel" was finished. Mead's task was twofold: to advise the government of the state of Victoria on its irrigation problems and to help the Commonwealth settle its interstate water rights disputes. However, before accepting any position, Mead decided that he would look over the situation to see if he could really be of assist­ ance to authorities there. He discovered a unique oppor­ tunity to direct irrigation to the goal he envisioned for it—the creation of ideal rural conditions. In the end, Mead spent eight years helping Australia develop its water resources.1 Mead found that about two-thirds of the continent of Australia had a rainfall of less than 20 inches a year, the minimum amount necessary for successful farming without

•'•Mead to Wheeler, November 10, 1907, UCAB.

65 66 irrigation. This problem was compounded by the fact that there was only one large river system, the Murray-Darling- Murrumbidgee and its tributaries, located in the southeast. This drainage basin included areas of the states of South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Large scale irrigation had begun in the 1880's when David Syme, the acknowledged "ruler" of Victoria and editor of The Age, the most influential newspaper in Australia, became in­ terested in the subject. "King David" arranged to have Alfred Deakin, later Prime Minister of Australia, sent to America and India in 1881 to study the latest irrigation methods. Deakin became an ardent advocate of irrigation. While in the United States, he discussed water problems and legislation withElwood Mead and other experts in the West. When he returned home, Deakin helped draft the o Irrigation Act of 1886 for Victoria. The Act of 188 6 boldly transferred to the Crown the ownership of all natural water sources, thus ending the English inheritance of riparian law. It also provided for the creation of local "trusts" to construct irrigation

^Mead Interview, January 3, 1970. Kylie Tennant, Australia: Her Story (London: The Macmillan Company, Ltd., 1962), 201, 237; Marjorie Barnard, A History of Australia (New York: Frederick A. Praeger^ 1963), 404, 638-39; J. A. LaNauze, Alfred Deakin,(2 vols., Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1965), I, 84-88. 67 facilities with the aid of state loans, and provided for the government to build some "national works" such as weirs (dams) to serve large areas. For several years it appeared that the most optimistic predictions of reclamation advocates in Victoria would be realized. Dams were built, water was distributed, and the desert began to bloom. For example, at Renmark and Mildura on the Murray River, the American brothers, George and William Chaffey, constructed irrigation projects which prospered until the slump of the 90's. In 1893 the Baring Brothers banking house of London failed, and general business conditions throughout the world suffered. Irrigation projects in Australia were hit especially hard. 3 As part of the economic revival in the 1890's, vigorous attempts were made to encourage immigration and expand agriculture by a revival of Closer Settlement Acts. Legislation to secure yeoman farmers had a long and unsuc­ cessful history in Australia. Much of the land settled under such laws was unsuited to small farms and was taken up by persons with no experience in agriculture; most of it ended up in the hands of graziers. In New South Wales, for example, between 1861 and 1883, 29 million acres of Crown

•^Tennant, Australia, 201-202; LaNauze, Deakin, I, 87-88; Barnard, Australia, 404-405, 639. Trusts were similar to water districts in the United States. 68 land was sold, but the area under crop increased less than half a million acres. Conditions were similar in the other provinces. In the 1890's, the provincial governments began repurchasing Crown lands and letting them on easy terms to colonists with conditions as to residence and improvement. This scheme floundered in a sea of good intentions, and failed to produce the desired results of attracting new­ comers and improving farm production.^ With the formation of the Commonwealth in 1901, efforts were undertaken again to revive rural life. How­ ever, the act of federation did not end all the problems that the six provinces had experienced prior to union; each state clung to as much autonomy as possible. At the constitutional convention, for example, a proposal to give the Commonwealth authority to control navigable streams and their tributaries was defeated because Victoria and New South Wales feared interference with their irrigation projects. Instead, the national government was prohibited from curtailing a state's right to "reasonable use" of the river water. Likewise, the question of immigration caused considerable controversy for many years. Because of the

^Barnard, Australia, 294-97; Gordon Greenwood, Australia; A Social and Political History (Sidney: Halstead Press, 1955), 118, 177. Closer settlement is a group of small farms which form a community. 69 inequalities of opportunity in the various areas, the Commonwealth was forbidden to use national funds to assist settlers, lest the rich states be built up at the expense of the poor ones. Immigration matters were further compli­ cated by the urban orientation of the nation and the strength of the Labour Party.^ The first major issue that the new Parliament in Australia dealt with in 1901 was the restriction of en­ trants. A "White Australia" policy was adopted to keep out Asians. It relied on a dictation test for all immi­ grants and was also used to bar persons inimical to the workingmen. A corollary to this restrictive measure was the encouragement of desirables. Farmers, it was held, were most needed for an expanding economy. They did not affect unfavorably the labor supply, and they not only consumed manufactured goods, but they added to the wealth by producing much needed foodstuffs. Closer Settlement Acts, designed to attract farmers, were passed in all states in 1901, They appeared to be headed for the same

C Barnard, Australia, 297, 591; Greenwood, Australia, 197, 24 0; Yearbook of the Commonwealth of Australia, 1919 . (Melbourne; Albert J. Mullett, 1919), 543; Sir Robert Garran, "The Federation Movement and the Founding of the Commonwealth", and W. K. Hancock, "The Commonwealth, 1900- 1914", in J, Holland Rose, et al. (eds.), Cambridge History of the British Empire (24 vols., New York: The Macmillan Company,- 1929) , VII, pt. 1 (Australia), 446-47, 500-503, respectively. 70 disappointing results as earlier ones until officials in Victoria sought to do something about this situation. At the same time, they became concerned about the huge sums of money spent on reclamation. The Water Act of 1905 abolished the 90 "trusts" that had been organized in 1886, and placed control of water supplies under the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission.^ Little had been done to correct either problem when Mead arrived in Melbourne to appraise the proffered position as chairman of the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission. The California professor was welcomed en­ thusiastically; The Age noted that here at last was an engineer who could write good English. After surveying the situation, Mead submitted recommendations to the Minister of Water Supply in January of 1908. He pointed out that one of the most serious obstacles to successful irrigation development was the erratic stream flow which varied drastically from year to year. Larger canals and more reservoirs were needed to give a full and assured supply of water. He estimated the cost of his plans at $20,000,000; this included $7,500,000 for the construction

^Hancock, "Commonwealth", 500-503; Barnard, Australia, 466-69; Australian Yearbook, 1919, 543; A. G. L. Shaw and H. D. Nicolson, Australia in the Twentieth Century (Melbourne: Angus & Robertson, Ltd., 1967), 56. 71 of the largest reservoir in the world. When government officials accepted his suggestions and asked him to direct this gigantic project, he decided to stay in Australia until it was completed.7 Elwood Mead's position in Australia offered more than an opportunity to direct a great engineering feat. Besides his suggestions on the technological needs of irri­ gation in Victoria, he also laid out a program for the social goals which the officials there hoped to achieve. The conditions which he found were almost ideal for the creation of the agrarian eden he had envisioned for Wyoming. The emphasis which the government placed on attracting immigrants, and, more important, the strength of labor which prevented the indiscriminate importation of persons who might jeopardize the industrial workman's aims, gave Mead's ideas a receptive audience. The philosophy of govern­ ment also was favorable to accomplishing his plans. Aus­ tralian policy was dominated by the idea of "economic nationalism". Unlike in the United States, there was no aversion to state owned or directed enterprises when it was felt they were for the common good. Raising the

^1, G. Baker, "Elwood Mead in Australia, An Historical Survey", typescript in Mead Papers, Carton 4; Mead to Wheeler, February 10, 1908, UCAB; Mead Interview, January 3, 1970. 72 prosperity of Australia by peopling the reclaimed desert lands of the interior with immigrant farmers was a perfect O plan with which few could argue. In November of 1908, after a detailed study of conditions, and after he came to know the country better, Mead submitted further proposals to the state officials of Victoria, They offered a solution to three major prob­ lems facing the state. He suggested that by combining irrigation, immigration, and closer settlement, the govern­ ment not only could salvage money spent on reclamation but also contribute to building the economy. Until that time, closer settlement had been restricted to areas watered by rainfall alone. Closer settlement, he argued, was the only way to justify expenditure of large sums by the government and to insure returns commensurate with such a great fi­ nancial outlay. The state should buy up large estates in every district, divide them into family size farms, and assist colonists with advice and liberal repayment plans until they became established. The object, as Mead saw it, was not just to enable men to live on the land, but to

^A. G. L, Shaw, A Short History of Australia (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1967), 197, 202-203, 206; Greenwood, Social History, 245-48; Barnard, Australia, 591. 73 encourage a kind of agriculture that would support a larger population and give greater returns.9 A major obstacle to reordering the countryside of Victoria was the power of the big landowners. With only enough water to irrigate part of the land, it was neces­ sary to obtain maximum efficiency from the available supply. The wasteful practices of the land magnates was encouraged by the low charges for water which had been set in the Water Act of 1905 on the basis of land values. Large amounts of water were lost by evaporation when transported long dis­ tances, and in other places grazing land or poor soil was irrigated because water was so inexpensive. Mead incurred the emnity of the holders of huge estates by asking the government to press for compulsory charges whether the water was used or not. He proposed that the rate per unit volume be such as to cover maintenance and management of the irri­ gation works, as well as to provide funds eventually to liquidate their cost. He hoped thus to insure a reliable annual income for operating expenses and to force people to use water properly. Those owning land would either put

^Baker, "Mead in Australia"; Mead address, "Rural Credits in Australia", n.d., Mead Papers, Cartons 4, 12. Mead, Report of Investigations of Land Settlement and Irri- gation Development in America (Melbourne: Albert J, Mullett, 1914), 6. 74 it to good use, or be forced to sell their holdings to actual farmers who would. At Mead's insistence, the State Water Commission bypassed the ministry and publicized these recommendations in order to force the government into action. In March of 1909, legislation embodying these proposals was approved but not over the bitter opposition of most landholders. At one protest meeting, a speaker noted that the govern­ ment had brought sparrows, starlings, thistles and foxes to Australia, but "the greatest pest ever imported was Dr. Elwood Mead"."''"'' Undaunted, Mead moved forward with his plans. He had convinced the officials of Victoria of the value of his propositions, and so anxious were they to have him continue, they raised his salary to $10,000 a year. Having obtained the basis for the technological improvement of irrigation and reforms to make the use of water more ef­ ficient, Mead next turned to the question of attracting colonists. This was the most difficult aspect of the whole scheme, because the government had to do more than just

-^Baker, "Mead in Australia", Mead Papers, Carton 4; Mead Interview, January 3, 1970. Mead, "Irrigation in Australia", The Independent, LXVIV (October 6, 1910), 758-59, -'•-'•Mead to Wheeler, January 16, 1909, UCAB. 75 sell the reclaimed land. Few settlers had money and fewer still had experience in irrigated farming. Some method was needed whereby they could obtain the necessary financial assistance and agricultural advice. Therefore, the State Lands Purchase and Settlement Board, which had been set up in 1904, was ordered by the Victorian legislature in 1909 to cooperate with the Water Commission in irrigation dis­ tricts. Mead served on both bodies, and directed the irri- gated closer settlements. 12 The Settlement Board carefully examined proposed sites for projects, and subdivided them into three cate­ gories. Two acre plots were designed for subsistence laborers who would learn irrigation farming on their small acreage and earn additional income by seasonal work on larger farms. Allotments of 5 to 10 acres were for or­ chards and market gardens, while tracts of from 20 to 200 acres were set aside for stockmen, dairymen, and regular farmers. A community was thus established. The Board also prepared plans for houses and erected them, built fences, and graded the soil so the settler could begin farming as soon as he arrived. Arrangements also were

•^Mead to Tom Mead, January 1, February 10, March 7, 1909, T. C. Mead Papers; Baker, "Mead in Australia", Mead Papers, Carton 4. Australian Yearbook, 1919, 265; Mead, "Irrigation in Australia", 758-59. 76 made to buy agricultural implements at wholesale prices, and to give continued expert advice on such things as selection of nursery stock, dairy cows and work horses. Furthermore, the government would loan up to $2,500 at five percent interest for making improvements. The settler had 15 years to repay these advances, and 21h years to complete the purchase of his property at four and a half 1-3 percent interest. By 1910, despite objections by the large land­ owners in Victoria, most of Mead's suggestions had been adopted. His presence on both the Water Commission and the Settlement Board speeded development of the planned communities. Construction work on the physical improve­ ments also was moving forward under Mead and two graduates of Colorado State Agriculture College, Pete Bahmeyer and George Kreutzer. Mead imported these two men when he dis­ covered that Australia had no engineers with irrigation training. With these activities proceeding smoothly, an intensified search for qualified persons to put on the land began.

-^Australian Yearbook, 1919, 265; Mead, "Irriga­ tion in Australia", 761-63. •^Interview with Mrs. George C. Kreutzer, January 7, 1970, Sacramento, California, In May, a delegation headed by Mead went to Europe and America to study irrigation, and to advertize Aus- • tralian farm opportunities in the hope of attracting settlers. They spent six months in Italy, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Holland and the United States. In England and Scotland, they were particularly successful in persuading people to migrate. In fact, upon their return to Australia they pushed hard for improved and con­ tinued overseas advertising.^ The propaganda that resulted from the success of Mead's trip used the best and latest publicity techniques. Some of it consisted of ''turgid panegyriecs of farming conditions, like a salesman's puffing generalities which most people have learned to discount when not uttered on behalf of governments". Nevertheless, the advertising brought results; between 1911 and 1914, a net increase of almost 100,000 newcomers came to Australia. Victoria's share was nearly 25 percent of the total. It was the only significant gain for the state between 1890 and the end of World War I. In 1911 over 6,000 persons came to Victoria to take advantage of closer settlement laws alone

•^Baker, "Mead in Australia", Mead Papers, Carton 4; Mead to Wheeler, July 8, 1910, UCAB. •^Shaw, short History, 215; Australian Yearbook, 1919, 110. 78 Early in 1911, Elwood Mead was riding the crest of popularity and success in Australia. All his plans were being realized and he seemed to be leading the country out of the mire of over a thousand dollar per day loss on irri­ gation. A few "pettifogging critics" continued to take swipes at him, but he had won over the most influential elements of society. During his first two years in Vic­ toria, he had been torn between the challenge there and the desire to return to California. However, after his tour abroad to advertize farm advantages in Australia, he was buoyed by a new sense of purpose as settlers began filling the land. He pointed with pride to one area with 390 families, where only 12 had lived two years earlier. In another place, a 38,000 acre estate was now occupied by 81 homesteads, while in a former "pasture for rabbits", nearly 200 families were supporting themselves on farms. Every month the arrival of immigrants boasted his reputa­ tion. The tone of the letters to his son, Tom, at the University of California indicated that he was becoming more entrenched in Australia. 17 In 1909 Mead had purchased a 14-room house in Melbourne for speculative purposes. In the spring of 1911,

^Mead to Tom Mead, March 7, April 1, 1909, April 5, 8, May 20, July 23, August 20, November 29, 1911, T. C. Mead Papers; (Melbourne) The Argus, September 16, 1909. Australian Yearbook, 1919, 265-66. he decided to move into it,, and spent $5,000 on remodeling. There were now five children at home. Mead also wanted his parents to come and live in Australia, but his mother died in March of 1911 and his father declined, A maid, a cook, and a gardener took charge of the domestic chores. In addition, a full-time nurse cared for Katherine, a retarded daughter, injured at birth. A specialist was brought from London to examine her, but nothing could be done. Mead's expenses were over $500 a month, but he made a good salary and watched his finances carefully. He also did consulting work for the states of Queensland and New South Wales, and invested in a cooperative dairy which added to his income. Besides the gratification he received from his work, Mead's arrangements in Australia provided a comfortable living. 18 In spite of their pleasant life in Melbourne, the Mead family was plagued with periodic homesickness. Late in June of 1911, the urge to return to America hit hard. Mead sympathized with them, but he planned to serve out

l^Mead to Tom Mead, October 17, November 21, 1909, August 25, September 1, 1910, April 8, May 20, June 4, 24, July 23, 1911, T. C. Mead Papers; Mead to Robert E. Jones, March 22, 1923, Mead Papers, Carton 3. Mary Lewis Mead was a staunch Baptist, who felt that her daughter Katherine's illness was a punishment for marrying a divorc­ ed man. Mead had married a former schoolmate after his first wife died, but divorced her shortly thereafter. Kreutzer Interview, January 7, 1970. 80 his five-year contract. His daughter Lucy began thinking about attending college in the United States, and his wife wanted to take Katherine to a specialist in Philadelphia. In October, a son, Elwood Lewis, was born, but he died shortly afterwards. Financial troubles added to Mead's personal problems. He had left his business affairs with a friend, George M. Keeney of Rising Sun, Indiana. Keeney disregarded instructions, made several unwise investments, and lost a great deal of money. In April of 1912, Mead transferred the management of his business affairs to 1Q Morland B. Binford of Crawfordsville, Indiana. In the siammer of 1912, Mead arranged to come to the United States, ostensibly to secure settlers, but also to straighten out his finances. While in California, he sounded out Dr. Wheeler about returning to the University, and the president promised to see what he could do. The entire family had, accompanied Mead to America, but Lucy stayed in California to attend college when the family went back to Melbourne in the fall. After his return, Mead pressed Wheeler about a job, and was informed in January of 1913 that there were no positions available at

•^Mead to Tom Mead, June 24, July 23, October 19, November 29, 1911, February 10, April 17, June 12, 1912, T. C. Mead Papers; Mead Interview, January 3, 1970, 81 that time. Mead resigned himself to "end his days" in Australia because he had "reached the age when one begins to think of ceasing all work rather than beginning anew". 20 In Australia, Mead immersed himself in his job. As immigrants continued to arrive and new settlements were de­ veloped, the task of overseeing some 30 projects in Victoria meant long hours and a great deal of travelling, Yet Mead was happy because here at last he could demonstrate the social and economic benefits of irrigation. At the same time, he worked on the thorny problem of appropriating the water from the Murray River system. A tentative agreement was finally signed in 1913 which divided the water supply proportionately among New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia. The transplanted American seemed to be working wonders,^ In June of 1913, officials at the University of Cali­ fornia contacted Mead about a position in the Agricultural

^Mead to Lucy Mead, December 15, 1912; to Tom and Lucy Mead, December 25, 1912; to Tom Mead, February 6, 1913, T. C. Mead Papers. Mead to Wheeler, November 11, 1912, March 10, 1913; Wheeler to Mead, January 25, 1913, UCAB. Mead Interview, January 3, 1970. Mead also brought back to the United States the body of his close friend, Governor William A. Richards, who died of a heart attack in Melbourne on July 25, 1912. Tacetta Walker, "Wyoming's Fourth Gover­ nor—William A. Richards", Annals of Wyoming, XX (July 1948) , 128. 2lMead to A. C. McClure, December 7, 1922, Mead Papers, Carton 1, Greenwood, Social History, 24 0. 82 College. He wanted to accept, but vacillated when actually faced with the prospect of leaving Australia. However, after he was formally offered the Professorship of Rural Institutions at Berkeley in September of 1913, he submitted his resignation to the premier of Victoria. Mead wrote Tom that it was "accepted so quick that [he] felt humiliat­ ed and . . , decided to leave on the October boat". He cabled Wheeler of his plans, but in the meantime, the news leaked out, and "settlers, businessmen, and everybody from janitor up" pressured the government to retain him. This ground swell of support caused Mead to change his mind because he felt he should show that he appreciated the regard felt for him. He wired the University for permission to delay his arrival until the end of the irrigation season in May of 1914, but confided to Tom that he was inclined to stay in Melbourne for another five years.^2 Mead now had agreements with two places. In Feb­ ruary of 1914, Victoria officials again arranged for him to travel to America to study recent developments in irriga­ tion and to straighten out his commitments. At Berkeley,

2^Mead to Tom Mead, June 6, 24, September 16, November 10, 1913; to Tom and Lucy Mead, November 25, 1913; Mr. and Mrs. Alva Adams to Mead, November 7, 1913; Alex B, Cobband to Mead, September 4, 1913, T. C. Mead Papers. Mead to Victor H. Henderson, December 15, 1913, UCAB, 83 Wheeler urged Mead to rejoin the faculty, and agreed to let him return to Australia annually for two or three months, but this appeared an unworkable arrangement and was dropped. Mead was also approached by Secretary of the Interior Franklin K. Lane about taking over the director­ ship of the Reclamation Service. Lane wanted to replace Frederick H. Newell, who was under attack from the water users. Mead gave some thought to the proposition, but in­ dicated that he did not want to revive that old bitterness. After visiting friends at the University and in the federal government, Mead sailed for Melbourne with plans to stay for at least another year. 2"? During the spring and summer of 1914, a severe drought and problems with settlers, "many of whom will neither pay up nor get out", made those months the hardest Mead had faced in Australia. He felt the strain but did not seem to care because he believed himself to be needed. In September, the University of California tendered him a new offer at a better salary than had been made earlier. Meanwhile, World War I had begun and this created uncer­ tainties as to the future of the Australian planned

^Mead to Tom Mead, December 12, 1913, T. C. Mead Papers; Adams Interview, 99-101, ROHOUC. Wheeler to Mead, January 15, 1914; Mead to Wheeler, March 26, 1914, UCAB. Mead, Report of Investigations in America, 1. 84 settlements and to Mead's own presence there. Immigration had started to taper off early in 1914, and ceased with the outbreak of hostilities. Mead feared that it would be a long conflict, and that funds to continue his programs would be drastically curtailed, if not stopped, until the war was over.^ By the end of the year, Mead was giving serious consideration to the teaching position at Berkeley. He was uneasy over the war and the increasingly hostile attitude of Australians toward American neutrality. He was afraid that this would affect his relations with the government. In January of 1915, Mead tendered his resigna­ tion to Victoria officials effective as soon as the irriga­ tion season ended in the spring. In May, the Mead family sailed for San Francisco. 25 Mead's departure was genuinely regretted in Aus­ tralia. He had made important and lasting contributions to the development of that continent-country. In letter after letter, settlers expressed their appreciation for his

^Mead to Tom Mead, Easter Sunday [?], July 1, August 24, September 20, 1914, January 17, 1915; to Lucy Mead, August 8, 1914, T. C. Mead Papers. Mead Interview, January 3, 1970; Kreutzer Interview, January 7, 1970. ^Mead interview, January 3, 1970; Mead to Chester Rowell, January 15, 1915, Chester Rowell Papers, Bancroft Library, University of California. 85 efforts in their behalf. He knew many of them personally and had always shown an interest in their welfare on his numerous tours of the countryside. In 1915, a Royal Com­ mission investigating closer settlement noted that Mead had solved a great problem in Victoria "where previous attempts . . . had been ignominious in their failure". The Minister of Water Supply called him "an enthusiast, and it was only an enthusiast who could have got irrigation started at all". Government officials lamented his leaving, but were grateful for the eight years he had devoted to improving their country. 2 6 Mead called his years in Victoria "the most fruit­ ful experience of his life". It taught him the importance of team work and demonstrated the validity of the ideas on irrigation that he had preached for many years. He had become thoroughly embued with the Australian attitude toward government paternalism during his stay. In.an article in The Independent in 1911, he had written that the great lesson for America was that Australians "have learned that they can act wisely and efficiently in carrying out great works for the common good . . . and it is the welfare of the many rather than the enrichment of the few, which is

Baker, "Mead in Australia"; S. McTavish to Mead, April 29, 1915; A. E. Lester to Mead, July 4, 1923; C. McDonald to Mead, n.d., Mead Papers, Carton 4. the governing principle". By the time he left Victoria, these sentiments had become much stronger. He told the Royal Commission on Closer Settlement in 1915 that the "individual cannot be considered in a matter of national development. The individual must give way in the interest of the state". Shortly thereafter, he left Australia con­ vinced that the United States was behind the rest of the world in industrial and social legislation. 27

^(Melbourne) The Age, April 22, 1915, August 18, 1923. Mead, "What Australia Can Teach America", The Independent, LXXI (August 17, 1911), 370; Conkin, "Elwood Mead", 89. CHAPTER 5

WARTIME WORK

Mead returned to the United States in 1915 en­ thusiastic over his success in Australia, and anxious to establish planned settlements in his native country. Since his visit in 1914, he had been disseminating information on closer settlement and rural credits in Australia to various persons throughout the nation. He was quite optimistic that his ideas would be accepted because many people in America seemed interested in them. He was lured back to the University of California by officials there who were especially concerned about the condition of agriculture in the state. In Washington D.C., leaders also sought his advice, and for the next five years Mead devoted half of his time to advising on national problems of reclamation and settlement."'" In January of 1915, after Mead had accepted the position at Berkeley, Secretary of the Interior Franklin K. Lane wrote to him in Australia seeking his assistance.

•^Mead to Rowell, November 15, 1914; Rowell to Mead, December 11, 1914, Rowell Papers. Dean Thomas F. Hunt to Mead, April 8, 1915, UCAB; Mead Interview, January 3, 1970; Adams Interview, 283-85, ROHOUC.

87 Lane asked Mead to serve as chairman of a Central Board of Cost Review which was being set up to investigate the financial charges on all federal reclamation projects in the United States. The Newlands Act, which had been in operation for 13 years, was being severely criticized by the water users. They particularly complained about the high charges which they were being asked to pay for the construction of the irrigation facilities. In 1914 the length of time for repayment had been doubled from 10 to 20 years, and some provision made for graduated payments. This had not stilled dissent, and early in 1915 Lane called for a thorough review of project costs, and a revision of repayments where it was deemed justified. 2 Mead agreed to accept the chairmanship after it was arranged that headquarters for the Central Board would be at Berkeley so that this work would not interfere with his teaching duties at the University. Two other men, General William L. Marshall, consulting engineer to the Secretary of the Interior, and Ignatius D. O'Donnell, supervisor of irrigation for the Reclamation Service, were to serve with Mead on the Central Board. Their job was to evaluate and make recommendations based on the findings of local boards

^Mead to Wheeler, March 9, 1915, UCAB. "Revision of Project Costs", Reclamation Record, VI (March 1915), 97-100; Lampen, Aspects of Reclamation, 60. 89 set up on each of the federal reclamation projects in the West.3 The recommendations of Mead's Central Review Board were disappointing to the water users. They had expected that the inquiries would mean significant alterations in the charges they had to repay the government for construc­ tion costs. Their optimism increased when the local board's report on the Carlsbad, New Mexico, irrigation project was published in June of 1915. This was the first local board to complete its work. Before its findings were submitted to Lane, or examined by Mead's Central Board, they were released to the press and widely distributed in other irrigated areas.^ The Carlsbad project was perhaps the worst irriga­ tion scheme in which the government had become involved. Started as a private irrigation enterprise in 1887, it suffered constant financial difficulties and was on the verge of ruin when the Reclamation Service took it over in 1904. Federal estimates initially called for the

JMead to Rowell, June 24, 1915, Rowell Papers; Mead to Wheeler, March 9, 1915, UCAB. Franklin K. Lane to Mead, February 27, 1915; to A. P. Davis, March 11, 1915, file 22-63, ADDI. "Revision of Project Costs", 97-100. ^"Report of the Central Board of Review on the Carlsbad Project, New Mexico", Reclamation Record, VII (July 1916), 298. expenditure of $450,000, but this figure more than doubled by the time work was completed in 1912. The water users had agreed to pay $31 per acre for construction costs, but when additional work was found to be necessary, they volun­ tarily assented, in 1911, to an increase in the construction charge to $4 5 an acre. By 1915 they decided that this was too high, and the local board of review confirmed their objections. The board issued its report with two recom­ mendations: one set the charge at $34 an acre, the other at $20.71.5 When the Central Review Board studied the Carlsbad report, the three members rejected the local body's find­ ings. Instead of approving a reduction in charges, they recommended a repayment rate of $47 an acre. Mead's group expressed sympathy for the "small number of water users" who were having a hard time, but observed that their plight was not due to high water charges or construction costs. The evils of the project were "inflated land prices, high freight charges, high interest rates, alien landlordism, [and] a nominal and not actual compliance with the regula­ tions fixing the size of farm units that closely verges on fraud". Any reduction, would "simply go into the pockets of the present speculative owners or increase the value of

5Ibid., 299-300, 308. 91 any mortgage on these lands, or both". Unfortunately, the conclusions of the Central Board concerning the Carlsbad project applied to most of the ventures of the federal government in reclamation, and little change was made in the construction charges.® In July of 1915, after six projects had been in­ vestigated, Mead wrote to Interior Secretary Lane and sug­ gested changes in the Reclamation Act. In five of the cases studied, the land was mainly in private hands when the government began its construction program. The improve­ ments had increased values from four to tenfold, he declared, but excessive prices charged to settlers for this land tended to absorb all the benefits of the government's ex­ penditures. Much of the responsibility for this situation could be traced to speculators who were "among the most active in urging that a large part of the cost be written off". Mead's solution was to fix the price at which land was to be sold before the works were undertaken.^ In the same letter, Mead suggested that interest be included in cost repayments. The lack of interest

£ Ibid. Central Review Board to Lane, September 27, 1915, Mead Papers, Carton 18. See also reports on the various projects in Reclamation Record, VII-VIII (December, 1916r January - April, 1917). ^Mead to Lane, July 26, 1915, Mead Papers, 18. 92 charges amounted to a donation to wealthy landowners, and made the actual settlers "feel that they are the objects of special privilege; it whets the appetite for further concessions; it has in it the seeds of repudiation". Finally, Mead asked for active government participation in the settlement of both public- and privately-owned land. Most of the good acreage was in private hands, but the owners could not afford to give aid to settlers. Such assistance was necessary if projects were to succeed. He warned, however, that aid should be extended in a way that "the well-to-do shall not absorb the benefits and the poor O settler shoulder the burden". In his reply to Mead, Lane stated that a 1914 act provided that the government may fix a maximum price on privately owned lands within a project. It was true that contracts already made did not call for interest, but he agreed with Mead that "this principle should be adopted [on] any new works". As to financial aid in settlement, the Secretary expressed great interest in the idea, and hoped that a rural credits bill which was slated to come up g in the next session of Congress would provide for this.

^Ibid. g Lane to Mead, July 31, 1915, Mead Papers, Carton 18. Mead's interest went beyond merely correcting de-. ficiencies in the Reclamation Act. He wanted to set up a "demonstration area" to test the feasibility and value of a scheme similar to the Australian system. In June of 1915 he discussed plans for this with Lane in Washington, and the following month wrote the Secretary that he had found an ideal spot on the Wind River in Wyoming for the experiment. In this letter, Mead stressed the importance of interest on any amortized charges for land, construc­ tion, or improvements. He pointed out that interest would disarm opponents by showing that the demonstration project would not cost taxpayers anything, and would also remove criticism from older settlers who had not been aided in improving their farms. Further steps required Congres­ sional approval, and Mead urged Lane to push the idea and become "the pioneer" in the introduction of planned settle­ ments in America.^ A model planned settlement which would be solvent and demonstrate the blessings of rural life was the ideal for which Mead strove. He believed that if he could create one such community in the United States—as he had done on numerous projects in Australia—that it would serve as a

10Mead to Lane, July 15, 1915, Mead Papers, Carton 18. pattern for the revitalizing of agriculture. The best starting place for land reform, he insisted, was on a reclamation project where an entirely new area could be developed. The expertise that went into the engineering aspects of irrigation would be extended to include economic, agricultural and social planning. All the needs of those who took up land there would be fulfilled; farms would be grouped around a village with stores, church, school, co­ operative markets, and a recreational center. The dreary life and drudgery of the countryside would be transformed, and the migration to the city would cease. 11 Mead, of course, was not the only one concerned about the condition of agrarian America, nor did his ideas on settlement pertain exclusively to the problems of rural life. Others saw the planned community as an opportunity to create jobs for the unemployed, and later as a reward for returning soldiers. In 1915, Secretary of Labor William B. Wilson proposed some such scheme to cut down the number of persons out of work. He believed that the government's role should be expanded to include positive programs to take the place of the benefits previously available through the homestead law and the frontier

•^Mead to Rowell, January 24, 1916, Rowell Papers. Mead, "Government Aid and Direction in Land Settlement", American Economic Review, Supplement, VIII (March 1918), 72-75, 82-85. 95 functioning as a safety valve. A colonization bill which called for the expenditure of $50 million was introduced in 1916. Mead helped draft it, and testified before the Labor Committee on behalf of the measure, but it was never reported out of committee. When several lawmakers asked him to draft another proposal, he wrote Lane that there was a "growing recognition of the need for something dif­ ferent—an opportunity to begin the greatest agrarian reform of a century, and I should like to see you recog­ nized as the one who put it through". However, before anything could be done, America entered World War I, and domestic issues were temporarily forgotten. 12 The European conflict offered a temporary respite to settlers on reclamation projects. Rising prices and an expanding demand for farm goods gave the marginal farmer new hope for success. In fact, food shortages led the government to a concentrated campaign to increase agri­ cultural production. In 1917, Mead was called to Washington by Herbert Hoover, head of the Food Administration, to assist with this aspect of the war effort. Hoover told

•*-2Mead to Lane, December 17, 1916, file 2-155 (part 2), General Land Office, Department of Interior, Record Group 48, National Archives. Annual Report of the Department of Labor, 1915, 43-44; Paul K. Conkin, Tomorrow A New World (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1959), 49-50, University of California President Benjamin Wheeler that it seemed "almost imperative that the Food Administration should have his [Mead's] assistance and counsel in helping solve some of the problems coming before it". The Cali­ fornia professor's chief assignment was to help arrange for "harmonious and efficient cooperation" between the States Relation Service of the Agriculture Department and the Reclamation Service of the Department of the Interior. This was no easy task because of the rivalry between the two departments in the area of reclamation which dated back at least to the Newell-Mead conflict in the 90's. World War I perhaps quieted, but did not end the bicker- mg.13 The war seemed to offer the Reclamation Service an excuse to expand its operations and to utilize the works already built. Two new projects were started in 1917, and Mead hoped to complete the facilities for irrigating the rest of the lands under the projects already in operation. However, he spent most of his time visiting the 24 reclama­ tion projects scattered throughout the West, consulting with local officials on production problems, and advising on the best crops to plant. When the opportunity presented

•^Herbert Hoover to Wheeler, August 13, 1917; Wheeler to Hoover, August 22, 1917, UCAB. 97 itself, he backed ideas that went beyond this routine approach. For example, University of Nevada students planned to farm a 1000-acre tract of land on the Truckee- Carson project to help increase food production. Mead was enthusiastic and urged the Reclamation Service to cooperate. A. P. Davis, director of the Service, agreed to level the land and to allow payments for the water to be made after the crops were harvested. However, he noted that his agency had no funds to furnish seed, agricultural equipment, or to pay for labor. Private capital would have to finance this aspect of the scheme. Therefore, the proposal was aban­ doned, but the idea that the government should extend its operations to include such features received wide pub- licxty.i • -4. 14 Although the Truckee-Carson scheme was advanced as a wartime measure, the idea that the government should provide more than land and water to irrigators was a basic tenet to Mead. He convinced Franklin Lane of the efficacy of such a proposition and the Secretary recommended an appropriation of $2 million to put unused reclamation land into production in 1917. Agriculture Department officials

•^R. A, Pearson to W. A. Taylor, May 21, June 2, 1917; Taylor to Pearson, May 29, June 2, 1917; H. J. Hough to Mead, May 11, 1917, file R2-7, General Reclamation Projects, Department of Agriculture [GRPDA], Record Group 48, National Archives. opposed the plan. They not only objected to another de­ partment going into farming, but they questioned whether "that activity [was] a desirable one for any branch of the Government", In the main, the protestations against the proposed funds were well taken: several years would elapse before these areas would produce any sizable quantity of crops, and in the meantime the manpower needed to prepare the land would add to the serious farm labor shortage. By then the war presumably would be over. However, Agri­ culture departmental chauvinism and rivalry with the Interior also seemed to be important considerations. As one official put it, "When the Interior Department gets ready to go into farming, it will do so if we do not beat them to it , , , ,"15 Although the war failed to provide an opportunity to expand the functions of the Reclamation Service, it did serve to relieve temporarily the difficulties of settlers on irrigated lands. The increased demand for foodstuffs, with its attendent rise in prices, not only lent support to those who advocated extending cultivated areas, but it also made farming economically attractive once again. This in turn aided Mead in his struggle to have his colonization

Warren Allen to L, W. Page, December 13, 1917; Pearson to [?] Harrison, December 20, 1917; Harrison to Karl Kellerman, December 27, 1917, file R2-7, GRPDA. scheme tried; irrigated farms were proving to be a financial success. What better way, therefore, to reward the dough­ boy who was sacrificing his share of wartime prosperity "over there" than to provide a farm for him when he re­ turned? In July of 1918, Secretary Land requested that Mead's leave from the University of California be extended so that he could assist in the problems of postwar recon­ struction. Lane had been attracted to Mead's plan for organized land settlement before the war, and now he wanted his expertise in promoting this idea for the bene­ fit of returning soldiers. The California professor had been collecting information on the feasibility of this since March, and Lane wanted him to stay in Washington until legislation to set the plan in action could be passed. In May, Lane had written to Woodrow Wilson proposing such a scheme and had received his endorsement. Various bills along the lines sketched in Lane's letter to the President were introduced in Congress."'"*'

•^Mead to G. W. Scott, July 30, 1918, Mead Papers, Carton 5; Mead to Lucius E. Pinkham, March 22, 1918, file 8-80, Reclamation Service, Soldier Settlement, Department of Interior [RSSSDI], Record Group 48, National Archives. For a discussion of the various proposals put forward, see Bill G. Reid, "Proposals for Soldier Settlement During World War I", Mid-America, XLVI (July 1964), 172-86, and "Franklin K, Lane's Idea for Veterans' Colonization, 1918- 1921", Pacific Historical Review, XXXIII (November 1964), 100 The most important bill embodying Mead's ideas was introduced by his friend Wyoming Representative Frank Mondell, It called for an appropriation of $500 million to develop projects of family-sized farms in each state. The soldier would make a down payment of five percent, and the remainder would be financed over a 4 0 year period. In order to avoid the approbrium of a government giveaway, interest was to be charged. Written with Mead's advice, the act envisioned the reclaiming of swamp, cutover, and abandoned areas, in addition to the arid lands of the West. The work of preparing these sites for cultivation would be done by ex-servicemen, thus insuring work for them during the reconversion period, and until the farms would be ready.17 Mead found that convincing legislators of the merits of the Mondell bill as well as attracting service­ men to the scheme, was no easy task. He had conducted a

447-61; Henry Irving Dodge, "Back to the Land for Soldiers, An Interview with Franklin K. Lane, Secretary of the In­ terior", Country Gentleman, LXXXIV (February 15, 1919), 3-4, 43-47. ^Lane to Claude Kitchin, September 25, 1919, file 8-80, RSSSDI. "National Soldier Settlement Act", House Report, 216, 66 Cong., 1 Sess. (Serial 7592), 12-14. Mead's only objection to the bill was that it required only five year's residence for title. Mead wanted a 10 year period in order to prevent speculation. Mead to Lane, October 1, 1919, file 516, CSGCRB. 101 survey of soldier settlement plans in other English-speak­ ing countries, and the Reclamation Service published it in 1918 as part of their propaganda program. Almost everyone agreed on the desirability of rewarding the returning men, but the form it should take was another matter. To many legislators, the Mondell bill was attractive because it aimed at using New Nationalism means to achieve Jeffersonian ideals and because it was the least expensive of the proposi­ tions put forward. Initially the proposal was supported by a broad base including "back-to-the-landers", national leaders, business and labor groups, veterans and people in those areas most likely to benefit—the West and the South. On the other hand, almost everyone connected with farming—from Secretary of Agriculture David F, Houston down to the lowliest farmer--denounced the plan. The ob­ jections varied, but in the main, criticism centered on the fear of overproduction and low prices. 18

William Cattanach to Mead, October 4, 1918, Mead Papers, Carton 4. Mead, Summary of Soldier Settlements in English-speaking Countries (Washington: Government Print­ ing Office, 1918); Bill G. Reid, "Agrarian Opposition to Franklin K. Lane's Proposal for Soldier Settlement, 1918- 1921", Agricultural History, XLI (April 1967), 168-73. Other proposals for benefits for soldiers included cash bonuses whose cost varied from $1.2 to $20 billion depending on the size of the bonus; individual farm loans which would run from $16 to $4 0 billion; and loans for city or country homes, estimated at $10 billion. "National Soldier Settlement Act", 2, 102 Backers of the program joined Mead in waging a vigorous campaign in its behalf. They put special im­ portance on contacting servicemen and convincing them to urge passage of the bill. Mead arranged to have Frank Adams go to France after the Armistice as part of the Army Education Corps to talk on farm opportunities for veterans. Mead had planned to go, but other duties prevented his leaving the country; he was busy travelling throughout the United States promoting the scheme. Nine hundred thousand copies of Hey There I Do You Want a Home on the Farm?, a booklet with a return post card, were distributed among the troops by the Interior Department, and 140,000 replies were received by the Interior Department. However, the result of all this promotion had little effect on lawmakers in Washington. By the time any of the measures were reported out of committee, the war was over and the peace negotia­ tions had come and gone. Enthusiasm for rewarding the soldiers waned once the guns were silenced. Other issues— the Red Scare, strikes, the battle over the treaty, and the election of 1920—came to the fore. America moved toward "normalcy"--the continued industrialization and urbaniza­ tion of the nation. The idea of rejuvenating the countryside 103 with model communities of ex-servicemen was not a part of I Q that scheme, J The leaders of the movement for soldier settle­ ments were not easily disuaded by the declining sentiment for their plan. Although he ended his full-time service with the Interior Department in April of 1919, Mead con­ tinued to travel extensively, explaining his scheme and urging support for it. He was aided in this by the apparent success of the state settlement established under his direction in 1918 at Durham, California. In 1920, he wrote Helping Men Own Farms, which painted a glowing picture of colonization in Australia and California. Despite these efforts and those of other backers, no federal legislation was enacted. Although bills were debated in committee, and one even passed the House in 1920, the only settlement measure to reach the White House was contained in a bonus bill that President Warren Harding vetoed in 1921. 20 Thus ended, for a while at least, Mead's dream of a national reordering of the countryside. He had spent almost half of his time between 1915 and 1919 working for

•^Lane to Frederick B. Wells, October 20, 1919, file 8-8 0, RSSSDI; Adams Interview, 277-78, ROHOUC. Conkin, Tomorrow A New World, 53; Reid, "Agrarian Opposition", 178, and "Lane's Ideas for Veterans", 459. 2®Mead, Helping Men Own Farms (New York: The Mac- millan Company, 1920); Conkin, Tomorrow A New World, 53-54. 104 the federal government, and it had been a valuable ex­ perience. Through his position on the Cost Review Board, he became thoroughly conversant with the entire scope of reclamation in the West. This enabled him to point out its defects and it gave him a platform to publicize the lessons he had learned in Australia. He was disappointed but not discouraged that none of his ideas had come to fruition either before the war, or in connection with the soldier settlement scheme. His efforts for the next four years would be devoted mainly to his duties at the Uni­ versity at Berkeley and to land settlement in California. CHAPTER 6

DURHAM AND DELHI

Although Mead failed to achieve any of his goals on a national scale, he was much more successful in Cali­ fornia. With his international reputation as an expert on irrigation and settlement, and with the backing of many influential persons concerned about the condition of rural life, Mead convinced the state legislature to appropriate funds in 1917 and 1919 to establish two demonstration communities. A Land Settlement Board was set up with Mead as the head, and colonies were founded at Durham and Delhi. Mead directed these two settlements for six years, in addition to his teaching duties at the University of Cali­ fornia. He hoped that they would be examples for a re­ ordering of the countryside, but unfortunately they were beset by serious problems and eventually failed. Mead's reappointment in 1915 at the University of California had been arranged by people interested in im­ proving the condition of rural life in California. Since B. A. Etcheverry had replaced Mead as head of the Irriga­ tion Department, President Wheeler decided to establish a new position--Professor of Rural Institutions--with Mead being given a free hand to do what he wanted in his field.

105 106 The appointment was ideal. Mead's interests ranged over a broad scope of agrarian issues—from sowing to selling, from the education of farmers to their social life. His primary ambition, of course, was the introduction of his Australian plan of settlement into the United States. Mead believed that the first step toward securing legislation for his land settlement idea was to demonstrate a need for change. In 1914 while visiting the United States, he found Governor Hiram V. Johnson receptive to the Australian experiment. The next year, however, Johnson would not support legislation to issue bonds for land colonization because of his interest in another bond issue and because he wanted a study made before he committed himself. Backers of the settlement plan were sure he would support a measure if they could "report a matured scheme". A.State Commission on Colonization and Rural Credits was established by the legislature in 1915. It included Chester Rowel1, Harris Weinstock, Mortimer Fleishhacker and Dean David T, Barrows, Mead served as chairman. In February of 1916, the prestigious Commonwealth Club of San Francisco voted $1000 to aid in the research, A co­ operative investigation was launched, with Mead representing

•^Rowell to Mead, December 11, 1914, Rowell Papers; Hunt to Mead, April 8, 1915, UCAB; Mead Interview, January 3, 1970. 107 the State Commission, Frank Adams acting for the Club, and D. N. Morgan of the University's College of Agriculture o serving as secretary. Under Mead's direction, an extensive survey was made in 1916 to determine the nature and condition of private land settlement schemes in California. Thirty- two typical colonies throughout the state were investi­ gated, Practically everyone connected with agriculture and irrigation in California assisted in gathering informa­

tion; county agentsf agriculture college faculties, managers of colonies, rural bank officials, actual settlers, and Mead's students. Thousands of individual interviews were conducted and written statements were elicited from an equal number of persons. Farmers were asked to state the size of their farm, capital at the time of purchase, pur­ chase price, terms of the sale, details of improvements before and since purchase, acreage under cultivation, stock census, and present indebtedness. Many respondents also made additional remarks about their conditions. Summary conclusions were then drawn up on each area investigated. 3

2Rowell to Mead, December 11, 1914, June 30, 1915; Mead to Rowell, March 9, 1916, January 11, 1917; D. N. Mor­ gan to Rowell, May 16, 1917, Rowell Papers. Mead to Tom Mead, February 29, 1916, T. C. Mead Papers; Wheeler to Mead, February 27, 1915, UCAB; Adams Interview, 283-85, ROHOUC. •^Cartons 16 and 17 of the Mead Papers are filled with these statements. 108 The composite picture that emerged from this survey confirmed what Mead contended—there was a definite need for reform in colonization practices, and indeed in rural life in California. Many farmers blamed their misfortunes on the land companies; some charged misrepresentation and others outright fraud. In general they painted a black picture. The reports drafted by the investigators, while noting the existence of unscrupulous private enterprises, did not indict the land companies as such, but rather point­ ed to the defects in the land colonization system itself. The basic problem was that private companies were concerned with developing and selling land for a profit, not in social planning or job training. Although some were dishonest in their dealings, the principal difficulty was that they did little to assist the settler. This was not because companies wished to trick people into buying, and then leave them stranded, but because they neither fully understood what the farmer needed to begin successful operations, nor did they have the funds to help him.^ The comprehensive plan drawn up by Mead's Commis­ sion to deal with these problems called for a "state demonstration in scientific colonization". Mead insisted

4[Mead], "Protection of Settlers Requires Public Examination and Approval of All Irrigated Colony Enter­ prises", typescript report of Commercial Land Settlement Investigations, 1916, Mead Papers, Carton 16. 109 that this would not be an experiment because it followed the same policy successfully pursued in Australia. Such a project would show land companies a scheme that would bene­ fit both the developer and the settler. According to this proposal, which was submitted to Governor Johnson in 1916, California would purchase a tract of 10,000 acres selected by a special committee. This land would be divided into 200 farms varying in size from 20 to 100 acres. There also would be 100 two-acre farm labor plots and 300 acres for schools, public buildings and a townsite. The subdivision of the regular farms would be determined by the quality of the soil and the crops to be grown. 5 After the site had been selected and subdivided, the next setp would be to prepare the land for cultivation. This would entail levelling the land and building the irri­

gation ditches, (Mead believed an irrigated area essential for closer settlement because a farmer could grow a specialized crop on a small acreage.) The project would then be opened for inspection and applications accepted from prospective farmers. A board would select the settlers. This process was designed to weed out potential

failures. If a person lacked sufficient capital or was

^Ibid. Mead, "Solution to the Land Question1', The New Republic, VI (April 29, 1916), 348-49. 110 inexperienced at farming, he was to be offered a two-acre laborers' plot. These allotments were to serve a dual purpose: they provided the additional manpower needed for seasonal shortages on the larger farms, and they enabled the laborer to acquire the necessary skill or cash to ad­ vance to a regular farm,^ The credit arrangement Mead proposed likewise was designed to correct evils in the financing of settlers. According to the Commission's report, it was the practice of land companies to sell at one-fourth or one-third down, with 5,8 years the average time allowed for payment in full, and 6.9 percent the average contract rate of interest. The result was that the farmer usually expended all of his capital just to get started, then had to borrow—if he could--to purchase equipment and meet an extremely high repayment schedule while trying to overcome the formidable obstacles of making virgin land productive. Mead proposed an initial cash outlay of five percent, with interest of percent and amortized annual payments on the principal of 1 *2 percent beginning at the end of the fourth year. In this way, the repayment would take 36 years, and the farmer

^[Mead], "Protection of Settlers". Ill would have funds to buy his equipment and pay for state constructed dwellings, outbuildings, and fences.^ Thus when a family moved onto one of the farms, everything would be ready to begin operations. The Mead scheme went beyond this, however, and provided for the con­ tinuing needs of the colonizer. "A single competent superintendent", with the assistance of the State Agricul­ tural College, would direct operations, collect payments, give advice on farm management and cultivation, and aid in buying livestock and equipment. Mead believed the advisor to be the most important feature of the plan. In Australia, the overseer constantly watched the progress of the farmer, gave him advice, and if he did not heed it, reported him to the authorities who controlled loans or extensions of payments. Mead envisioned the superintendent exercising these functions at the proposed colonies in California, Another benefit in such a project would be a cooperative effort in the purchase and sale of goods, giving the farmer the financial advantage of group bargaining. Finally, the closer settlement idea would transform the social life of

^Ibid. Mead, "State Colonies to be Centers of Purebred Livestock", The Pacific Rural Press, XCIV (September 22, 1917), 277. 112 the rural areas by ending the isolation of the country and bringing people together in a community.^ In the fall of 1916, when the report was submitted to Hiram Johnson, Harris Weinstock, a member of the Com­ mission, asked Johnson ''to father" the plan outlined, and to present it to the Legislature as "your child", If the act was passed, he said, it would be "the crowning glory of your very remarkable gubernatorial record", A bill embodying the general scheme was drafted in January of 1917 and the governor agreed to support it. Sharp opposi­ tion arose immediately from real estate men who called it an attack on meritorious land agents and private coloniza­ tion companies, and branded it as governmental intrusion into business. The popular Sunset Magazine, on the other hand, favored the plan, as did a majority of the lawmakers in the California Assembly. In 1917, the legislature en­ acted a bill which set up a Land Settlement Board and appropriated $260,000 to start a demonstration project. 9

^Mead, Helping Men Own Farms, 140-60; Mead, Govern­ ment Aid and Direction in Land Settlement (Fort Collins, Colorado: The Courier Press, 1916), 10-11. ^Harris Weinstock to Hiram V. Johnson, November 10, 1916; Mead to Tom Mead, February 18, 1917, T. C. Mead Papers. Mead to Rowell, January 3, 1917, Rowell Papers. Mead, Help­ ing Men Own Farms, 226-27. Of the total funds appropriated, $10,000 was for adminstrative purposes and $250,000 was to constitute a revolving fund which was to be repaid to the state within 50 years at four percent interest. 113 Dr, Mead was named chairman of the Land Settlement Board, and immediately began making plans for the project. Although he was working for Herbert Hoover in connection with the war effort he was able to visit California fre­ quently to take care of his duties there. Mead had a great organizing ability and surrounded himself with subordinates in whom he had complete trust. In 1917 a 6,239 acre tract of land was purchased near Durham in the middle of the Sacramento Valley, and George C. Kreutzer was named super­ intendent of the proposed colony. In 1908 Kreutzer had gone to Australia, where he had served in a similar capacity under Mead. He was undoubtedly the closest personal friend that Mead ever had and thoroughly understood the methods and objectives which his mentor desired. A personable individual who inspired confidence among those around him, Kreutzer also had an excellent business sense.3"® The financial arrangements connected with starting the Durham colony were complicated. The $260,000 allotted

by the legislature was not enough to purchase land and con­ struct a settlement of the size envisioned by Mead. The

"^Walter E. Packard to Willa Klug Baura, April, 1964, 143, typescript interview, ROHOUC; Kreutzer Inter­ view, January 7, 197 0; Kreutzer file, Mead Papers, Carton 1. The other members of the Land Settlement Board included Mortimer Fleishhacker, president of the Anglo California Trust Company; Ex-Senator Frank P. Flint; Prescott F. Gogswell; and Judge William H. Langdon. .114 land alone cost almost $550,000 of which some $200,000 was paid in cash. This left only about $50,000 to make the necessary improvements. To supplement this, a $125,000 loan was obtained from the Federal Land Bank by an associa­ tion of settlers who turned the money over to the Board, With this cash, the ditches were prepared and the surface contoured. The College of Agriculture at the University of California, meanwhile, made surveys and classified the soil. On the basis of these reports, the project was sub­ divided into 110 farms varying in size from 8 to 300 acres, and 26 two-acre allotments for farm laborers, The property had cost an average of $80 an acre, and was sold for $150 an acre with prices ranging from $48 to $300 per acre. The first unit of land at Durham was opened in June of 1918 and the remainder in November. With over a thousand applicants, all 110 farms were sold immediately; there were six applicants for each farm laborer allotment. Mead's board carefully screened the prospective settlers. They felt that a man should possess some agricultural experience and have between $1,500 and $2,500 in cash, depending on the size of farm he wished to acquire. All persons se­ lected had farm experience, and they easily met the

•^California Division of Land Settlement Report 1927 (Sacramento: State Printing Office, 1928), 3-4, 13; Mead, Helping Men Own Farms, 109, 113-22, 174. 115 financial requirements, with an average initial capital of $6,232. The farm laborers came to Durham with an average net worth of $789, When the settler and his family took up residence, the project resembled an established farm community. The land had been prepared--much of it had been seeded for pasture'—and most of the homes were completed. Mead had obtained an architect from the State Engineer's Office to give advice on housing problems. A number of floor plans for dwellings were designed to meet the needs and financial capabilities of the settlers. These houses varied in price from $800 to $1,500. A savings was realized because ma­ terial was purchased in wholesale lots. When a person signed a contract for a farm, he selected a design and the house was ready when he moved onto his land. Since a 40 percent down-payment was required on a home in order to secure a state loan, and since no allotment could be sold or sublet until the land was paid for in full, the settler as well as the state had a sizable investment in the suc- cess of the project.1 "3

12Ibid. •^Mead, Helping Men Own Farms, 121-24. 116 To further assure success, Mead and Kreutzer en­ couraged cooperation among the settlers. Through coopera­ tives, farm equipment and seeds were purchased in whole­ sale lots, and cold storage facilities were built for goods which would be used for personal consumption. Since a majority of the farmers took up dairying, the mostrimportant *• + cooperative was the Stock Breeders' Association. This group set up a committee which, with the help of an expert, selected herds of cattle in other parts of California and brought them to Durham where they were sold to the indi­ vidual farmers. This method of purchasing cows insured uniformily high-quality animals at the lowest possible cost. The Stock Breeders' Association also constructed a central milk station to process and sell the dairy products, thus giving the settler an advantage when he marketed his goods.^ Although the colony at Durham was an apparent success from the start, the triumph was not nearly as great as its backers boasted. By January 1, 1920, the settlers had met all of their payments to the state on schedule, but most had used capital they had brought with them to pay part of these debts. In addition, farm prices were

"^Ibid., 140-60; Kreutzer Interview, January 7, 1970. 117 unusually high in 1918 and 1919 due to the war. Moreover, the Settlement Board had been able to select persons with almost ideal qualifications because of the large number of applicants. Yet, despite its shortcomings, the project did serve as a model to push for funds to open another settlement. Mead's plan to secure national legislation to provide farms for soldiers was not going well. In Cali­ fornia, however, he could point to Durham with its contented colonists and plead for similar developments as a bonus for returning veterans. In 1919 the California legislature approved another settlement bill, which in essence was the 1917 act amended to provide preference for war veterans. A revolving fund of one million dollars was established to finance this venture. Of this amount, $125,000 went to Durham. The idea of a bonus for the brave boys fighting in Europe was an important factor in enacting the law. The rhetoric about a reward for soldiers did not prove out in practice, however, and the Settlement Board soon found itself em­ broiled in a dispute with the American Legion. Actually, prefcrcnce for veterans meant very little because Mead insisted that the qualifications of experience and a minimum of $1,500 cash could not be lowered without jeopardizing

1^Mead, Helping Men Own Farms, 178. 118 the success of the program. The Legion called the whole thing a farce, noting that if a soldier were fortunate enough to have the capital required, he would not need to enter a state colony. Moreover, the million dollars al­ lotted was too small to develop more than one settlement, hardly a munificent gesture of gratitude to thousands of servicemen, 1 °6 In the selection of a site for the second settle­ ment, Mead's Board chose an 8,4 00 acre tract of land near Delhi in Merced County in the northern end of the San Joaquin Valley. They paid approximately $800,000 for it, the bulk going to Edgar M. Wilson. The land required a great deal of leveling and the installation of an extensive irrigation system of underground concrete pipe. This work acVued heavy expenditures to what many considered an in­ flated price for the property. For example, one member of the Board, Judge William H. Langdon, who had been raised in that area, told Mead that the tract was known as one "over which the jack rabbits carried their lunches when they crossed it". Nevertheless, Mead persuaded his

•^Ibid., 215-28; California Land Settlement Report, 1927, 10. Unidentified newspaper clipping, Mead Papers, Carton 8; Stockton California Record, December 3, 1919; San Francisco Examiner, February 20, 1920; Chico California Enterprise, March 16, 1920. J. Wintsr Smith to C. M. Wooster, January 1, 1925, file 8-19, Reclamation Service, Irrigation General, Department of Interior [RSIGDA], Record Group 48, National Archives. 119 colleagues to buy the site at an average cost of $96 an acre. To some degree, the defects of the property offered an initial advantage for the success of the colony. The large scale improvements necessary to prepare the land for cultivation provided employment for many of the settlers until their farms could become productive. A factory was set up to manufacture concrete pipe, and crews of colonists were hired to install it for the irrigation system. 1 7 The first unit of land at Delhi was opened on May 1, 1920; three additional blocks were offered for sale over the next 18 months. The land was divided into three cate­ gories; 9 5 farm laborer allotments of two-acres each; 65 poultry farms, averaging 0.78 acres; and 234 general farms averaging 3 0 acres apiece. Whereas dairying had become

•^Smith to Wooster, January 1, 1925, file 8-19, RSIGDA; Adams Interview, 288, ROHOUC; Mead to Charles Howard, January 26, 192 2, Mead Papers, Carton 1. There was considerable controversy over the value of the land at Delhi. One newspaper claimed that Wilson only paid $8 an acre for the land 12 years before he sold it for over $9 0. Frank T. Swett, a farmer, said it was worth only $19.53 an acre two years before the Board purchased it, while C. M. Wooster placed its value at $30 an acre. Frank Adams believed that what Wilson was paid "undoubtedly was too much". On the other hand, Walter Packard doubted that they "could have found a better site". Merced Sun (California), February 23, 1923; Wooster to Mark L. Requa, April 6, 1922, Mead Papers, Carton 2; Adams Interview, 290, and Packard Interview, 146-47, ROHOUC; Frank T. Swett to Willa Klug Baum, May, 1961, 52, ROHOUC. 120 the major concern at Durham, the Delhi settlers tended toward poultry and fruit growing. Because orchards re­ quired a longer time before they were productive, the settlers found themselves dependent on the outside income from building the irrigation facilities to survive. For­ tunately, during 1921 the state loaned another million dollars to continue construction of the irrigation works at Delhi. Riding the crest of success, Mead optimistically told the California Development Association in December of 1921 that under his scheme 250,000 colonists would be drawn to the state and some $300 million would be spent on in­ tensive cultivation. Delhi seemed destined for the same triumph that Durham appeared to be. The colonists were inspired by the project superintendent, Walter E. Packard, and by the enthusiasm and the personal concern Mead showed for their problems. A camaraderie and cooperation developed that seemed to counterbalance all obstacles. The methods of mutual aid that had worked so well at the first colony were adopted at Delhi. This communal spirit went beyond economic concord. For their social life, the colonists erected a Community Hall with a $5,000 gift from Edgar M.

-^Smith to Wooster, January 1, 1925, file 8-19, RSIGDi\. Mead to William H. Brooks, March 21, 1922; "Layout of Plans for Delhi", n.d., Mead Papers, Carton 1. 121 Wilson and a,matching sum which they borrowed. When it was dedicated in February of 1923, it was named Wilson Hall, and an oil portrait of Mead was hung in a place of honor in the main room, 1 7Q By 1923 Mead indeed was a popular figure, and found many journals eager to publish his views. He wrote numer­ ous articles on the two state colonies for some of the leading publication of the day, including The New Republic, The American Review of Reviews, Survey, Ladies Home Journal, World's Work, and Outlook, as well as various agricultural, learned, and scientific periodicals. In 1920 Mead wrote Helping Men Own Farms, an explanation of the planned settlement idea and a description of its operation in Australia and at Durham. The book was favorably reviewed and widely distributed. In addition, the colonies were featured in magazines and Sunday newspaper supplements, and commented on in editorial columns. The California professor was acclaimed a "miracle man", and a "practical man with a sound solution to a real problem", Mead welcomed all of this publicity as a chance to spread his ideas, and

•^Mead to E. 0. McCormick, December 26, 1922; to Hunt, February 27, 1923; to G. W. Dwinnell, March 24, 1923; Edgar M. Wilson to Mead, April 13, 1922, Mead Papers, Cartons 1-3. Packard Interview, 150, ROI-IOUC. Albert Shaw, "California's Farm Colonies", The American Review of Reviews, LXIV (October 1921), 400. 122 also as free advertising to attract applicants for the un- sold farmlands at Delhi. Of)u In spite of all the glowing articles about the con­ tented cultivator and the "new forty-niners", there were serious difficulties developing at Delhi. The settlement at Durham had been set up in propitious times, on good soil, and with a careful selection of colonists. By 1922, it seemed to be flourishing. Oh the other hand, Delhi had been started at the beginning of a prolonged agricul­ tural depression and was on far less than ideal farmland. As a consequence, Mead found it a problem to get people to

20Mead to Fremont Older, February 7, March 11, 1922, Mead Papers, Carton 1. Merced Sun, February 23, 1923; "Bob" Jones, "Agricultural Leaders of the Pacific West, I—Dr. Elwood Mead", San Francisco Examiner, December 10, 1922. For a sample of Mead's contributions see "Buying a Farm in the New Way: The Success of California's New Plan", Ladies Home Journal, XXXVI (June 1919), 36; "Farm Settlements on a New Plan", The American Review of Reviews, LIX (March 1919), 270-77; "Japanese Land Problem of Cali­ fornia", Annals of the American Academy, XCIII (January 1921), 51-55; "New Forty-niners", Survey, XLVII (January 28, 1922), 651-58; "How to Build Up the Rural West", Sunset, L (June 1923), 32-33. For some articles about Mead and his plan see W. V. Woehlke, "Be Sure You're Right, Then Stick! How Elwood Mead Rose to the Top on This Principle", Sunset, XLV (December 1920), 27, and "Food First. How One Western State is Staking the Farmers", Sunset, XLV (October 1920), 35-38; Vernon L. Cady, "A Western Experiment in Land Settle­ ment", Survey XL (September 21, 1918), 684-86. The San Francisco Call ran a series of 20 articles on land settle­ ment in California, and over half of these articles dealt with the "Mead Plan", San Francisco Call, January-March, 1922, 123 purchase plots there. The widespread publicity from periodicals brought in thousands of inquiries, as did the assistance of railroad colonization departments, but few of these people had the desired qualifications. Standards were lowered, but interest dropped even more. By the end of 1922, almost 40 percent of the land remained unculti- vated. Optimistic predictions by Mead notwithstanding, the project was foundering. The idle acreage meant that a large part of the repayment to the state could not be met. When the state funds ran out and work on the underground irrigation system ceased, the marginal settlers lost their 91 outside employment and fell behind m their obligations. x Mead watched the affairs at the two colonies very closely. In fact, his methods often verged on being dic­ tatorial. The Board had control over loans to the settlers, and Mead discouraged improvements which did not increase income. In order to be eligible for a loan, a settler had to submit a detailed budget showing his pr.o.j^Gted...income _ and outlay. The superintendent sent this statement,"

^~Mead to McCormick, December 29, 1922; to C, L, Seagraves, December 29, 1922; to E. F, Benson, July 28, 1922; to Willard D. Ellis, February 28, 1923; to William Sproule, March 14, 1923, Mead Papers, Cartons 1-3. Packard Interview, 197; Swett Interview, 52; Adams Interview, 290, ROHOUC. Smith to Wooster, January 1, 1925, file 8-19, RSIGDZ-v, There are hundreds of inquiries about land at the two colonies in Mead Papers, Cartons 1-3, 124 together with his recommendation, to Mead, who passed on the application. As head of the Settlement Board, he wanted assurances that anyone "on the hairline between success and failure" did not overextend himself by borrowing for con" veniences under the guise of necessities. Mead did not believe, for example, that the settlers needed or could afford automobiles or the latest agricultural equipment until they paid for their farms. Along another line, he castigated colonists for signs of neglect'—such as dead trees on their property--which gave a bad impression to visitors. ^ The difficulties at Delhi could not be solved by sacrifice or hidden by neatly trimmed hedges? more money was needed to finance the project. In 1922, two bond issues were proposed to California voters. One called for 10 million dollars to provide homes for the war veterans, while the other asked three million dollars for land settle­ ment. With the land settlement funds, the rest of the irri­ gation system at Delhi would be completed, and other colo­ nies established in marginal reclamation areas. Mead

22Mead to Walter Packard, January 19, February 21, 28, 1922; to R. X. Rees, July 27, 1922; to Max E. Cook, April 7, 1922; to C, W. Hughett, February 6, 1922; to editor, Delhi News, August 7, 1922; Packard to Mead, February 18, 27, December 11, 1922, Mead Papers, Cartons 1-2. argued that unless this bond issue was approved, state settlement would cease, some irrigation districts would default, and the investment already made would be lost. Throughout the state, he pointed with pride to his two colonies, and to the tremendous amount of free publicity the state had received from stories about Durham and Delhi in the nation's press. With the first settlement booming, and the problems of the second not yet apparent, Mead stressed the idea that the plan cost the state nothing except the use of its credit. 23 Opponents of the land settlement bond issue argued that if Durham and Delhi already were a success, then their purpose—as demonstration projects--had been achieved. Hopefully this would encourage private companies to adopt similar methods. It was unnecessary for state paternalism

to continue; the government should get out of business. Mead defended his policies and encouraged his influential friends to support the measure, but his heart was really

not in it. At age 64, he was growing weary of the daily demands of directing the operations of the colonies, and

longed for the leisure of the classroom. He also wanted

^Mead to Alden Anderson, October 20, November 10, 1922; to Mortimer Fleishhacker, April 10, 1922; to Ben Walker, October 12, 1922; to O. V. P. Stout, May 31, 1922; to Charles F. Neylan, November 13, 1922, Mead Papers, Cartons 1-2, 126 to revise Irrigation Institutions and devote his time to university duties, Privately Mead predicted to friends that the bond issue would fail, and that regardless of its outcome' he would not accept reappointment as head when his term expired early in 1923, As he forcast, the issue was rejected—but by only 9,000 votes out of 700,000 ballots cast. Although he lamented that he had not worked a little harder, he interpreted such close returns as a vindication of his plan and as proof of the growing interest in land settlement. He claimed that a major factor in the passage of the 10 million dollar veterans' homes bond issue was the success of Durham and Delhi, while the presence of both issues at one election contributed to the defeat of land settle­ ment,25 Concurrent with the failure of the land settlement bond issue was the opening of the final section of the Delhi

2/*Mead to C. C, Davis, March 20, 1922; to Paul Shoup, October IS, 1922, Mead Papers, Cartons 1-2. "The State Colony Settlements", Transactions of the Commonwealth Club j- California, XVI (November 19 21), 276-78, ^5Mead to Stout, May 31, 1922; to Neylan, November 13, 1922; to A. J. McCune, November 8, 1922; to editor, San Francisco Call, n.d.; to Alvin Johnson, January 25, 1923; to Sydney Anderson, December 12, 1922; to R. R. Leslie, December 28, 19 22; to Alden Anderson, November 10, 1922; to Governor William D, Stephens, November 15, 1922, Mead Papers, Cartons 1-2, Mead to Tom Mead, November 7, 17, 1922, T. C. Mead Fapers. 127 farms. Despite Mead's avowed intention to sever his con­ nections with the Land Settlement Board, he could not accept the idea that his dream of rural rejuvenation was defeated. Almost immediately he began to work on ways to raise the money to complete the irrigation system at Delhi, to obtain settlers, and to defend what had already been accomplished. In January of 1923, Mead sounded out friends about re­ introducing the bond issue. He received some encourage­ ment, and his optimism soared. He decided to push for 10 or 20 million dollars with a provision that it be doled out a million dollars a year. He reasoned the three million dollars would "only get us started and we would have to fight it over again". However, the new governor, Friend W. Richardson, did not like the idea and nothing came of it. Someone suggested that the California Develop­ ment Association set up a private land settlement corpora­ tion, but Mead opposed this plan because it would lack "the drawing power of a state agency". Meanwhile, to relieve the immediate financial crisis, the Delhi farmers borrowed $315,000 from the Federal Land Bank. This money was paid to the Settlement Board which used it to keep the project operatxng. 26

^Mead to Alden Anderson, November 10, 1922, January 26, 1923; to Edward F. Adams, March 29, 1923; to Guy Earl, February 8, 1923; to Frank English, February 23, 128 The search continued for settlers to take up the remaining allotments. In January of 1923, George Kreutzer made an unsuccessful tour of the East to recruit colonists. The few who came were more than offset by those who left. Mead rejected a suggestion from a friend that sales meet­ ings be held throughout the San Joaquin Valley, He was afraid "to make too much noise for fear of reaction if the farms are not sold". He decided instead to place advertisements in the newspapers of the valley to attract attention to the opportunities at Delhx. 27 Local publicity about Delhi was not all favorable. In February a rumor spread that Japanese families were living at the settlement. The charge was patently absurd. One of the points Mead stressed in arguing for rural re­ form in California was the need to counter the so-called Yellow peril; if country life could not be made attractive and profitable for Americans, then the Japanese would take it over. Yet the hint that Asians were at the colony was sufficient to discredit the whole scheme. The American Legion, through its post at Delhi, investigated and found that Japanese were living north of the settlement and that

1923, Mead Papers, Cartons 1, 3. Smith to Wooster, January 1, 1925, file 8-19, RSIGDA. California Land Settlement Report, 1927, 5, 2^Mead to J. C, Forkner, February 12, 1923, Mead Papers, Carton 3. 129 a few children of colonists were attending an integrated school in the area. The Legion deplored this arrangement and filed a complaint with the county school trustees who quickly remedied the situation. O° ft Shortly after the stir over the Japanese was re­ solved, Mead sailed from San Francisco for a trip around the world. He planned to be gone six months. Kreutzer took charge of the two colonies for Mead, who had remained as head of the Land Settlement Board because Governor Richardson asked him to continue. About the time Mead left, the problems at Delhi became critical. With no more expedients to relieve the financial difficulties, the project languished, and Richardson vetoed the idea of in­ vesting any more money in the scheme. The farmers subsisted mainly on the crops they grew and the money they earned from poultry and dairying, but they were unable to meet their repayment schedules to the state. 29

28i>iead to Packard, February 26, 1923; to John H. Finley, November 27, 1922; Mead, "The Meeting of Orientals", Mead Papers, Cartons 1, 3, 12. Mead, "Japanese Land Prob­ lem", 5-^ — 54. A few Negroes applied at Delhi, and Mead ad­ vised them of a colony in Tulare County, California, where there were all blacks. Mead to 0. L. Lyons, January 31, 19 23, Mead Papers, Carton 3. 2^Mead to A. Davis, March 26, April 3, 1923, file 22-63, ADDI; Smith to Wooster, January 1, 1925, file 8-19, RSIGDA; Gladys Cummings to Mead, June 30, 1923, Mead Papers, Carton 3; Adams Interview, 289, ROHOUC. 130 By the summer of 1923, the Delhi settlement reached a state of desperation. Mead's secretary wrote him in Australia that "if the Islanders [sic] have more need for you than we have here they must be in a bad way". Mead returned to the United States at the end of the year, and severed his connection with the two colonies. In January of 1924, the governor appointed C. M, Wooster to head the Land Settlement Board, At the same time, the state legis­ lature appointed a special committee to investigate condi­ tions at Delhi. Based on its report, a large part of the debt was written off, giving the settlers virtually a fresh start. Despite this beneficence, within two years de­ ficiencies were mounting at the same rate as before the adjustment. In a fit of frustration, the disgruntled farmers took the oil portrait of Mead and "lynched" it in front of Wilson Hall,3® The disaffection spread to Durham where the farmers demanded the same special treatment that had been extended to Delhi, They vented their anger against George Kreutzer, whom thzy had regarded as a hero until the trouble at Delhi. By 1928, officials connected with the two projects

^Cummings to Mead, June 10, 1923, Mead Papers, Carton 1; Mead Interview, September 3, 1970; Smith to Wooster, January 1, 1925, file 8-19, RSIGDA, California Land Settlement Report, 1927, 6-13, 131 saw the hopelessness of continuing the scheme. Litigation was begun to extricate California from land colonization, and in 1930 an agreement was reached between the state and the settlers. The experiment—or as Mead insisted on calling it, the demonstration—cost California almost two million dollars, not to mention the losses and hard­ ships suffered by the people who had invested their savings O-l m a new plan for helping men own farms. The settlement scheme was not a total loss. It did serve to focus attention on some of the problems of rural life in general and on colonization in particular. Private land companies watched the innovations at Durham and Delhi closely. Mead was consulted by executives of these firms; several offered him positions to direct their operations. The railroad colonization departments were especially interested in the Mead plan. They were anxious to have the land occupied because each settler represented an estimated gross value to the lines of from $250 to $750 per year. Railroad agents had cooperated to promote the state scheme, distributing thousands of pamphlets to prospective buyers. Moreover, in the sale of their own

O "I Kreutzer Interview, January 7, 1970; Mead Inter­ view, January 3, 1970; Adams Interview, 291, ROHOUC; Washington Post, March 26, 1929. California Division of Land Settlement, Final Report, June 30, 1931 (Sacramento: State Printing Office, 1931) , 9-15. 132 holdings, the rail lines adopted many of Mead's ideas: liberal terms for purchase and repayment were initiated, technical advice was provided, and farmsteads were prepared for cultivation before sale. Such procedures made it easier to acquire property, but as Durham and Delhi demonstrated, they could not insure success.32 Mead would never admit that there was anything defective in his plan. He insisted that the failures at Durham and Delhi were due to the hostility of Governor Richardson toward the land scheme. In 1925, the two men became embroiled in a heated exchange, each blaming the other for the disasterous results of the colonies. Mead contended that Delhi was financially solvent when he re­ signed, He charged that when hard times later fell on Delhi, the governor, who bitterly opposed land settlement, did all he could to wreck it by "intemperate utterances" and by encouraging complaints. Richardson said the fiasco was the result of poor soils, inexperienced settlers,

•^Seagraves to Mead, November 15, 1921; Benson to Mead, December 30, 1921, November 12, 1922; Meau to Leroy Nickel, January 15, 1923, Mead Papers, Cartons 1-3. Porter W. Dent to J. B. Lamson, April 18, 1925, file 511, CSGCRB. There is a large folder of unidentified news­ paper clippings showing Mead's influence on private colonization schemes in Mead Papers, Carton 8. 133 unwise advice, and the "fanciful theories and business incapacities" of Elwood Mead.^3 The rhetorical broadsides missed two fundamental reasons for the failure. The agricultural depression of the 1920's caused hundreds of established farmers to go bankrupt. Trying to start a new farm during this period of low prices would have been a challenge even to experienced and well financed pioneers, which few of the Delhi colonists were. Moreover, the malaise of rural life and the movement to the city continued and intensified in the decade after World War I. Such conditions discouraged people from staking their lives and fortunes on an enterprise that offered little social or financial compensation. Given enough money, planned closer settlement was perhaps an answer for reclamation problems. The question was whether reclamation was worthwhile. Mead recognized the necessity for limiting agricultural output while at the same time urging more people to take up farming, but saw no contra­ diction in the two views. In public, he maintained his

"^Mead to Benson, February 17, 1927; to Ian Dunlop, November 13, 1926; to Herbert M, Lord, January 21, 19 28; Benson to Mead, March 18, 1926, February 8, 1927, file 512, CSGCRB. Mead to F. M. Simmons, April 25, 1929, file 146, Administration Correspondence, Reclamation Bureau [ACRB], Record Group 115, National Archives. San Diego Union, June 17, 1925; Orland Register (.California) , May 29, 1925. defense of the scheme and put the blame on Governor Richardson. Years later, he confided to a friend his judgement of the two colonies: "Durham should have succeeded; Delhi was a mistake".^

Mead to McCormick, December 29, 1922, Mead Papers, Carton 2. Packard Interview, 147, 197; Adams Interview, 293, ROHOUC. Washington Post, March 26, 1929. CHAPTER 7

AROUND THE WORLD

On April 13, 19 23, Elwood Mead, his daughter Sue, and son John left San Francisco on the steam ship Maunganui for Honolulu, the first stop on an around-the-world con­ sulting tour. Officials in Australia and Palestine had written to the California professor, requesting his advice on irrigation and settlement. Since he had not taken a personal leave from the University in eight years, Mead was given a six-month sabbatical. He planned to return to the classroom in January of 1924, but at the completion of the tour, Mead was asked by Secretary of the Interior Hubert Work to come to Washington to serve on a special board created to make a thorough review of reclamation in the United States. When he finished this task three months later, Mead was offered the position as Commissioner of Reclamation, The trip that started out as a sabbatical eventually resulted in a permanent separation from the University of California."'"

1-Mead to C, T. Johnson, March 19, 1923; to Charles Binder, April 9, 1923, Mead Papers, Carton 3,

135 136 Plans for the trip began in 1922 when the British Ambassador asked University of California President David P, Barrows to allow Mead to return to Australia to help the government with additional settlement projects in the Murrumbidgee irrigation area of New South Wales, Mead had also been approached by officials in Palestine to lend his expertise to their colonization schemes. He was eager to make the journey and looked on the trip as "a little rest and a change of scene". He believed that after the six month excursion, he would "bring back a little more vigor, even if I don't have any more sense". 2 Mead spent a week in Hawaii, greeting old friends and looking over the progress on settlement that had been made since his visit the year before. In June of 1922, he had gone to the Islands at the request of the Hawaiian Homes Commission. This body was set up by Congress in 19 21 to direct a scheme whereby public land would be leased at nominal rentals to persons of at least one half Hawaiian

blood. In this way', the Hawaiian was supposed to regain

possession of his native land. However, the sugar planters,

not v.anting to lose the productive public land they were leasing from the government, managed to have a provision

o David P, Barrows to Alvey A, Aldee, October 23, 1922, UCAB; Mead to Dwinnell, March 27, 1923, Mead Papers, Carton 1. 137 inserted in the bill which excluded sugar lands from home- steading. As a pallative, the law provided that 30 percent of the annual receipts from leasing the sugar lands would be used to create a revolving fund of one million dollars to loan to Hawaiian natives for homes, livestock, and im^ provements on the lands they were to lease. Backers of the bill used a sentimental appeal, stressing its benefits for the preservation of the Hawaiian race. Lost in the rhetoric was the fact that almost all of the 200,000 acres set aside for the natives was land which no one had ever been able to make productive, 3 After his inspection of the various sites m 1322,4 Mead had recommended a reduction in the size of the plots, which varied from 20 to 1000 acres depending upon classifica- ! tion. He predicted that the natives would be unable to

U. S. Statutes at Large, XLII, 108-21, Gavan Daws, Shoal of Time: A History of the Hawaiian Islands (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1968), 298; Helen Gay Pratt, Hawaii, Off-Shore Territory (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1944), 284-U5. Only two percent of the land set aside could be developed at a reasonable cost. , Lawrence H, Fuchs, Hawaii Pono: A Social History (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1961), 174, ^Mead was shocked by the conditions he found. He wondered for what purpose governments v/ere instituted and concluded that: "Over there [Hawaii] the main purpose of government is to furnish cheap labor for the sugar planters". Mead to Robert Hunter, July 28, 1922; to Ben R, Walker, July 20, 1922, Mead Papers, Cartons 1-2. 138 cultivate this much land alone and that most of it would, therefore, be contracted to large planters. He proposed instead that family-sized garden plots of one or two acres would be more in keeping with the goal of the legislation, A person could build up his holdings as he acquired skills.. The act was amended in 1923 to provide for "residence lots" as Mead recommended. In addition, the California professor naturally advocated the closer settlement idea. He was enthusiastic about an irrigable area on the island of Molokai, which he believed admirably suited for the initial project, and work on a settlement there began shortly after he returned to California. 5 By the time of Mead's 1923 visit, some 15 families had moved into the Molokai settlement. He was pleased with what he saw there, but was disappointed at the slow progress toward creating subsistence homesteads. Most of the land was leased to natives in large plots. Unfortunate­ ly, the Molokai colony failed because the spring that fur~ nished water turned salty, and, as Mead predicted, the Hawaiians leased their holdings to pineapple growers. The

^Mead to Alvin Johnson, January 25, 1923; to Albert Shaw, July 31, 1922; George Cook to Mead, February 16, 1923; Mead, "Report to Hawaiian Homes Co;,,mission" , typescript dated January 12, 1923, Mead Papers, Cartons 2-3, (New York) Journal of Commerce, July 15, 1922; U, S. Statutes at Large', XLII, 1221-22; Pratt, Hawaii, 287-88; Fuchs, Hawaii Pono, 258; Daws, Shoal of Time, 299, 139 rehabilitation of the race through homesteading was not very successful, although the Hawaiian Homes Commission /r did serve as a symbol of concern for the natives. From Hawaii, Mead sailed to Sydney, Australia, He arrived early in May, and enrolled his two children in a boarding school so that he would have more freedom to travel around the country. When Mead was in Australia earlier, his work was mainly in Victoria. Now, officials in New South Wales were anxious to resume the development of lands watered by their allotment of the Murray-Murrumbidgee river system. The development had been delayed by World War X, and soldier settlements started at the end of hostilities proved too expensive and also unproductive. In 1923, state officials began plans to bring 8,000 families of the un­ employed from Great Britain. Before any more money was invested, however, it was decided to have an expert in closer settlement look over the scheme and advise the government. Mead was given <£300 per month plus expenses

^At the end of 1946, more than 4,000 Hawaiians were Li zing in various homestead communities. After the original plan failed, emphasis in the 1930's was put on small residential and subsistence homesteads as Mead had recommended. Ralph S, Kuykendall and A. Grove Day, Hawaii: A History (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1948), 209. 140 to evaluate and make recommendations about the proposed project,7 Mead was in Australia for nearly four months. A good portion of this time was spent inspecting the areas under consideration and talking with the region's in­ habitants, a practice which he felt was of utmost im­ portance for understanding actual conditions. Some mem­ bers of the government did not appreciate all of his travelling. While surveying the Murray River, he made some favorable comments about areas along the Murrumbidgee. Joseph H. Carruthers, vice-president of the Executive Council of New South Wales, construed this as criticism of the government and as a recommendation to concentrate all efforts on the Murrumbidgee. In a rather blunt letter, Carruthers told Mead that the government had adopted a policy for the Murray lands based on a large number of factors of which Mead was unaware, that Mead's chief con­ cern was the Murrumbidgee area, and that as a consultant, Q he was embarrassing the state officials,

^Mead to Benson, March 7, 1923; to W. W. Long, March 15, 19 23; to Cummings, May 16, 19 23; George U. Fuller to Mead, November 20, 1922, Mead Papers, Carton 3, Barnard, Australia, 521-22. o Joseph H. Carruthers to Mead, June 13, 15, 1923; Mead to Carruthers, June 14, 1923, Mead Papers, Carton 4, 141 Had Mead publicized what he really thought about the New South Wales activities in irrigation and settle­ ment, he would have done far worse than merely embarrass the government. He wonderer! how the state kept "out of the sheriff's hands". The soldier settlement scheme, which had cost some 60 to 70 million dollars, had resulted in about 8,000 immigrants. Two-thirds of these, he estimated, were "incompetents" who would end up as wards of the state because the "whole affair was political". Moreover, the distribution of the water supply was so badly handled that 80 small towns had to be serviced the precious liquid by truck; Sydney itself was menaced by a "water famine". He had been called to Australia specifically to advise on the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, and he was pessimistic about the results. Fearing that most of the settlers would be totally inexperienced, Mead observed that "if they don't try the soul of the man who has charge of them then he can wear a crown in the hereafter without ever thinking about it".9 In his recommendations, Mead tried to present a plan that would ease or end the difficulties he foresaw

9Mead to Benson, March 7, 1923; Mead notes on New South Wales dated June 23, 19 23, Mead Papers, Cartons 3-4, Yearbook of the Commonwealth of Australia, 1927 (Melbourne: Albert J, Mullett, 1927), 193. 142 for the proposed immigrants from England, He made his usual plea for liberal financial terms, careful selection of colonists, farm advisers, and closer settlement. In addition, he conceived a scheme somewhat reminiscent of his ideas for Wyoming in the 1890's; irrigated and grazing lands would be linked. Mead believed that the key to the development of the Murrumbidgee Area was to stop planting fruit groves and turn to lucerne, a variety of alfalfa, in order to build up a range industry. Settlers on small farms would grow this crop in cooperation with pastoralists in the neighboring non-irrigated areas. The graziers would be encouraged to introduce sheep which could be fattened on the lucerne farms, or fed the hay in times of drought. In this way, the maximum number of acres would be put to use, and the settlers would be assured an income.^® Mead's suggestions were incorporated into the overall scheme for the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area adopted by the government. Unfortunately, the results were dis­ appointing. The farmers resisted planting lucerne because it required more work than pasture grasses. (Those who followed Mead's advice generally found the soil poorly

"^Mead, Report on the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Scheme (Sydney: Alfred James Kent, Government Printer, 1923), 3-8, and Report on Fodder Conservation (Sydney: Alfred James Kent~, Government Printer, 1923) , 4-7. Mead to Hugh McKenzie, July 16, 1923, Mead Papers, Carton 4. 143 suited to this crop anyway.) They also could not be per­ suaded to cooperate with pastoralists, although this type of scheme would prove extremely productive in other parts of Australia, The Californian's admonitions against en­ larged dairy farms went unheeded, but this proved to be a blessing; larger blocks of land later became a mainstay of the region. The expected immigration never materialized, and, of those who did come, too many lacked the skills to succeed. Mead's proposals to assist the settler helped to ameliorate this deficiency, but the cost and beaucratic bungling neutralized much of these efforts. In short, the Mead mission was not very helpful,^ From Australia, Mead and his two children sailed to Singapore, Java, and then Calcutta. From there, they took a railroad across India, stopping to look over irri­ gation works on the Ganges River. At Bombay, the trio boarded a ship for the journey through the Suez Canal to Port Said, and then went to Palestine where they arrived at Jerusalem early xn November. 12

•^Mead Interview, January 3, 1970, Trevor Langford- Smith and John Rutherford, Water and Land (Canberra, Aus­ tralia: Australia National University Press, 1966), 57-61, 100-103, The idea of integrating irrigated and non-irrigated areas was being urged as late as 196G, Ibid., 57, •^Burns, Philp & Co., Ltd. to Mead, June 13, 1923, Mead PapSrs, Carton 4. Mead, Agricultural Development in Palestine (London; Zionist Executive, 1924) 3, 144 Mead had been asked to come to Palestine in 1922, but because of his Hawaiian trip, he requested a post­ ponement for a year. Leaders of the Zionist Organization were anxious to have his advice, and asked Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis to intervene and persuade Mead that their needs were greater than those of Hawaii. They were planning to open large areas in the Jezreel, Jordan and Esderlon valleys for intensive cultivation, and wanted the California expert to evaluate their scheme. Dr. S. E, H. Soskin, who was to direct the first settlement, pleaded that the fulfillment of Zionist aspirations depended on the success of the project—which in turn relied on Mead, Although he could not arrange the trip then, Mead agreed to come in 1923. He requested, in the meantime, that all available publications relating to irrigation development in the Palestine area be sent to him so that he could familiarize himself with the situation there. 13 The idea of recreating the Jewish home state in Palestine had begun in the 1880's. In 1901, the Jewish National Fund was established to acquire land and by 1914 there were 43 kibutzims (rural settlements) with some

•^Mead to C, C, Davis, March 20, 1922; to S. E. H. Soskin, February 23, April 3, 1922; to E. F. Adams, March 29, 1923; Soskin to Mead, March 21, 1922, Mead Papers, Cartons 1-3, 145

12,000 people living on them. The Balfour Declaration, by which the British government endorsed the idea of Palestine as a national home for the Jews, spurred new efforts after World War I. By 1922, the number of kibutzims had risen to 73, but the population in these had gone up by only 3,000 persons, Zionist leaders were concerned because immigrants flocked to the cities, creating a lop­ sided economic structure. Therefore, Mead was asked to advise what could be done to check this trend.^ After an extensive tour of Palestine, Mead sub­ mitted his report. In it, he compared the country to Cali­ fornia. The coastal plain from Gaza to Haifa, he said, resembled the area from San Diego to Santa Barbara, and the Valley of the Jordan was like the Imperial Valley, And he saw in Palestine the same possibilities for agri­ cultural development through irrigation. The problem in both places was financing and assisting farmers until they could become self-supporting. The main consideration of the Zionists in Palestine should be to stop trying "to show lie v.' :;iany farms could be created with the smallest

"^J, Ettingen to Mead, July 15, 1923, Mead Papers, Carton 3, Chaim Bermant, Israel (New York; Walker and Company, 1967), 7-24; A, Revusky, Jews in Palestine (New York: The Vanguard Press, 1936), 21-27, 37-50, 125-47. 146 amount of money, rather than show what the soil and climate made possible when there was ample money". 15 Since the Jews in Palestine were already colonizing in groups, Mead suggested innovations to improve this process. He observed that most of the immigrants were in­ experienced in agriculture. If they were to be attracted to the soil and be successful, they had to have expert direction. Mead felt that each new settlement should have a competent advisor. The new colonist also needed money, but he warned the Zionists that "generous financial aid" would tend to make people "wards of the organization". He believed that every settler should have a minimum amount of capital and that financial assistance should be given only on a business basis. Contracts should clearly state the obligations of the settlers and the provisions should be observed rigidly. Finally, Mead recommended that one colony of people able to finance themselves should be started as a model for the rest."*"^ In all of his years of prostelytizing closer settle­ ment, Mead had never found a more receptive audience or

1 C , Mead, "The New Palestine", The American Review of Reviews, LXX (December 1924), 024 f and Agricultural Development in Palestine, 6. •^Meaa, Agricultural Development in Palestine, 8-11, 15-23, 147 better circumstances for his ideas. Only in Palestine were conditions so conducive to success; the Zionist dream permeated everything. Settlers wanted to come; small farms were a necessity if for no other reason than to accommodate all of the applicants; cooperation was required because of Arab hostility; speculation was absent because the land was provided only to actual colonists; and the entire project was financed by concerned Jews throughout the world. All that was needed was proper direction in farming for the settlers. Mead returned to the United States in December of 1923 glowing with optimism for the future of the new Palestine.^ When Mead left in April, he had planned to resume his position at the University of California in January of 1924. However, in September, Secretary of the Interior Hubert Work wrote to him in Australia and asked that he serve on a Committee of Special Advisers on Reclamation, a body set up to study the critical shape which reclamation had reached by 1923. Mead was a natural choice since he had served on the only other major review board on reclama­ tion, the Cost Review of 1916. The difficulties found at

•^Ibid. , 3-9, and "New Palestine", 623-29. Mead went back to Palestine in 1927 as head of an investigation team for the American Jews who were concerned that Zionists were wasting money on social projects. Adams Interview, 351-52, ROHOUC. 148 that time were relieved to a great extent by the war, but as the agricultural depression of the 1920's v/orsened, irrigated areas once again began to suffer. Time exten­ sions for the payment of construction and maintenance charges by water users had been granted in 1921, 1922 and 1923, and it was expected that such temporary expedients would be needed the following year. To deal with the problem, Work requested that six men apply their "best thought" to finding ways in which reclamation should be "adapted to existing conditions, so that its future suc­ cess may be achieved and the possibility of home ownership be assured to settlers". Mead agreed to serve on the committee.

•^Hubert Work to Mead, September 8, December 14, 19 23. Annual Report of the Commissioner of Reclamation [ARCR'J, 19 24, 2-3. Mead told President W. W. Campbell of the University of California that he would be absent from his teaching duties only in February of 1924 when the report was being prepared, and that George Kreutzer would take his clas^cs during that period. Mead to W. W. Campbell, De­ cember 23 , 1923 , I'iead Papers, Carton 3. The other members of the Special Advisers included Thomas E. Campbell, a former Governor of Arizona; Dr. John A. Widtsoe, former preside.': ; of the State University and State Agricultural Coi.i • . of Utah; Oscar E. Bradfute, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation; James R. Garfield, former Secretary of the Interior; and Clyde C. Dawson, an expert on irrigation law and representative of the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, Press releases, September 10, 26, 1923, Genercil Records, Committee of Special Advisers on Reclama­ tion, Reclamation Bureau [GRCSARRB], Record Group 115, National Archives, 149 The Committee, usually referred to as the Fact Finders Committee, began work on October 15, although Mead did not join the group until December 20, The in­ vestigation covered every aspect of the Reclamation Service from its inception in 1902. Detailed reports were sub­ mitted by the superintendents of all the projects and the files of the Reclamation Service were made available. In Washington, 124 witnesses testified on the various aspects of reclamation, and a special 10 day meeting to hear the settlers' side of the story was held in Salt Lake City early in 1924. In addition, Mead made a personal visit to one representative project, the Newlands, Nevada, irri­ gation area, and submitted a written report. From this voluminous collection of material, a panorama of the prob­ lems of reclamation emerged, and from that composite, the Fact Finders made their recommendations.19 The Fact Finders submitted a list of 66 sugges­ tions which bore the imprint of Mead on every important point. Reviewing the 21 year history of federal activities in reclamation, the Committee members found numerous de­ fects and errors, yet they held the basic program to be sound. Echoing what Mead had been saying for over 30 years,

^••Federal Reclamation By Irrigation", Senate Document 92, 68 Cong,, 1 Sess, (Serial 8238), 25-28, the report called for a shift from engineering considera­ tions to social needs on the projects. Mead always had vigorously opposed giving settlers on federal irrigation projects special privileges because he firmly believed that if the proper conditions were created, reclamation could pay its own way, and he objected to making irriga­ tion farmers "wards" of the state. Pallatives such as debt repudiation, deferred payments, and interest-free construction charges merely whetted the appetite of colo­ nists for more favors. Besides, many persons had done extremely well, while a large amount of the land had been foreclosed on by banks and mortgage companies. Any blanket writing off of the debt would merely give these owners a better bargain and fail to provide any relief for the de­ serving settler who needed money to improve his farm or buy better livestock and agricultural implements. 20 Recognizing that the goal of the Reclamation Act of 1902 had been to create homes, the aim of the Fact Finders was to propose changes which would permit the original purpose of the legislation to be achieved. Mead submitted a 10-point report to the Committee that stressed

2(^Ibid. , 1-23; Walter V. Woehlke, "Has Federal Reclamation Failed?", Sunset, LIII (July 1924), 15. Mead to F. E, Schmitt, December 20, 1923, Mead Papers, Carton 3, Mead to James D, Phelan, January 25, 1924, James D. Phelan Papers, Bancroft Library, University of California, 151 community settlements as the answer to insuring the desired results. He called for close supervision of farmers, a minimum capital required of applicants, safeguards against speculation by government retention of land titles for 10 years, and cooperative efforts by colonists. He also sug­ gested a new system for setting land values and repayment schedules. Based on the crop-producing quality of the soil, an acre would be worth the annual gross income from its cultivation, computed by averaging the returns for the previous 10 years. The repayment charge for construction would be five percent of this productive power of the land spread over a 20 year period. Thus an acre worth $120 would be amortized at $6 annually until the debt was paid. These ideas were incorporated into the report which was sent to President Calvin Coolidge, He transmitted it to Congress and asked that "whatever legislation is necessary to the advancement of reclamation ... be enacted without delay".21 On December 5, 1924, Congress passed the Fact Finders' Act, so named because it was based largely on the report drawn up by the Special Advisers. This legislation went a long way toward remedying some of the worst problems

2:I-Mead, Special report to the Special Advisers, n.d. , GRCSARRB. "Federal Reclamation by Irrigation1', Senate Doc. 92, 68 Cong., 1 Sess., ix. 152 of reclamation, but did not include everything that Mead felt was needed. For example, no provision was made for aid and direction in land settlement, although minimum qualifications for applicants were laid down in order to insure reasonable chances for success. However, three out of four major proposals of the Fact Finders were enacted. The law called for a scientific classification of all pro­ ject lands and a reassignment of construction costs accord­ ing to the productive value of these lands. Annual charges were likewise to be determined by land values according to the five percent formula recommended. The legislation also provided for the early transfer of the operation of the irrigation works to water users' associations or irrigation districts. And finally, no new construction was to be started unless a thorough study showed that a project would be financially solvent and adaptable for settle­ ment.^ The passage of this act marked the most important modification in reclamation policy since the federal govern­ ment entered the field in 1902. While the Fact Finders were putting the final touches on their report, another significant change occurred. David W. Davis, who in 1923 had replaced Arthur Powell Davis as Director of the

22U. S. Statutes at Large, XLIII, 701-704, 153 Reclamation Service, resigned. The logical choice to head the Bureau (it had been upgraded to a Bureau when D. W. Davis took over) as it moved in a new direction was the man most responsible for suggesting the new course. The other five Fact Finders were enthusiastic about the appointment of Elwood Mead, and Secretary Work and the staff of the Bureau felt he was the person best fitted for the job. On March 31, 1924, Mead wrote President Campbell for a year's leave of absence from the University of California so that he could accept the position. The request was approved.23 Mead's tour around the world proved to be only moderately successful. He found that the proposals he had made for Hawaii were only half-heartedly accepted. On the other hand, his recommendations in Australia were well received, but they failed to achieve the desired results. Palestine was the bright spot of his trip because it reafirmed his faith in the blessings of closer settle­ ment. When he returned to the United States, his own

2^Mead to W. W. Campbell, March 31, 1924; Fact Finders to Campbell, April 2, 1924, UCAB. In 1923, when Albert B. Fall resigned as Secretary of the. Interior, The New Republic suggested Mead for the job. [load backed Frank Mondell for the position which went to Hubert Work. Mead to Richard R. Lyman, January 3, 1923; to Mondell, January 3, 1923; to Hiram Johnson, January 2, 1923; to Alvin Johnson, January 25, 1923, Mead Papers, Carton 3. "Edi­ torial Comment", The New Republic, XXXIXX (January 17, 1923), 185. 154 government sought his advice, and here he made the most enduring contribution of the journey. He helped formulate policies to correct the problems of federal reclamation. In recognition of his contributions, Mead was then asked to head the Bureau of Reclamation to implement the new policy. CHAPTER 8

COMMISSIONER OF RECLAMATION

With over four decades of experience in arid prob­ lems, Elwood Mead took up his duties as Commissioner of Reclamation on April 3, 1924. Besides the opportunity to reshape reclamation policies, Mead believed that the ap­ pointment would put him in a position to create the planned communities he had been advocating for the United States since 1915. His first task was to implement the Fact Finders' recommendations, and by 1929, he had successfully corrected most of the problems of federal reclamation. The Depression caused a set back in this progress, but Mead's innovations had put the Bureau on sound foundations which lessened the impact of the economic crisis. Mead continued in office under the New Deal. During his final years, he saw a greatly expanded building program for reclamation, and, at last, the adoption of a national program of planned communities."1' Shortly after taking office, Mead made an extensive tour of the 24 federal projects in operation as well as the

•'"Mead to W. W. Campbell, March 31, 1924, UCAB. 155 156 proposed sites for new ones. He spent two months in the West examining these works and talking with settlers. This trip supplemented the knowledge he had acquired as a member of the Fact Finders Committee, and gave him a comprehensive picture of reclamation conditions. His conclusions from these studies reinforced what he had long advocated: the government should concentrate first on the completion and full development of the works already started. New pro­ jects, he believed, would spread "too thinly the available funds and talent for accomplishing real success in the whole activity". 2 Mead's primary concern was for the actual settler, whom he believed could be successful if given equitable financial arrangements. He resented the speculators who profited by the government's improvements but who did nothing themselves to increase the value of their holdings. Likewise he was concerned that many settlers seemed to hold the Reclamation Bureau responsible for the low price of farm products and the high interest rates. Mead wanted to make it clear that the Bureau was not a "credit agency" nor would it forgo its payments so that private financial

2 Mead to George Kreutzer, August 13, 1924; Depart­ ment of Interior Press Release, August 20, 1924, file 501, CSGCRB. companies or government agencies which had loaned settlers money could be repaid.3 In 1924, extensions on construction charges were granted to water users for the fourth year in a row, and Mead was determined that this would not happen again. In December, the Fact Finders Act was passed, empowering the Commissioner with the authority to begin his reordering of reclamation priorities. Implementation of this law, it was assumed, eventually would eliminate any need for de­ ferment of payments. Meanwhile, the Commissioner and the Secretary of the Interior announced that there would be no more blanket moratoria. Any further alterations in money due the government would be decided on an individual basis. By this ruling, Mead hoped not only to collect the amounts owed, but also to force persons holding idle irrigable land to put it to use. Neither land speculators nor sol­ vent farmers would be granted blanket concessions because it would be a "demoralizing influence" to give to the un­ worthy in order that the deserving may be benefited.^

"^Mead to Edgar M. Wilson, August 28 , 1924 ; to Vera Jane Pease, January 24, 1925, file 503, CSGCRB. Mead to Kreutzer, December 26, 1924, file 301, Construction and Engineering, General, Reclamation Bureau [CEGRA], Record Group 115, National Archives. ^Mead to John A. Widtsoe, May 12, 1925, file 3 01, CEGRA; Work to Calvin Coolidge, July 22, 1925, file 501, CSGCRB. ARCR, 1925, 8-11. The moratoriums were on past 158 Mead insisted that the payment of money due the government was essential if the integrity of reclamation was to be upheld. In the five years from 1920 through 1924, the sum of $8,652,610—construction charges of $5,222,331 and operation and maintenance charges of $3,430,279—went uncollected. Over three million dollars of this amount resulted from the 1924 moratorium. Mead blamed the progressive increase in deficiencies on the ease with which deferments were obtained and the laxity many worthy, struggling settlers gradually came to feel about their government obligations when they saw people who could afford to pay neglect these debts with impunity. 5 When it became clear that Mead intended to enforce his new regulations, most people responded and there was a steady improvement in collections. The fiscal year 1926 showed an increase of $641,251 in payments, and this upward

due debts for construction and/or operation and maintenance charges. Joint resolutions of Congress provided for de­ livery of water without reference to delinquency, and in this way irrigators received water even if in arrears on their obligations. ^ARCR, 1925, 4-11. The trend that repayments were taking when Mead assumed office can be seen by the following statistics: From 1920 to 1924, an average of 64.7% of construction charges was collected while the 1924 figure was only 4 6.6%. On operation and maintenance charges, an average of 70.2% paid from 1920 to 1924 while the 1924 figure was only 54.4%. ARCR, 19 25, 4-6. 159 i trend continued until the Depression. Total payments in 1925 were $3,811,620, while in 1929, they amounted to $6,308,314.6 In the end, this "get tough" policy was success­ ful. At first, however, there was considerable opposition to it, especially on those projects with the poorest re­ payment records. For example, at North Platte, Nebraska, the reaction to Mead's threat to cut off water unless payments were forthcoming resulted in the hanging in effigy of the Commissioner and the Secretary of the In­ terior. True to life, the "dummy" representing Mead had only one arm. 7 At Belle Fourche, South Dakota, where only about 15 percent of the money due the government between 1920 and 1924 had been paid, the water users were in arrears over one million dollars. Only 31 percent of the land was occupied by resident owners; the rest was either leased out or abandoned. Even after it was made clear that Mead's main concern was the collection of charges for operation

6ARCR, 1925, 4; ARCR, 1926, 1; ARCR, 1929, 1. ^Work to Coolidge, July 22, 1925; KreuLzor to J. W. Haw, January 2, 1925, file 501, CSGCRB. Statement by Morrow & Morrow, Attorneys for Pathfinders Irrigation District (North Platte, Nebraska), n.d., file 22-63, ADDI. ARCR, 1925, 5-6; Kreutzer Interview, January 7, 1970; New York Times, May 29, 1926. 160 and maintenance, the settlers balked. They questioned why the government should not show the same indulgence towards its citizens that it was showing toward foreign countries. They also pointed to the five percent formula for con­ tracts provided in the Fact Finders' Act. Although Belle Fourche water users had not entered such an agreement with the government, they noted that they had paid $47 2,000 for construction in the preceding 16 years, an average of $30,000 annually. The gross crop returns from 1921 to 1924 averaged $560,000 per year. Five percent of that was $28~, 000, so they were actually ahead if Mead's formula for repayment of construction costs was applied to their O project. The five percent formula was designed to provide an equitable plan for repayment, and was based on the pro­ ductive value of the soil. The defect of this legislation was that it had no fixed period in which the obligation should be repaid. New contracts were entered into by the Bureau with the water users on nine projects, including

Sun River, Montana, whose repayment could take a century, and North Platte, Nebraska, where estimates ran up to 90 years. Congress repealed the law in the Omnibus Adjustment

®Mead to Widtsoe, May 12, 1925; to F. C. Young- blutt, May 15, 27, 1925; Directors of Belle Fourche Irri­ gation District to Youngblutt, June 8, 1925, file 301, CEGR-A« 161 Act of 1926, and replaced it with a statute setting a max­ imum amortization period of 4 0 years. Contracts made under the 1924 act were still honored. Mead's brief try at tying repayment to production proved that there was not neces­ sarily a correlation between the cost of construction and its value to reclaimed lands.9 The Omnibus Adjustment Act of 1926 which repealed the five percent plan also contained provisions for adjust­ ing construction charges. Mead felt that it would make the collection of money easier if the water users did not feel that they were paying for the government's mistakes. Anticipation over the amount of write off, in fact, had contributed to the problem of collection since 1924 when the Fact Finders had called for a scientific study, classi­ fication, and valuation of all project lands. They had recommended that construction repayments be written off for those lands that did not "possess a productive power sufficient to support the farmer's family" as well as areas "just coming into agricultural production and not yet ready to begin repayments". A Board of Survey and Adjustment was created to fix the amounts to be charged off. Based upon the board's findings, Congress provided for government

Q Golze, Reclamation in the U. S., 244-45; Lampen, Aspects of Reclamation, 71-72; ARCR, 1926, 2. 162 assumption of losses amounting to $14,667,9 65 on land "permanently nonagricultural under the practices of irri­ gation farming". It also suspended construction payments of $12,788,4 06 on land which was deemed unproductive with­ out expensive improvements. The other charge which irrigation farmers had to pay was for the yearly operation and maintenance of the projects. The Fact Finders had recommended that the super­ vision of the day-to-day management of facilities be turned over to the people on the land, noting that the Reclamation Act of 19 02 had called for such an arrangement when the major portion of construction costs were repaid. Under this scheme, the water users v/ould be responsible for the collection of operating and maintenance fees, and thus would have a share in the responsibility of the work of reclamation. Consequently, they would be more aware of the expenses involved. Only the Salt River, Arizona, and a division of the Minidoka, Idaho, projects had assumed such duties. In 1926, Mead began to transfer these functions to local control. This policy of decentralization was encouraged by Interior Secretary Work, President Coolidge,

10Mead to H. L. Holgate, February 11, 1()26; Press Release, June 11, 1926, file 141.35, Administration Corres­ pondence, Reclamation Bureau [ACRB], Record Group 115, National Archives. ARCR, 1926, 3; "Federal Reclamation by Irrigation", Senate Doc. 92, 68 Cong. 1 Sess., 4-5, 53-58. 163 and Congress. Within a year, a dozen contracts with water user associations were written to accomplish this goal, and ultimately all of the projects adopted the plan. The result was a boost in morale and an improvement in collec­ tions as farmers became involved in running and repairing their own irrigation systems. 11 All of these actions were remedial, designed to correct past errors and to return reclamation to its original purpose. To the chagrin of Western irrigation- ists, Mead insisted that no additional works be built until those in existence were fully developed and settled, or until the need for new ones was clearly demonstrated and shown to be financially sound. The Fact Finders Act had barred further projects until expert information was avail­ able as to water supply, land prices, costs, engineering features, adaptability for settlement and feasibility. In 1924, Congress had authorized two new projects and major additions to four others in spite of Mead's admonitions and before the Fact Finders law was passed. However, he do! -Parting these until, comprehensive studies were completed. In 1926, Mead announced a 10 year plan for the

^ARCR, 1930, 10-11; "Federal Reclamation by Irri­ gation", Senate Doc. 92, 68 Cong. 1 Sess., 59-60. Donald Christie Swain, Federal Conservation Policy, 1921-1933 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963), 85. 164 completion of construction at all operating facilities. He estimated that annual expenditures of 8 to 10 million dollars would enable this "conservative program" to be fulfilled.-^ On the proposed new projects, as on those already in operation, a major problem was securing settlers. The Fact Finders had called for cooperation in reclamation by state and local officials, and Mead felt that a good area for such mutual effort would be assistance in colonizing government lands. He was also concerned about speculation on property in private hands. Mead decided that the best way to discourage speculation was to have the land appraised and then set prices on it. If the land was sold above the value put on it by the Bureau, one half of the excess would be applied to construction charges. 11 Mead's policies were tried first on the nine million dollar Kittitas extension to the Yakima, Washington, pro­ ject which was begun in 1925. He arranged in the contract to require the state to assist in settlement, Washington's

•^Mead to H. C. Baldridge, November 5, 1928; to Senator Reed Smoot, March 8, 1926, file 501, GSGCRB. "Federal Reclamation by Irrigation", Senate Doc. 92, 68 Conq. 1 Sess., 47; ARCR, 1924, 8-24; ARCR, 1925, 41-45; ARCR, 1926, 27-29; ARCR, 1929, 1. "^Mead to Kreutzer, November 20, 1925, file 522, CSGCRB. "Federal Reclamation by Irrigation", Senate Doc. 92, 68 Cong., 1 Sess,, xiii, 114-16. 165 governor, Ronald P. Hartley, agreed in principle, but re­ fused to spend money to fulfill the state's obligation. Once construction began, there was virtually no way to force compliance, although, under pressure from Mead, some help was given by area organizations concerned v/ith the project's success. The valuation on land likewise caused problems. The contract provided that on private land sold above the appraised price, one half of the excess would be applied to construction costs. After the appraisal prices were listed, those owning land on the project threatened to retain their property and lease it. Believing that tenantry was the worst of evils, Mead allowed some upward valuation while at the same time threatening to discontinue construction.

•^Mead to Ronald P. Hartley, March 10, 1925; to Oro McDermith, June 1, 1925; to Ray Lyman Wilbur, November 11, 1929, file 522, CSGCRB. Mead to Work, July 22, 1926, file 510, CSGCRB. Mead to Work, December 17, 1926; to F. A. Kern, February 24, March 3, 1927; Kern to Z-Iead, February 15, 24, 1927, May 5, September 5, 1929; B. E. Stoutemeyer to Mead, March 5, 1927, file 400.08, Lands, General Cor­ respondence, Reclamation Bureau [LGCRB], Record Group 115, National Archives. Mead to F. A. Kern, November 19, 1928; to Louis C. Cramton, September 9, November 19, 192 3; to R. F. Walter, November 15, 1928, file 301, Construction and Engineering, General Correspondence, Reclamation Bureau [CEGCRB], Record Group 115, National Archives. Mead to Kern, May 6, October 26, 1929, file 241.31, Fi­ nance and Accounts, Reclamation Bureau [FARB], Record Group 115, National Archives. 166 In spite of problems such as these, the Bureau continued to seek state cooperation, although with only- mediocre results. The antispeculative clause, on the other hand, proved very successful, and was included in all future contracts.15 In 1924, as his first year in office drew to a close, Mead had noted that, although "the spirit of the times is rather reactionary", the progress which had been made was remarkable. Indeed, he had brought about a sig­ nificant transformation in federal reclamation. The Com­ missioner attributed his success in large part to the "confidence in me on the Hill"; Congress v/as receptive to his ideas. Yet nothing had been done about the one innova­ tion Mead most desired—aided and directed settlement. The Fact Finders Act had set minimum qualifications for appli­ cants seeking land on projects. This was an important provision toward insuring success, but Mead felt that the federal government should go further.16 •

In 19 25, the Kendrick-Winter bill, which was to apply to all new projects, was introduced in Congress.

It called for a wider dissemination of agricultural

•^Golze, Reclamation in the U. S., 348-49. •^Mead to W. W. Campbell, January 30, 1925, UCAB; to Torn Mead, January 14, 1925, T. C. Mead Papers. U. S. StaLubes at Large, XLIII, 702. 167 knowledge among water users; the hiring of advisers to give settlers advice on economic and farm matters and help in organizing cooperatives; and the establishment of a fund to provide long-term, low-interest loans for the purchase of equipment and for permanent improvements. Although the bill was never brought to a vote, Mead was not disappointed. He regarded the introduction of the measure and the pub­ licity it received as an important step in educating people to the need for such governmental activity.17 In 1926, a more modest measure, providing $500,000 to finance two demonstration colonies with 100 settlers on each, was appended to the Interior Department's annual appropriation. It was eliminated by the Senate. Mead blamed the rejection of this proposal partly on the adverse publicity resulting from California Governor Friend Richard­ son's attacks on Durham and Delhi, and partly because it was branded socialistic. The Commissioner defended his ideas, noting that "anyone who advocates something different from the past is almost certain to be misunderstood". To . charges that he was "socialistic and impractical", he re­ fused to "attempt to establish an alibi" for the latter,

•^Mead to Kreutzer, November 19, 1924; to R. K. Tiffany, February 4, 1925; to Albert Shaw, March 14, 1925, file 515, CSGCRB. 168 but emphatically denied the former. In 1928, he tried again to secure funds. This time, the $500,000 was to be restricted to loans for permanent improvements only. When the Bureau of the Budget disallowed the request, Mead wrote President Coolidge that "the conservative aid ... in the bill . . . ought to be given a trial", because if the money was not spent to help salvage existing projects, it would be spent building canals for new ones. However, the legist lation conflicted with the President's financial program, and he refused to reconsider the proposal. TO While pushing his ideas for community settlement in the West, Mead was also pursuing the possibilities of extending them into the South. He had become interested in the reclamation of swampy and cut-over lands outside of the arid regions after his return from Australia. In connection with his work for soldier settlements, Mead met

Hugh McRae, a wealthy North Carolinian, and, because of their mutual interest, they became friends. Around the turn of the century, McRae had decided to use part of his fortune to set up planned farm colonies to demonstrate

^®Mead to Richard R. Lyman, March 19, .1926; to Senator John B. Kendrick, March 4, 1926; to R. Kelly, June 27, 19 27; to W. W. Robertson, July 29, 192 5; to Charles B. Stafford, May 19, 1928, to Director, Bureau of the Budget, February 3, 1928; to Coolidge, April 12, 1928; to F, J. Bailey, April 9, 1928; Work to Cramton, March 31, 1926, file 515, CSGCRB. 169 diversified agriculture to the South. By 1908 he had launched six such communities in North Carolina that proved moderately successful. In the early 20's, Mead, McRae and several others tried to induce private capital to invest in a model development that would include the advantages of town and country. When they failed to obtain financial backing for this scheme, McRae and Mead, who had become Commissioner of Reclamation, turned to the government to finance a settlement plan for the South.^ In 1924, Congress appropriated $15,000 to the Reclamation Bureau for an investigation of the possibilities of developing cut-over and swamp land. Mead lead a three- member advisory committee to look into opportunities in the South. The panel recommended the creation of demon­ stration farm colonies similar to Durham and Delhi in all of the Southeastern states. Based on their findings, a conference was held in Washington in December of 1927 to discuss "the promotion of better rural conditions and a more advanced type of agriculture in the South". In his invitation to delegates, Mead indicated his concern for the plight of the Negroes and unskilled white farmers who "as tenants or hired laborers are unsuited to any but the most primitive farm practices". Representatives from seven

•^Conkin, Tomorrow A New World, 277-80. 170 Southern states and other interested persons from around the country met with officials of the Interior Department and the Bureau of Reclamation to formulate a plan to secure federal funds for establishing planned communities which would replace these dreary conditions. 20 The following year legislation was introduced in Congress for 10 million dollars to set up demonstration colonies in 11 Southern states. Interior Secretary Work had warned Mead after the Washington conference that he. doubted that Congress would "be interested in our embarking on reclamation in the South, in view of experience with it in the West". The bill was never brought to a vote, al­ though an additional $15,000 was granted for continued study of the problem. In 1929, Commissioner Mead tried again but was rebuffed by the new Interior Secretary Ray Lyman Wilbur, who told him candidly that such a project was "one of agriculture and settlement and not of reclama­ tion". Mead persisted, but without administration backing— and because of vigorous opposition from the Agriculture Department—there was little hope of any action. Later, in

? 0 Mead to delegates to Southern Reclamation Con­ ference, n.d., T. C. Mead Papers. "Reclamation and Rural Development in the South", House Document 7 65, 69 Cong., 2 Sess. (Serial 8735), 1-3, 3:.'.';" '"'Proceedings of Southern Reclamation Conference", Senate Document 45, 70 Cong. 1 Sess. (Serial 8870), iv, 1-5, 8-15, ARCR, 1926, 2; The Reclamation Era, III (January 1928), 2-3. 171 1932, Mead was still interested in a settlement bill for the South, but concluded that "the present financial situa­ tion" mitigated against passage of a measure that was "not absolutely essential just now". 21 The set backs over his planned settlement scheme did not diminish Mead's accomplishments during his first five years in office. Under his direction, federal recla­ mation made great advances toward becoming the force in American life that its sponsors had envisioned for it. Problems continued—over $500,000 was deferred in 1929 on payments due from water users--but the general trend steadily improved until the Depression. Mead justifiably took pride in the transformation he had brought about. In 19 28, as Mead's seventieth birthday drew near, Secretary Work had requested that the Civil Service Commission allow him to continue for two more years because of his "in­ estimable value" to the Bureau. Mead originally had planned to stay in Washington for only one year, but each time he

^Mead to Wilbur, May 15, 1929, January 14, 1932; to Hugh McRae, October 8, 1929, August 3, 193 2; to Alvin Johnson, March 22, 1930; Work to Mead, Decc...c 21, 1927; Wilbur to Mead, May 4, 1929; to Addison T. Smith, February 28, 1930; to Charles L. McNary, January 7, 1932; Alvin Johnson to Mead, March 26, 1930, file 14 6, ACRo. ARCR, 1929, 6. 172 faced the prospect of retiring, he decided to extend his commitment, 22 Mead could not bring himself to quit because he liked Washington and loved his work. Reluctant at first to sever his ties with California, he soon became com­ fortable in the nation's capital. His yearly salary of $10,00 0 allowed him to live well, while the social life offered a frequent and welcome respite from arduous office duties. The Meads were seldom at a loss for something to do. They went to receptions at the White House and were invited to dinners or parties at the homes of many prominent politicans and government officials. Mead also enjoyed the camaradarie at the Cosmos Club where he spent many evenings. When not attending some function, Mead followed a regular routine. He would come home early and take a bath and nap before dinner. He rose about four in the morning and worked while everything was quiet—a habit he formed as a student at Purdue. His favorite relaxation was playing "500"; he passed many evenings at home beating guests in this card 23 game.

^Mead to Tom Mead, January 14, 30, February 1, 23, 1925, January 1, 1928, T. C. Mead Papers; Mead to W. W. Campbell, January 30, 1925, UCAB; Work to Civil Service Commission, November 16, 1927, file 22-63, ADDI. ARCR, 1929, 37. 23 Mead to Tom Mead, January 30, 19 25, January 18, 1927, T. C. Mead Papers; Mead to Alexander Lucas, December 173 <\ large part of Mead's time was spent away from Washington. He made at least one trip every spring to the West to inspect reclamation projects. As Commissioner, he was also invited to speak at many meetings, and to con­ sult on water problems in various places. In 1926, he went to Cuba to advise officials on hydraulic development and to Haiti to examine irrigation possibilities there. The following year he was absent from the office from April until the middle of June attending a Pan-Pacific Conference in Honolulu, and from August to October he was in Palestine for the Zionist Organization of America. In 1929, he and Mrs. Mead journeyed to Mexico City where the Commissioner served as chief of the team negotiating an agreement with Mexico over the waters of the Colorado and Rio Grande rivers. These international travels ended after 1929 be­ cause of his preoccupation with Bureau problems—especially the Colorado River project—and because as he grew older, the trips abroad seemed more strenuous. In the 1930's, Mead limited himself to Western tours and his duties in Washington,^

7, 1925, file 515, CSGCRB; Appointment file on Mead, file 22-63, ADDI; Mead Interview, January 3, 1970; Kreutzer Interview, January 7, 1970. ^Appointment file on Mead, file 22-63, ADDI. Mead, "What We Have Done in Haiti", The New Republic, XLVIII (November 17, 1926), 378-79. 174 The Meads lived in an apartment in Washington until 1928, when they purchased a comfortable house at 1661 Crescent Place. The family became smaller each year. Tom and his wife lived in the West, Lucy had married Morrill Marston, and Sue was away at school. John attended West Point, which pleased his father immensely. Katherine, the daughter who had been retarded from birth, died in 1928. Only a grown son, Arthur, who suffered from mental illness, remained at home. He caused his father untold worry and problems by his frequent disappearances. Mead relied on his "buddy", George Kreutzer, and Katherine1s nurse, Hilda Blaylock, to find Arthur and bring him back. When the situation finally became too unmanageable in 1928, Mead ; asked Kreutzer to commit Arthur to a mental institution; he did not have the heart to do so himself. The Meads went to see their son often and brought him homo to visit whenever they could. It was an added grief for the Com­ missioner when George Kreutzer died suddenly of a heart attack in November of 1929.^ The Depression which started in 1929 disrupted the steady improvement in reclamation that had bfigun with the

^Mead to Tom Mead, January 14 , 19 25, jTovomber 19, 1926, January 6, 12, 22, February 2, 12, 22, February 2, 12, November 7, 1928, November 20, December 4, 1929, T. C. Mead Papers; Kreutzer Interview, January 7, 1970. Sue married Edgar F. Kaiser, a son of Henry J. Kaiser, in the early 175 Fact Finders' inquiry. The total value of irrigated crops had risen from $65,046,300 in 1923 to $161,179,880 in 1929. This was accomplished despite the generally depressed state of agriculture during the decade. However, by 1931, the value of irrigated farm goods had fallen to $73,960,377. Because of this precipitate drop, water users were unable to meet their payments to the government, and began peti- tioning for a five year moratorium on construction costs. Mead incurred the emnity of people on the projects when he opposed a blanket deferment, and urged instead yearly sus­ pensions to individuals on the basis of need. However, the situation had become so serious by April of 1932 that he relented and Congress passed a bill which deferred con­ struction payments for 1931. Without such action, the Bureau could not legally have provided water for a majority of the irrigators, because the law forbade delivery to anyone 12 months in arrears on construction payments. Eventually, deferrments were granted for five years—until 193 6--and the repayment period extended to make up for this lapse.

1930's, and John was married in 1934 after graduating from West Point. ^Mead to Cramton, June 17, 1931, file 402, LGCRB; Mead to Wilbur, September 23, December 21, 1931, file 8-1, Reclamation Service, Organization and Methods, Department of Interior [RSOMDI], Record Group 48, National Archives. ARCft, 1924, 193; ARCR, 1930, 1, ARCR, 1932, 1. Many irrigators also agitated for suspension of operation and maintenance charges. Mead showed that in spite of the water users' claims, this action was not necessary and would "demoralize reclamation finances". At the Orland project in California, for example, less than two percent of the cultivated farms had not paid operating charges in 1933. The Commissioner was adamantly opposed to any favoritism toward people living on lands watered by the government. In a letter to the new Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes in November, Mead argued that people on private irrigation projects received no special treatment and that if federal reclamation was to continue it ought to be kept a "business institution". He pointed out that movements for relief were often the work of "demagogues who trump up reasons why these debts should not be paid". He warned Ickes against accepting too un­ critically the petitions of water users, noting that the Bureau's policy of insistence had resulted in the collec­ tion of almost all the operating funds due the government. In spite of this policy, the amounts collected declined, but, in general, Mead trimmed expenses to make up for a o 7 large part of the deficit.

2?Mead to Harold L. Ickes, November 6, 1933, file 105.251, ACRB; to Ickes, July 5, 1933, file 4 02, LGCRB. The income from operation and maintenance charges fell from $1,920,500 in fiscal 1929 to $996,115 in fiscal 177 The suspension of construction payments created more serious difficulties because the building of new projects, as v/ell as the completion of old ones, was de­ pendent on these funds. Even before the moratoria, receipts had begun to diminish and revenues from land sales and royalties from oil leases, both earmarked for reclamation construction, fell by a third of their former amounts. This meant hardships for the farmers who needed additional facilities and for construction workers who relied on the building program for a livelihood. To compensate for the reduced monies, Mead asked Congress to advance five million dollars to the Bureau in 1931 so that all construction would not have to be halted. These funds, v/ith the other accretions, gave Reclamation officials over seven-and~a- quarter million dollars to spend during fiscal 1932. For the next 12 months, however, no such funds were provided by the lav/makers, and less than three-and-a-half million dollars was expended for construction. That same year, the total value of irrigated crops slipped to $50,158,381. 2 8

1936. The cost of operation and maintenance during the same period was reduced from $1,786,928 in Jiiical 1929 to $1,204,053 in fiscal 1936. During those ei:;ht; years, three years--1929, 1933 and 1934—showed an excess c receipts over expenditures. ARCR, 1929-1932, all page 1; Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior [ARSIJ, l'J33, 5-6; 1934- 26-27; 1935, 49-50; 1936, 59. 2^Mead to Wilbur, January 22, 1931, file 8-1, RSOMDI. ARCR, 1932, 6; ARSI, 1933,' 5. 178 Despite these gloomy statistics, the basic struc­ ture of the federal reclamation program was sound when Franklin D, Roosevelt was inaugurated in March of 1933. Much of this was due to Elwood Mead's work as Commissioner, As Mead saw the problem by 1933, irrigation farmers, like farmers everywhere, were in distress because of low prices; government action to raise prices was the true solution to that problem. Under him, the deepening economic depression delayed repayments on construction charges but did not re­ sult in defaults, while the operation and maintenance ex­ penses were kept within a reasonable inbalance. Moreover, the Commissioner's penchant for long range planning put his Bureau in an excellent position for the public works programs which the New Deal employed to stimulate the economy. Although some water users, piqued because he did not accede to their every wish, opposed Mead's reappoint­ ment, most people applauded when President Roosevelt re- tained the 75 year old Commissioner in office. 29 Under Roosevelt, Mead managed the Bureau of Recla­ mation in much the same manner that he had under Coolidge and Hoover. He told Ray Lyman Wilbur, his former boss, that he was "glad [he had] lingered". He was close enough to

^Mead to Ickes, November 6, 1933, file 105.251, ACRE; Appointment file on Mead, files 22-63, 22-64, ADDI. 179 appreciate the changes being implemented by the New Deal, yet in another sense his bureau was remote. He noted that he had not seen the new Secretary of the Interior for more than two weeks because "the part of his team that knows its onions is left alone".^ Although routine duties remained essentially un­ changed, the construction program for reclamation was vastly enlarged. Like Interior Secretary Ickes, Mead was a cautious spender, yet because of the Bureau's long range planning and feasibility studies, building could begin as soon as funds were available. By the middle of 1934, the Public Works Administration (PWA) had allotted $103,535,000 for existing or new projects. The PWA "largely shoved aside the former [construction] activities of [the] Depart­ ment", but Bureau engineers were busy supervising and drawing up plans. In addition, they did all the design and specification work for the Tennessee Valley Authority project.• 4- 31 When the work force was enlarged to handle the in­ creased activity after 1933, the new employees were hired with Public Works funds, and, as such, did not have civil

"^Mead to Wilbur, n.d., Kay Lyman Wilbur Papers, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library, West Branch, Iowa, 31Ibid. ARSI, 1934, 24. 180 service status. Instead they were required to obtain clearance from the Democratic organization in the locale from which they came. Mead felt that this was "theo­ retically . . . all wrong", but "practically, we have had but little difficulty", since no unsatisfactory men were forced on the Bureau. The local Democratic authorities were inclined to give clearance to anyone from their area, regardless of political affiliation, ^ Mead had built up an efficient staff over the years, and, in general, they were both competent and loyal. How­ ever, in 1934, Porter W. Dent, the assistant commissioner, resigned and sent a scathing 50 page indictment of the Com­ missioner to Secretary Ickes. Dent, apparently prodded by an ambitious wife, aspired to Mead's job. He was forced out after it was discovered that he had been sending let­ ters to people on projects about what he would do for them if he were Commissioner, Ickes dismissed Dent's complaint as having "no foundation". A year later, Miss Mae A. Schnurr, Mead's secretary, in an attempt to make herself indispensible, assumed authority to act for Mead. She was dismissed after she was caught intercepting and answer­ ing some mail without her boss1 knowledge. Those two

•^Mead to Robert G. Sproul, May 14, 1934, UCAB. 181 incidents were upsetting for the aging Commissioner, who was noted for his administrative abilities.^3 While his primary concern was running the Bureau, Mead took great interest in the Subsistence Homesteads Program of the New Deal. This experiment had its origins in garden cities, farm colonies, and a general movement for a broad program of national economic planning. Since his return from Australia, Mead had continually pushed the idea of government planned communities. Attempts to establish soldier settlements after World War X failed, but Durham and Delhi had been for him the embodiment of his dream for remaking rural America. When he became Com­ missioner, Mead tried to secure funds to organize colonies in the West and later in the South, but could not obtain enough Congressional support. Senator John II. Bankhead of Alabama, a leading advocate of this legislation, in­ cluded an appropriation for subsistence homesteads in the

National Industrial Relief Act of 1933. After Mead had prostyletized and publicized the idea for two decades, a

national, scheme for model communities was at last adopted.^

"^Porter W. Dent to Ickes, March 19, 1934; Mead to Ickes, April 12, 1934; Ickes to Dent, May 19, 1934, file 8-1, RSOMDI. Kreutzer Interview, January 7, 1970; Mead Interview, January 3, 1970. J'*Conkin, Tomorrow A New World, 37-38, 87. 182 Mead was not officially connected with the Sub­ sistence Homesteads Division of the Interior Department or the Resettlement Administration which absorbed it in 1935, but his influence was unmistakable. He was consulted in 1933 when plans were being formulated to put the general provisions of the law into actual practice, and was men­ tioned as a possible head of the new agency. The job was given instead to Milburn Lincoln Wilson, a younger man who acknowledged his debt to Mead for most of his earliest ideas on subsistence homesteads. The Commissioner apparent­ ly was not involved in subsequent decisions, although he watched the program closely. Mead had always tied his plans for rural communities to reclamation, but the rep­ resentatives of the Subsistence Homesteads Division re­ jected this idea. In 1934, he suggested the development of a settlement at the Belle Fourche, South Dakota, project, but Subsistence Homestead leaders turned down the plan because they did "not look with favor on the creation of a i unit completely financed by the Government". Still, the basic concept of planned rural communities owed more to Mead than to any other man; the New Deal program for sub­ sistence homes was the fruition of the one idea he cherished most,. 35

35lbid.r 81, 93-94. Mead to Youngblutt, November 8, 1934, file 510, CSGCRB. 183 In his 12 years as Commissioner of Reclamation, Elwood Mead managed to accomplish virtually everything he had set out to do. He took an essentially bankrupt bureau in 1924 and transformed it into an agency that was not only able to survive the early years of the depression without massive public funds, but also to thrive under the New Deal. His genius both as a policy maker and as an adminis­ trator enabled him to find solutions for reclamation prob­ lems and to carry out the needed reforms. In January of 1929, when he was 71 years old, there had been speculation that Mead would retire. He had already completed the re­ structuring of the Bureau—a triumph for any man--yet he could not give up the work he loved so much. Plans for the development of the Colorado River were then moving to the construction stage. The gigantic dam planned for Boulder Canyon, he wrote his son Tom, would doubtless give him increased "prestige", and he wanted to "stay on for two more years if my health holds good". In the end, Mead lived to see this project through to completion.

•^Mead to Tom Mead, January 1, 1929, T. C. Mead Papers. CHAPTER 9

BUILDING BOULDER DAM

The building of Boulder Dam on the Colorado River was one of the outstanding engineering feats of the twentieth century. As Commissioner of Reclamation, Elwood Mead oversaw this gigantic operation—the most expensive and largest single reclamation project the United States had ever undertaken. With no precedent for such a mammouth task, Mead overcame tremendous obstacles, moving both men and material to a remote, barren section of the country for the construction of this huge structure. Under Mead's expert direction and planning, one portal of the diversion tunnels was closed on February 1, 1935, and the reservoir began to fill, accomplishing the first task of this multi­ purpose project—'control of the turbulent Colorado. The entire dam was finished in 1936, a full two years ahead of schedule.

-^-Boulder Canyon Project: Final Reports, Part I (2 Bulletins, Boulder City, Nevada; Bureau of Reclamation, 1943) [BCPFR, Part I], Bulletin 1, 116. For a general dis­ cussion of the background and building of the Boulder Canyon Project see also Paul L. Kleinsorge, The Boulder Canyon Pro­ ject, Historical and Economic Aspects (Stanford, California: Stanford"Universxty Press, 1941). The dam was named for Herbert Hoover by Ray Lyman Wilbur in 193 0, but was changed

184 185 The Colorado River watershed which covered portions of seven states and the Republic of Mexico was roughly divided into two basins. The upper basin consisted of the drainage area in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico, while the lower basin included parts of Arizona, California, Nevada and Mexico. The two areas were separated by the "canyon region"—a 300 mile "geological bottleneck" in southern Utah and northern Arizona. In the lower basin were broad alluvial plateaus in its northern reaches and a rich delta region to the south which included the fertile Imperial Valley. Development of the Imperial Valley in California began around the turn of the century, and by 1903 some 2,00 0 settlers were farming there. Water for irrigation was obtained from the Colorado by a canal that began at the United States-Mexico boundry and passed through 137 miles of Mexican territory. However, the river was un- dependable, alternating between drought and flood. Because 1903 and 1904 were dry years, additional cuts were made in the river bank to allow more water to flow into the canal. In 1905, the Colorado discharged an unusually heavy volume of water, and the closures of the cuts failed. The swollen river flooded the Valley, caused millions of dollars worth

to Boulder Dam by Harold Ickes in 1933. It retained this name until 194 6 when it was renamed Hoover Dam, 186 of damage, and filled the Salton Sea. After two years of struggle, the levees were rebuilt and the river returned to its channels. This disaster, costly though it was, served to focus the attention of the nation on the problems of the Colorado. When floods were not a menace, droughts threatened the existence of the farmers. Some years they had to haul water for domestic use and for livestock as much as 100 miles. In the Imperial Valley, the area under cultivation increased rapidly despite the difficulties, and by 1910 there were 180,000 acres under crops. The residents of the Valley were uneasy because their water supply depended on the canal which ran through the northern section of Baja California, and at the same time they worried about the constant threat of a flood from below the border. In short, their concerns alternated between whether they would get enough or too much water. Moreover, a 1904 agreement with Mexico gave that nation the right to one- half of the water supply on demand, a stipulation that re­ tarded expansion in the Imperial Valley. Then, in 1918, the Coachella Valley County Water District was formed in the area north of the Imperial Valley. Officials of the

2BCPFR, Part I, Bulletin 1, 1-5, 25-27, 33-39, 43. District announced that only about 10,000 acres of the 250,000 irrigable acres in the Coachella Valley could be adequately supplied by underground water. The need for water to put this land to use, added to the desire to free the Imperial Valley from reliance on Mexico, caused agita­ tion for the construction of a canal located entirely in the Unxted. ' States. 3 In 1916, Mead and two engineers, D. C. Henny and Joseph Jacobs, had investigated the problems of irriga­ tion and flood control in the Imperial Valley. In their report, drawn up in March of 1917, they emphasized that the "political obstacles" caused by the location of a large portion of the works in Mexico had been almost as serious as the physical difficulties in operating the enterprise. The Mexican corporation which controlled the canal was forbidden by the Mexican government from entering into any arrangement with a foreign government. This provision, the report noted, barred any action on flood control in Mexico by the Reclamation Service. Furthermore, Mead wrote n -njamin Wheeler at Berkeley that the governor of Baja California was an 11 irresponsible dictator" who har- rassed the Mexican canal company for bribes. The three

3lbid., 27-28, 33-35; Golze, Reclamation in the U. S... 170". 188 men recommended that further investigations be made to find a way to free the Imperial Valley from this problem. 4 The following year, an Ail-American Canal Board, consisting of Mead, Carl E. Grunsky of the Imperial Irri­ gation District, and W. W. Schlecht of the Reclamation Service, was created to supervise surveys and make recom­ mendations on a canal located entirely in the United States. This report, submitted to Secretary of the In­ terior Franklin K. Lane in July of 1919, favored the idea of a new canal, and estimated it would cost over 15 million dollars. However, Arthur Powell Davis, Director of the Reclamation Service, opposed any scheme which dealt strictly with a canal. An advocate of the comprehensive development of the Colorado since the turn of the century, Davis feared that the canal would frustrate these plans without solving the fundamental problems of silting and floods—or an agreement with Mexico. He was sufficiently persuasive, and Congress appropriated funds for further study of all phases of the Colorado River question."'

^Mead, D. C. Henny, and Joseph Jacobs, "Irrigation and Flood Protection Problems of Imperial Valley, Cali­ fornia", typescript dated March 1917; Mead to Wheeler, November 1, 1916, UCAB. 5 Annual Report of tho Reclamation Service, 1918, 381-82, 1920, 417,'476-77; BCPFR, Part I, Bulletin 1, 44; Mead, W. W. Schlecht, and C. E. Grunsky, The All-American Canal, Report of the All-American Canal Board (Washington: 189 This new study was completed and submitted to Sec­ retary of the Interior Albert B. Fall by Reclamation Director Davis in February of 1922. Generally known as the Fall-Davis Report, it surveyed the problems of the lower Colorado region and called for the construction of an Ail-American Canal which would be reimbursed by the lands benefited. Reflecting Mead's influence, the document recom­ mended that public lands reclaimed by such works be re­ served for ex-servicemen "under conditions securing actual settlement and cultivation". Concomitant with the canal was to be the building of a multi-purpose dam at or near Boulder Canyon, "to be reimbursed by the revenues from leasing the power privileges incident thereto". Finally, the report laid down priorities for any future development. Thus, the first consideration was to be river regulation and flood control, followed by storage water for irriga­ tion, and then hydroelectric power production.^

While these technical studies were being conducted, efforts were being made to settle some of the interstate

Govo-:ii::.::nt Printing Office, 1920), 63-64; Norris Hundley, jr., Dividing the Waters (Berkeley: University of Cali­ fornia Press, 1966), 46-48; "Problems of Imperial Valley and Vicinity", Senate Document 142, 67 Cong., 2 Sess. (Serial 7977), 85. ^"Problems of Imperial Valley", Senate Doc. 142, 67 Cong, 2 Sess., 21. 190 and international complications inherent to the develop­ ment of the Colorado. Each of the seven states in the watershed wanted to guarantee that it received an equitable share of the water. After prolonged negotiations, the Colorado River Compact was signed in November of 19 22 at Santa Fe. Although based on a conservative estimate of 15 million acre-feet, the pact assumed an annual flow of 18 million acre-feet. The agreement gave lh million acre- feet to each basin and left the specific allotments to be decided by the states in each basin. The lower basin was allowed one million acre-feet of the surplus, while the remaining two million acre-feet were not apportioned. Herbert Hoover, the federal representative at these meet­ ings, sponsored a provision that any water given to Mexico should be supplied from the surplus. The stipulation was accepted, although it was clear that Mexican objections or claims were the least concern of those interested in im- proving the Colorado River.7 With the general acceptance of the compact by the state-- :..r/olved (Arizona refused) , sponsors of the Colorado

River project proceeded with engineering studies and efforts to obtain the federal financing needed to build the huge

7 "The Hoover Dam Documents", House Document 717, 80 Cong,, 2 Sess. (Serial 11229), Appendix 203; Hundley, D-"'•'•'iding the Waters , 51, 191 works. In Washington the fight was led by California Representative Phil D. Swing, who had been chief counsel for the Imperial Irrigation District prior to his election to the House in 1920, and by the influential Senator Hiram V, Johnson, also from California. In the spring of 1922, they introduced the Swing-Johnson bill which embodied the recommendations of the Fall-Davis Report. However, their measure did not pass—nor did ones they sponsored in 1924 and 1926. 8 When Mead was named Commissioner of Reclamation in 1924, he became directly involved in the Boulder Canyon project. Already a strong supporter of the scheme—it bore heavily the imprint of his friend A. P. Davis--Mead was now head of the bureau which would carry out the plan if authorization could be secured from Congress. Mead worked with Swing and Johnson on their bills. He wanted Johnson to include provisions for aid and direction in settlement on the lands which would be opened by the pro­ ject. Although the Senatoa: saw the need for such a stipula­ tion, he was reluctant to add another issue to the fight for passage. Meanwhile, the increasing needs of Los Angeles

^"Hoover Dam Documents", House Doc. 717, 80 Con. 2 Sess., 38-43; Beverley Bowon Moeller, "Phil Swing In Washington: The Boulder Canyon Project Legislation" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, 1969); BCPFR, Part I, Bulletin 1, 52. 192 for domestic water, the continued danger to the Imperial Valley, and a lessening opposition by private power in­ terests aided the cause. The power companies were mollified because the law left open the decision whether the power plant would be in the hands of government or private com­ panies. Congress approved the Swing-Johnson measure, and on December 21, 1928, President Calvin Coolidge signed the bill, known as the Boulder Canyon Project Act.^ The Boulder Canyon Project Act established the Colorado River Dam Fund, and authorized the Treasury Department to advance up to $165,000,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation. The project would include a dam with a reservoir of at least 26,000,000 acre-feet capacity at Black or Boulder Canyon, and the All-American Canal to the Imperial and Coachella valleys. Cost of the da-a and power plant was estimated at approximately $110,000,000, while the canal was figured at $38,500,000. The remainder of the sum was for interest during construction. The canal was to be repaid by the water users. Of the total amount expended ;>or the dam and power plant, $25,000,000 was

^Mead to Hiram Johnson, January 19, 1926; Johnson to Mead, January 20, 1926, file 522, Colorado River- Imperial Valley Project, Reclamation Bureau [CRIVPRB], Record Group 115, National Archives. BCPFR, Part I, Bulletin 1, 53; John D. Hicks, Republican Ascendency, 1921-1933 (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., I96 0") ,"125; Swain, Federal Conservation Policy, 90, 193 allotted for flood control, which could be repaid out of surpluses; some $17,717,000 was for power plant machinery and would be returned by the power lessees. The remainder was to be amortized over a 50 year period at four percent."*"® Before construction could begin, the Secretary of the Interior was required by the act to secure contracts for the sale of hydroelectric power which would provide for repaying the cost of the dam and power plant within 50 years. Part of this provision irritated Mead, To compen­ sate for the taxes they could collect if the facilities were privately owned, Arizona and Nevada each were given 18 3/4 percent of any surplus power revenues. Mead con­ sidered this arrangement "vicious" and "extorted from the needs of California". He saw no justification for giving these two states special privileges "for allowing others to use the water flowing to the sea past their boundary and which nature prevents their using". Later, when the question of rates arose, Arizona and Nevada tried to exert

their influence again, but Mead succeeded in obtaining

sat.i.s::r.ory power agreements in the spring of 1930, By terr.:3 of the contracts, the unit price for hydroelectric energy was set so the government would be repaid as the act required. In addition, the power lessees were required

^U. S, Statutes at Large, XLV, 1057-66, 194 to operate and maintain the power plant and to repay the 1 -I cost of the plant's equipment within 10 years. While these contracts were being negotiated, attempts were made to secure an agreement with Mexico over the Colorado River waters. Mead was especially con­ cerned about the Imperial Valley's dependence on Mexico until the dam and canal were completed; construction was anticipated to take eight years. In 1924, Mead had been appointed chairman of the American Section of the Inter­ national Water Commission, set up to negotiate a distribu­ tion of the Rio Grande, Colorado, and Tijuana river waters. The situation was complicated because American farmers on the lower Rio Grande needed water from Mexican tributaries of that stream, and Mexican farmers on the lower Colorado used "American" water from that river. When Mexico stepped up development of her lands along rivers feeding the Rio Grande after 1924, Texas farmers became alarmed. They feared that their interests might be sacrificed for a Colorado settlement, while those persons concerned with the

•'••''Mead to Grace Raymond Hebard, n.d., Hebard Col­ lection; Mead to Wilbur, January 10, May 15, 1930, Ray Lyman Wilbur Papers, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library, West Branch, Iowa. BCPFR, Part I, Bulletin 2, 17, 291- 356. The contract allotted 36'i of the firm power to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; 13% to the City of Los Angeles; 9'i to Southern California Edison Company; 6% to smaller California municipalities; and 18% each to Arizona and Nevada. Mead to Wilbur, May 15, 1930, Wilbur Papers. 195 Colorado basin feared a favorable Rio Grande agreement at their expense. Representatives of the two countries finally began formal talks in August of 1929, after almost five years of gathering information. 12 As head of the United States delegation, Mead skillfully presented his case. He tried to convince the Mexican representatives of the flood- and silt-control benefits which would accrue from American improvements on the Colorado, but his offer of up to 1,000,000 acre-feet was rejected as much too small. After the discussions became deadlocked, Mead tried to reach an agreement on flood control. He regarded a settlement on water allot­ ment as desirable but not essential at that time. It would be many years before serious injury to Mexico could result, and the United States would continue its develop­ ment regardless. On the other hand, he feared that the irrigated lands in both countries would be in jeopardy, at least until the Colorado construction was finished, unless something was done "to insure a safe and permanent regimen for the river". However, the talks broke off and

12"International Water Commission,. Una.Loci States and Mexico", House Document 3 59, 71 Cong. 2 Ses.s. (Serial 9233), 27-28, 488-91; Hundley, Dividing the V.a57- 58, 67-68. Mead to Wilbur, April 10, 1929, Foreign Af­ fairs, Presidential Papers [FAPP], Herbert Hoover Presi­ dential Library, West Branch, Iowa. 196 nothing was achieved on this point either. Fortunately, there was no serious flood threat along the lower basin while the Colorado River Project was being built. 1 1 Plans for the actual construction had begun even before President Coolidge signed the act in December of 1928. In May of that year, Congress directed that a five- man committee be set up to inspect the proposed sites for the dam and to study "the safety, economic and engineering feasibility, and adequacy of the proposed structure". No construction was to begin until the plans were approved by this group, known as the Colorado River Board. The members included three engineers—Major General William L. Sibert (retired) as chairman, Daniel W. Mead, and Robert Ridgeway—'and two geologists, Charles P, Berkey and Warren J. Mead. After careful study, this board recom­ mended raising the height of the proposed dam by 25 feet—to 727 feet--for more effective flood control. They also carefully examined all of the possible sites for the dam

•'••"•'International Water Commission", House Doc. 359, 71 C- j'.j. 2 Sess, , 14-75; Hundley, Dividing the Waters, 68- 74. zd statement attached to letter Wilbur to Hoover, November 5, 1929, FAPP. In the letter, Wilbur told the President that "it seems to me that there will be no settlement of this question [Mexico's share of the water] unless we purchase lower California". An agreement was finally reached in 1944. 197 in Boulder and Black canyons, and made a detailed report 14 on the advantages and problems of each location. In June of 1929, Mead, Interior Secretary Wilbur, and a contingent of engineers made an inspection tour of the canyons. After careful consideration, they selected a location for the dam in Black Canyon, Its easy access from Las Vegas was an important factor in the choice. The exact details of design and plans for construction now began in earnest. While the engineering specifications were being prepared, work proceeded on the logistical problems of moving huge quantities of material to the site and erecting housing for the large number of men who would build the dam. On July 4, 1930, Wilbur ordered Mead to t, commence' construction on Boulder Dam. Shortly thereafter, the Union Pacific Railroad began to lay a 23-mile line from Las Vegas, while Nevada built a new highway the same dis­ tance. Both of these transportation facilities terminated at the construction town; the government, and later the contractors, completed the rest of the roads and railways to the site,^

14BCPFR, Part I, Bulletin 1, 53, 72-73; Bulletin 2, 11. The Reclamation Era, III (Men comber 1928), 133, The Meads were not related"to the Commissioner, •'"•'Wilbur to Mead, July 4 , 1930 , file 8-3, part 2, Colorado River Storage Administration, Department of In­ terior [CRSADI], Record Group 48, National Archives. BCPFR, 198 The dam was being built in such a remote section of the country that it was necessary to give special con­ sideration to the comforts of the men who would work in the area. Mead was particularly concerned about this, and when the delegation inspected the site for the dam in June of 1929, he picked oat a location high above the heat of the canyon floor to erect the needed housing. Because the construction was expected to take eight years, it also was agreed that substantial facilities were needed. However, Mead preferred to go beyond this and build a permanent town. He believed that the dam and the lake which would £',rm behind it would prove to be a tourist attraction, drawing thousands of visitors each year. Servicing the tourists and the staff which would run the dam and power plant would provide the future economic base for the town.16 Mead's vision of the future proved correct, but his immediate concern was the creation of surroundings conducive to the well-being and efficiency of the workers.

Part I, Bulletin 1, 84-85; ARCR, 1929, 2; 1930, 2-3. Mead, "Conquering the Colorado", The American Review of Reviews, LXXX (September 1929), 55, 58-60. -L6J. Rupert Mason to Willa Klug Baum, April, 1958, 314, ROHOUC; Mead Interview, January 3, 1970. Mead to Lynn Atkinson, January 6, 1930, file 214, CRIVPRB; Harry E. Crain to Ickes, February 15, 1936, file 22-63, ADDI, ARCR, 1930, 3-4. 199 He was particularly interested in providing "not only sanitary and comfortable living accommodations", but con­ ditions which would make for "sobriety and a clean moral atmosphere". He wanted the government to maintain close control over who would be permitted in the vicinity of the construction site. In this way, he hoped to keep out such disruptive influences as gamblers, prostitutes, bootleggers and, presumably, labor agitators. Moreover, the Commis­ sioner was determined that speculators would not build a "boom town", and make excessive profits off the workers. Accordingly, he persuaded Secretary Wilbur of the necessity to establish a government reservation, and Congress authorized almost two million dollars--as part of the cost of the dam--to provide facilities for the workers. An urban planner was employed and he laid out a fan-shaped community which was named Boulder City. 17

"^Mead to Wilbur, April 26, 1930; Press Release, Dor..otrnent of Interior, July 29, 1929; Porter W. Dent memo, January 31, 1931, file 402, CRIVPRB. Mead to Oswald Garri­ son Villarc'i, October 20, 1931, file 107, CRIVPRB. Ray Lviii 1 ;:ur, Jr., "Boulder City: A Survey of Its Legal Bac . Its City Plan and Its Administration" (Unpub- lir. : mister's thesis, Syracuse University, 1935), 116. Mead v.a.j conscious that Congress was keeping a close watch on extravagance in the building program for Boulder City. For example, he suggested to Raymond F. Walter, Chief En­ gineer for the project, that the term "club house" be dropped in favor of "dormitory", to "safeguard" against Congressmen who were "pretty finicky" about the expenses of Boulder City. Mead to R. F. Walter, March 17, 1931, file 412, CRIVPRB. 200 This arrangement undoubtedly had advantages, but it caused a great deal of controversy. Mead spent an undue amount of time overseeing details of the town's operations, and defending what went on at Boulder City. Nevada offi­ cials regarded the establishment of the reservation as an encroachment on the state's sovereignty, while Las Vegas merchants objected because the contractors of the dam were required to have 8 0 percent of their employees live in Boulder City, The state brought suit, and in order to end the litigation and proceed with construction of the dam, the federal government abandoned attempts to exercise ex­ clusive control. Instead, title to all land in the reservation area was retained by the Bureau of Reclamation, A person had to apply to the city manager to lease land in the town or surrounding territory. Hence, through the power to terminate leases the federal government closely regulated the "proper conduct" of concessionaries, and as owner of the land it excluded undesirables from the property.

1 O Mead notes on his meeting with Governor Fred B. Balzar of Nevada, February 6, 1932; Mead to W. A. Bechtel of Six Companies-, March 21, 1933; Mead to Wilbur, January 3, 1931; Mead to Thelen & Marrin, /-.iztorneys, June 17, 1931, file 402, CRIVPRB. Wilbur to B?.Izar, June 3, 1932; to Secretary of Labor, January 29, 1932; Mead to Ickes, March 27, 1934; S, R. Whitehead to Wilbur, December 30, 1930, file 8-3, CRSADI. Wilbur, Jr., "Boulder City", 120, 145; The Reclamation Era, XXII (February 1931), 28. 201 Although designed to eliminate the worst features of the "company town", Boulder City failed for the most part in this regard. Sims Ely, the city manager, was attacked with much justification for the dictatorial and often arbitrary way he administered his duties. Moreover, Six Companies, Incorporated, the chief builders of the dam, set up a subsidary enterprise to operate concessions in the town, and took advantage of their favored position. They also issued private script to employees until, after numerous complaints, they were ordered by Secretary Ickes in 1933 to cease this practice. In addition, there was a constant barrage of protests over inadequate facilities, especially during the early period of the dam's con­ struction,"*"^ Part of the problem with Boulder City stemmed from the Depression. Before facilities to house the workers could be completed, construction of the dam was begun. In the fall of 1930, President Hoover requested that, to assist

"^Cramton to Mead, June 29, October 1, 1931; Dent to Mead, July 1, 1931; Mead to Walker R. Young, October 3, 26, 1931; to Ickes, March 31, 1934; Young t,i October 20, December 31, 1931, September 13, 193 2; Youuy to Walter, January 4, 1932, file 402, CRIVPBR, Mead to Yon.:;, August 31, 1932; Mead press release, August 28 , 1932, ."i.iius Ely to Ted Burns, October 22, 1932, file 107, Cl-.IVv"'.!. Wilbur to Phil D, Swing, June 2, 1932; to Senator Davi<;:. J- Walsh, December 7, 1932; to Six Companies, May 15, 193J; Boulder City Chamber of Commerce to Ickes, March 28, 1934, file 8-3, parts 2-3, CRSADI. 202 in relieving unemployment, the work proceed with the "ut­ most dispatch possible". Mead ordered his engineers to complete plans and specifications as fast as possible, and bids were let in December, six months ahead of schedule. Men began flocking to southern Nevada in search of jobs almost as soon as the contract was signed on March 11, 1931.20 The general contract was awarded to Six Companies, Incorporated, a combination of construction firms organized to bid on this project. Mead had suggested to Interior Secretary Wilbur in 1929 that, because of the restricted space in the canyon, one contractor handle the building of the dam. He felt that a number of smaller construction com­ panies would be in each other's way, require duplication of machinery, and add to the cost of the structure. Six Com­ panies offered to build the dam for $48,890,995, less than one-tv.'entieth of one percent over the confidential estimate of the Bureau of Reclamation, and five million dollars lower than the nearest competitor. 21

^Wilbur to William L. Sibert, December 5, 1930, file 0-3, CRSADI; Mead to Atkinson, October 30, 1930, file 214, CRIVPRB, BCPFR, Part I, Bulletin 1, 88; Wilbur, Jr., "Boulder City", 76. 2•'•Mead to Wilbur, October 8, 1929, file 214, CRIVPRB; Wilbur to Secretary of Labor, January 29, 1932, file 8-3, part 2, CRSADI, BCPFR, Part I, Bulletin 1, 85- 39, 203 The terms of the contract called for Six Companies to build cofferdams upstream for diversion of the river and drill four tunnels 50 feet in diameter to reroute the river past the construction site where they were to erect the huge concrete dam. Since the government was to supply all permanent materials for the structure, the contract really required the company to furnish the men, machinery and management needed to build the dam. Mead set up a special section in the Bureau under Raymond F. Walter as chief engineer and Walker R. Young as construction engineer to coordinate the overall direction of the project. Mead had complete confidence in both men. This left the Com­ missioner free for his other administrative duties and free from day-to-day problems. Nevertheless, he kept a close watch on all details, paying particular attention to the operations of Boulder City, his final attempt at a model community. In the end, however, the entire undertaking was mainly Mead's responsibility and he had to defend what was done in Boulder Canyon as construction moved forward. Six Companies began work in May of 1931 and by July 4, when they started to excavate the diversion tun­ nels, over 2,000 men were employed by the contractors. On August 7, a strike temporarily halted construction. A

22BCPFR, Part I, Bulletin 1, 83, 88. 204 misunderstanding over wages triggered the walkout, but the underlying cause was a basic discontent over living and working conditions. Mead blamed the inadequate housing and the poor preparations for human needs on the haste with which the project was begun. He seemed to believe that people should excuse such temporary inconveniences as living in a hot tent and drinking warm water at work in the intense heat of the canyon because the commencement of the job was rushed in order to help relieve the acute un­ employment on the Pacific Coast. He was dismayed at the attacks on the Bureau in the nation's press, and he vigor­ ously defended the Six Companies, pointing to the money that was being spent to provide a decent atmosphere for their employees. The Commissioner did not deny that there were some valid complaints, but noted that they were being corrected as fast as possible. Somewhat heavy-handedly, Walker R, Young, the construction engineer, ordered the striking men off the reservation on August 11, and two days later they returned to work. J

^Mead to Villard, August 24, Octoabor 20, 1931; to Swing, November 25, 1931; Swing to Mead, Wovaiuber 21, 1931, file 107, CRIVPBR. Young to General Strike Co:r„'i.i.ttce, August 11, 1931, file 107.2, CRIVPRB; Worth M. Tippy, "The Situation at Hoover Dam", typescript report cia.' :i September 7, 1931, Colorado River, Presidential Papers [CR-'-'i, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library, West Branch, Iowa. DCPFR, Part 1^, Bulletin 1, 89, Edmund Wilson, "Hoover Dam", The New Republic, LXVIII (September 2, 1931), 66-69. 205 In the spring of 1932, another problem arose when some congressmen wrote to Secretary Wilbur about discrimi­ nation in the hiring of Negroes. Only two Negroes--both bootblacks—were allowed in the reservation, and they had to return to Las Vegas every night. This was at a time when some 3,000 men were working on the dam. Mead and Wilbur took the position that the government could not force the companies to hire blacks because such a require­ ment was not in their contracts. Mead noted the diffi­ culties of housing and feeding "colored labor", and the cost of providing separate facilities for them since he feared serious disruption if they were integrated in the dormitories and eating halls. Nevertheless, Six Companies volunteered to hire Negroes. It was a mere token gesture; by October of 1933, a report by Mead revealed that 65 had been hired, mostly for road work. In September, Ickes had issued orders that there was to be no discrimination at Boulder City. This too was essentially meaningless; in the spring of .1934 , only 11 blacks were working out of a total ce of over 4,500.^

2^Letters to Wilbur from William H. King, March 10, 1932; from Henry F. Ashurst, March 23, April 6, 1932; from Carl Hayden, March 24, 1932; from John N. Garner, March 28, 1932; from National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, May 4, 1932; from M. A. Bechtel, June 22, July 11, 1932; Wilbur to Ashurst, April 12, 1932; to Walter White, June 10, 1932; White to Harry Slattery, Assistant to 206 Employment peaked in the summer of 1934 at almost 5,000 workers when the dam itself was being constructed. Drilling the diversion tunnels had proceeded with remarkable speed. Progress was so rapid in 193 2 that Mead had to re­ vise the schedule and ask Congress for additional appropri­ ations to finance the construction of the cofferdams to block the river and turn the water into the tunnels. This work had to be done in the fall and winter when the Colo­ rado's flow was low. Appealing to a penurious Congress, Mead stressed the loss in power revenue from a year's delay if the cofferdams were not completed by the spring of 1933. He also pointed out the hardship that would result to the workers stranded in the desert if construction had to cease for a year. The money requested was granted. 25 Whenever appropriations were discussed, the ques­ tion of the treatment of workers arose. Mead was a staunch apologist of the Six Companies and of the contract with it

Ickes, April 9, 1934; Slattery to White, April 24, 1934, file 8-3, CRSADI. Mead to Wilbur, June 15, 1932; to James E. Watson, July 28, 1932; to Ickes, October 11, 1933; to Young, October 16, 1933; to Robert C. Weaver, Noveimber 9, 1934, file 107.5, CRIVPRB. 2^Wilbur to Jesse II. Metcalf, May 3, 1932, file 8-3, CRSADI; Mead to Key Pittman, June 6, 1932; to Hiram Johnson, June 6, 1932, file 241.33, CRIVPRB; Mead to Walker R. Young, May 27, August 31, 1932, file 107, CRIVPRB. Wil­ bur to Hoover with attached memo Mead to Wilbur, May 24, 1932, CRPP, Kleinsorge, Colorado River Project, 212. 207 and the other firms building the dam. He believed that conditions were the best that could be created under the circumstances. When the Public Works Administration took over the financing of the dam in 1933, he opposed anything that might alter the contracts. One PWA regulation limited the amount of time a person could work to 3 0 hours a week. Mead argued that if this rule was applied to the Boulder Canyon Project, it would add greatly to the construction cost and benefit no-one. There was nothing for men to do in that remote section of the country except work. Their wages would be cut because of the shortened week, but their expenses could not be reduced proportionately, (They were working 56 hours a week.) Moreover, the companies would have to build more facilities for employees. His reasoning was accepted and the Boulder Canyon Project was exempted from the 30 hour Public Works provision.26 The exemptions caused a few complaints, but no disruptions at the project. The men apparently were happy

^Mead to Scott Leavitt, May 25, 1932, tile 402, CRIVPRB; Mead to Walter, June 1, 1933; to F. Sc'vnopfe, June 21, 1933, file 246, CRIVPRB; Mead to (. Soule, September 28, 1933; Northcutt Ely to Assiscanc Secretary of Interior, September 7, 1932; file 107, Cl-i.I V v l'.'J. , Mead to Omaha World-Herald, June 29, 1932; to Walt" -, September 7, 1932; to Ickes, March 1, 1935; Dunbar G. 3u;-:Uick con­ fidential report to Ickes, April 30, 1934, file- ::-3, CRSADI, 208 for as many hours as they were allowed to work. In 1935, four years after construction began, the Interior Depart­ ment accused Six Companies of more than 70,000 violations of the eight hour day law. Until then, no-one apparently seemed concerned (or was in a position to object) about this. Although many employees harbored ill feelings to­ ward the contractors, there was no major strike from 1931 until 1935 when the job v/as nearing completion and forces were being reduced to only one shift per day. The walkout was quickly settled. Mead credited the lack of labor problems to the creation of Boulder City and, by implica­ tion, to the contractors' benevolence toward their em­ ployees. He emphasized the positive aspects of the town, but the real reason for the labor harmony was clearly the restrictive nature of the reservation. 27'

Mead to Ickes, July 18, 27, August 5, 1935, file 107.2, CRIVPRB; Mead to E. A. Hitchcock, March 26, 1934, file 4 02, CRIVPRB. Ickes to William Green, December 21, 1934; Young to Those in Charge of Engineering and Inspec­ tion, March 15, 1935; Special report, Interior Department's Division ox Investigation, July 12, 15, 193 5, file 8-3, CRSaD " . _'!ia Six Companies sought to justify their actions by ci . ..•4 the exceptions to the eight-hour law "in the case of e:ordinary events or conditions". Henry J. Kaiser, President of the Six Companies, claimed the emergency of helping relieve unemployment created by the depression and the danger from floods to the Imperial Valley as the emer­ gencies. Ickes refused this reasoning, and Six Companies v/as fined S100,000. This was hardly excessive since the Six Companies reportedly made $18 million on the $48 million contract. Ilenry J, Kaiser to Ickes, July 26, 1935; Ickes 209 Mead's statements on working conditions belied to some extent his knowledge of the actual situation. He tended to see things not as they were, but as he felt they ought to be. Because he believed that most men were honest like himself, he defended the Six Companies. He trusted that its management sincerely did all it could for the employees. This did not reflect any callousness toward the workers as some believed; Mead was genuinely inter­ ested in their welfare. In 1934, he tried to make arrange­ ments to have those laid off as the dam was completed moved to other projects. He thought they would be especial­ ly fitted for employment at Grand Coulee dam, the second huge multi-purpose project that the Reclamation Bureau was undertaking. But Mead's superiors in the Interior Depart­ ment ruled against a mass movement of laborers to another area. They told him noncommittally, however, that there was "no reason why men laid off . . . could not return home or any locality in which they wished to settle". 2 8 to Louis R. Glavis, November 14, 1935, file 107, CRIVPRB. Frank Wright to Ickes, February 4, 1936, file 8-3, part 5, CRSADI, ^Mead to E. K. Bur lev/, December 11, 1934; Burlew to E. W. Clark, December 20, 1934. file 8-3, CRSADI. The construction of Grand Coulee Da;a V/as begun in 1933, but the bulk of the work was done after Mead's death. Although he had long advocated the project, Mead had little to do with its construction. His "monument" was the Colorado River Project, Golze, Reclamation in the U. S., 176-78; Swain, 210 An area where many of the workers from the dam found employment was on the construction of the All- American Canal which was built west from the Imperial Dam, 17 miles above Yuma, Arizona, to the Imperial Valley. Mead had asked Secretary Ickes in May of 1933 to begin building the canal as soon as possible, and stressed that the con­ struction would aid in relieving unemployment. Moreover, he was concerned that unless it were finished about the same time as Boulder Dam, Mexico could expand her irriga­ tion with the regulated flow of the Colorado and thus establish a right under international law to its continued use. However, complications in securing satisfactory con­ tracts with the Coachella District water users delayed the letting of contracts, and construction did not begin until August of 1935, In 1935, the number of men employed on the dam in

Black Canyon began a steady decline. On February 1 of that

year, one portal was closed and a lake began to form behind

the 727 foot arch-shaped concrete structure. The work of putting the finishing touches on the dam and pov.'or plant

Federal Conservation Policy, 91-93; "They Stan:! Out From the Crowd", The Literary Digest, CXVI (September 23, 1933), o_/ • ^^Mead to Ickes, May 24, December 27, 1933; to Colonel Waite, December 6, 1933; to Walter, December 11, 1933, file 246, CRIVPRB, BCPFR, Part I, Bulletin 1, 123-28. continued throughout the year. On September 30, President Franklin D. Roosevelt journeyed west for the formal dedi­ cation of Boulder Dam, which later would be renamed Hoover Dam. It was an impressive ceremony, attended by six governors, many high government officials and 12,000 visitors. The festivities were marred only by the absence of one notable figure. Dr. Elwood Mead was ill in a Los Angeles hospital. By October Mead had recuperated from his illness and gone back to work, but he was finally feeling his age. After his return to Washington, he continued at his job until a stroke felled him a few days after his 78^ birth­ day. He lingered about a week, and died on January 26, 1936. Ten days later Secretary of the Interior Ickes an­ nounced that the reservoir forming behind Boulder Dam- Mead's last and largest achievement—would be named Lake Mead in honor of the deceased Commissioner of Reclama­ tion.31

'"Monthly report of persons employed by the con- trad- • :i of Boulder Dam, file 107.01, CRIVPRB; unidentified ncv-'.;;; ; "r clipping, Hebard Collection. Kleinsorge, Colo­ rado River Project, 213, ^Press Release, Department of Interior, February 14, 1936, file 22-63, ADDI. Mead Interview, January 3, 1970, CHAPTER 10

CONCLUSION

For over 50 years, Elwood Mead devoted his life to the problems of irrigation and irrigators. His career paralleled the rise to maturity of reclamation in the United States. When he arrived in the West in 1882, irri­ gation as a cooperative venture was coming to an end. Until then, several farmers would construct a diversion ditch and water the low lands along a stream. It was a simple operation: the water users invested no money—only time and a few materials which they found in the area. At the time of his death in 1936, Mead had just finished directing the construction of a $100 million multi-purpose dam that took almost 5,000 men five years to erect. Five million barrels of concrete, eight million tons of sand, and massive quantities of other materials went into the giant structure. Engineering feats and construction statistics were only a part of the story of Elwood Mead's contribution to the conquest of arid America--and his work in America was only a part of his success .in bringing water to otherwise worthless lands. Mead had an international reputation as

212 an irrigation engineer, but he saw beyond the narrow con­ fines of the technological aspects of dam and canal build­ ing, To him, the reclaiming of desert lands was more than an engineering problem; it encompassed all aspects of

*> •• putting the land to use and settling it with actual farm­ ers , Mead's interest in securing resident farmers was rooted in his youth. As he grew up in Indiana, he saw an idyllic agrarian community spoiled by the infusion of tenants who leased land from speculators. At the same time, he was blessed with his grandfather's library. Reading widened his world and sharpened his critJ.cism of the drab country existence. Although he loved farming, he came to hate rural life. However, Mead's dislike did not turn to scorn; he was imbued with a belief in the blessings of farm life. Instead of rejecting the countryside,, he sought to transform and mold it into a desirable social and economic entity. In college, Mead majored in agriculture. After graduation, he accepted a teaching position in Colorado where he came into contact with irrigation f'uriai.ng, He returned to the Midwest only for a brief period, picking up a graduate degree in civil engineering and c. knowledge of law. With this unique combination of training, he spent the rest of his life working for the betterment of rural 214 society, His specific concern was irrigation farming which offered a challenge in his two fields of interest'—agri­ culture and engineering. When Mead arrived at Fort Collins, Colorado, irri­ gation in the West was beginning to change to a large scale practice, and the state was struggling v/ith the problems of regulating the limited supply of water for irrigation. Already speculators had entered the field, and Mead saw in their operations a repetition similar to the ruinous practices that had driven him from his Indiana 1 farm. More than this, however, his engineering and legal training had instilled in him a passion for orderliness— things should follow prescribed rules. Finally, from his undergraduate days, when he had to work and go to school, he developed the habit of utilizing his time to maximum efficiency. He carried this trait throughout his life, and applied it to everything—he hated waste. In Colorado these three characteristics which molded Mead's attitude toward iiis life's work—a love of farming, of order, and of ef iT:; - ' •p.cy--were challenged at every turn: speculation was widespread; the laws were chaotic; and water was wasted. Although not in a position to do much, he studied the prob­ lem, let his ideas be known, and gained a reputation as something of an expert on irrigation. 215 When Wyoming officials began to deal with the problems of water distribution, they consulted the Colorado professor, and then hired him as territorial engineer. At last Mead had the opportunity to put his theories to a test. In 1890, when Wyoming became a state, he wrote its water code and devised the system to administer it. These innovations served as a model for most states in the American West, as well as in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Canada. It was a significant contribu­ tion to the arid regions of the world. Wyoming's water laws followed a logical arrangement which ended conflicts over rights and gave order to the distribution of the water supply. To Mead, distribution was a first step toward realizing the full potential of irrigation. After the water was divided, it had to be applied to the land. The law re­ quired that it be appropriated "for beneficial use". Mead regarded beneficial use as more than convenient application of water. It implied using the water in the most efficient manner for the most effective results. The efficient use of water encompassed two ideas for Mead. From a social standpoint, it meant providing agricultural opportunities for si:,a 11 farmers; from an en­ gineering standpoint, it meant regulating the flow of streams to obtain maximum benefit from the available supply. 216 In Wyoming, for example, Mead sought to combine a small plot of irrigated land with a larger area of grazing land so that more people would have a financial base to succeed as farmers. He wanted the federal lands in the West ceded to the states who would lease them for grazing. The pro­ ceeds would be used by the states to finance the irrigation works needed to regulate the rivers for maximum use. In the early 1890's, Mead opposed federal involve­ ment in irrigation, and only reluctantly, after the Carey Act proved a disappointment, did he advocate a limited role for the federal government. He believed that, for the most part, the states were better qualified to direct the de­ velopment of resources within their boundaries, and that only in the construction of large reservoirs for stream regulation should the federal government become involved. Mead opposed any large scale building program directed from Washington, an attitude which put him in disfavor with the proponents of a national reclamation policy. However, the passcige of the Reclamation Act of 1902 put the federal government in the reclamation business. Mead predicted unfavorable consequences and urged a cautious approach, but his warnings were not heeded. While federal construction proceeded, Head, who had been shunted aside, did what he could to assist irriga­ tion farmers. As head of irrigation investigations for the 217 Agriculture Department from 1898 to 1907, he offered advice and instruction to the small cultivator. Interdepartmental bickering frustrated his plans, but he persevered for five years after the passage of the Reclamation Act of 1902. Mead had only a small role in the government, and virtually no say in policy, but in a modest way he helped to ameli­ orate some of the problems of the irrigator. If Mead's talents were not sufficiently appreciated in his own country, his abilities were recognized elsewhere. In 1907 he was invited to Australia and for eight years worked with officials in the state of Victoria on irriga­ tion and settlement problems. It was there that his ideas on what should be done to revitalize rural life matured. For 25 years, he had struggled with the question of how to recreate the agrarian Eden of his youth. He found the answer in Australia where a progressive government, unshackled by rigid traditions against state action, was willing to experi­ ment v.-ith ways to improve the general welfare of its people. Mead took the Australian practice of settling colo­ nists ir> communities and applied it to irrigated lands. The reel.''.Liuvicl areas made it possible to bring in immigrants to farm, a critical need for the economic development of Aus­ tralia, and the increased population added to the wealth of the country and thus justified the government's expenditures for 'reclamation. Besides, the plan which Mead devised was 218 the only way to extricate Victoria from the huge investment it had made in irrigation facilities. When Mead returned to the United States in 1915, he was enthusiastic about the benefits of so-called state paternalism, especially as he had applied it to reclamation. He wanted to demonstrate in his native country the planned rural community which had meant so much for the development of Victoria. Unfortunately, despite many avid backers of the plan, it never really received widespread support in America. The reasons for this were simple, but Mead never seemed to understand them. In Australia, immigration was actively promoted by the government, and, because of the strength of the Labour Party and the need to build up the rural economy, the new­ comers were channeled to the farm. Since good farmland was scarce, irrigation was required to create a place for immigrants. In short, government policy was designed to encourage rural development. The United States, on the other hand, was moving toward immigration restriction, while its energies were directed to urbanization and industrialization. Although the good lands had been taken, few people outside the West felt the need to "create" more. With the rural population in decline and the rise of the city, conditions in America seemed almost diametrically opposite to those in Australia. 219 There were, however, compelling reasons to try Mead's ideas for planned rural communities. Some people argued for expanded farm opportunities as an antidote to unemployment, as an alternative to the "evils" of the city, and later as a reward to ex-servicemen. Mead tried to secure legislation for rural colonies on a national level before and after World War I. He came closest to success when he tried to make the plan a bonus for veterans, but opposition, especially from agricultural groups, blocked passage of any land settlement measure. In California, Mead secured legislation in 1917 and 1919 to found two model rural communities. Durham, the first of these "demonstration" colonies, was begun under favorable circumstances, especially high farm prices and enough applicants to allow selectivity. Because of

Durham's apparent success, a second settlement v/us started at Delhi. By the time it was opened for occupancy, war- inflated farm prices had begun to drop and the number of persons interested in farming fell also. Solvency at Delhi was maintained only as long as state money for a drainage system supplemented the income of the farmers. After the funds were discontinued, the colony almost collapsed. When special favors were granted to Delhi, disconLer.L .spread to Durham. Both demonstration colonies ended in failure. 220 Mead blamed the failure of Durham and Delhi pri­ marily on Governor Richardson. However, the problem was more than politics and even deeper than the agricultural depression of the 1920's. Although state aided and di­ rected settlement had many excellent features, it also had several serious flaws. One drawback was that, compared to private schemes, it gave the settlers special advantages. As Mead observed about federal reclamation, preferential treatment opened the door to more and more concessions and threatened to make water users "wards" of the state. lie never recognized this as a difficulty when applied to state settlements. Another problem was that the plan tended to infringe on the freedom of the colonists. The Land Settle­ ment Board gave direction and controlled the aid; settlers found it advisable to do what was recommended if they ex­ pected financial assistance. After he became Commissioner of Reclamation, Mead continued to advocate his plan on a national level, but he wad not successful either in connection with the irrigated lands c " the West or on cut-over and swampy areas of the

Soutn. However, his basic ideas finally saw fruition in the Subsistence Homesteads Program of the New Deal. Mead's influence on this experiment was very great, not only be­ cause of his ideas, but also because of the years he had 221 pushed for and publicized the need for planned community settlements. Mead, of course, had promoted his plans primarily in connection with irrigation, although he envisioned the community idea eventually spreading to all of rural America. He was never able to convince legislators of the necessity for such a measure in connection with reclamation, nor were many of his other views readily accepted. For example, he had always been wary of federal involvement in reclamation, and had urged a careful building program when the Reclama­ tion Act of 1902 we- passed. Before long, officials of the Reclamation Service found themselves confronted with the evils Mead had predicted—speculation in land, repudiation of debts, dissatisfaction over construction costs. The Reclamation Act had been based on the dual assumption that the land reclaimed would go to actual settlers and thcit the cost of reclamation would be repaid by those who benefitted. To Mead these two precepts were the only justification for government involvement. In practice neither supposition was fulfilled: the Reclamation Service was plagued with problems frbeginning. The difficulty stemmed partly from the ha- i'h which pro­ jects were begun and partly from the pi' . ;.al expedient of building facilities in every state of the. West. When the situation worsened in the 1920's, Mead was called upon 222 to help reorient federal reclamation to fit the role en­ visioned by its original backers. As a member of the Fact Finders Committee, Mead played a key role in formulating a new policy for reclama­ tion; as Commissioner of Reclamation, he directed the im­ plementation of that policy. Under his leadership, federal reclamation underwent a thorough reordering. His was a "business" approach, but it was not legalistic. He in­ sisted that water users meet their obligations to the government, but he also insisted that those debts be legitimate—water users should not pay for the government's mistakes. His primary concern was for the actual settler. He wanted to insure their welfare without making them wards of the state. Finally, the changes he effected were designed to decentralize reclamation by giving the water users control of their irrigation facilities and the responsibility for operating them—to get the government out of reclamation as much as possible. By 1926, Mead had set the Reclamation Bureau on a new path. Through the changes he brought about, the financial position of federal reclamation showed a steady and substantial improvement until the Depression. Even during that period of severe economic difficulties, federal reclamation was on a much more solid base than most 223 enterprises; the moratoria on construction repayments, for example, were necessary for only five years. Mead was determined to avoid a repetition of the problems which stemmed from inadequate planning. He in­ sisted that no new projects begin until investigations showed their feasibility and until there were assurances that the facilities would benefit actual farmers. He also launched a long range program to complete facilities on partially developed projects. This work put his Bureau in an excellent position to aid in the economic recovery of the country through public works. The Reclamation Bureau was ready to begin a massive building program as soon as funds were appropriated. The largest project which Mead directed as Commis­

sioner of Reclamation was the construction of Boulder Dam on the Colorado River. It was also the most carefully planned undertaking the Bureau had ever attempted; years

went into the preparations for the giant structure. Al­

though. ho v/as primarily responsible for the overall direc­

tion * '..iie building of the dam, Mead had an excellent

stan to handle most of the operations. Just as he was

always concerned about the farmer on irrigation projects, Mead was concerned about the worker on this construction

project, and he attempted to provide living conditions to nu-.l.j their task as comfortable as possible. 224 Boulder City was Mead's final attempt at a model community. He planned it not only for the construction period, but also as a town for tourists and the permanent employees of the dam and power plant. His vision of it for the future proved more successful than its prime purpose of serving the workers during the building of the dam. However, the town's problems were not so much Mead's fault as they were the result of the haste in beginning construc­ tion to relieve unemployment and of greed on the part of Six Companies. Despite the problems that arose over Boulder City, construction on the dam moved at a remarkable pace. Finished two years ahead of schedule, the giant concrete •structure was a tribute to Mead's organizing genius—and it was fitting that the sprawling lake that formed behind it was named in his honor. It was somewhat ironic that Mead, who in the 1890's had opposed federal involvement in reclamation, should direct the construction of the largest reclamation project in i\merica to that time—the building of Boulder Dam. Mead had firm convictions, but he was not dogmatic. His whole life showed a constant adjustment to new realities. If his warnings had been heeded, the federal government would never have become so deeply entrenched in reclamation, or, at least not in such a haphazard fashion. Once it did become 225 involved, however, Mead sought to insure that it would achieve its original purpose—helping men own farms. Mead's supreme concern was the welfare of the common man--the small farmer who formed the backbone of the world he envisioned. He was a public servant—not just a government employee. As his ideas evolved, he came to accept a larger and larger role for the government in reclamation, but only as it provided expanded opportunities for the average citizen. To hasten the realization of this goal, he strove to apply the principles of engineering to community planning. In promoting agrarian ideals through technological advances, Elwood Mead made an enduring con­ tribution to the betterment of society by combining the best from the past with the hope of the future. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Material

Personal Manuscripts Hebard, Grace Raymond. Papers. Hebard Collection, Western History Research Center, University of Wyoming, Laramie. Hilgard, Eugene W. Papers. Bancroft Library, University of California. Hoover, Herbert. Papers. Herbert Hoover Presidential Library, West Branch, Iowa. Mead, Elwood. Papers and Correspondence, 22 Cartons. Bancroft Library, University of California. Mead, Thomas Chase. Papers in possession of T. C. Mead, Boulder City, Nevada. Pardee, George C. Papers. Bancroft Library, University of California. Phelan, James D. Papers. Bancroft Library, University of California. Rowell, Chester H. Papers. Bancroft Library, University of California. University of California Archives, Berkeley, 1900-1936. Wilbur, Ray Lyman. Papers. Herbert Hoover Presidential Library, West Branch, Iowa.

Official Government Records

United States Department of Agriculture. Record Group 16, National Archives.

226 227 Department of Interior. Record Group 48, National Archives. Reclamation Bureau. Record Group 115, National Archives.

Wyoming Letterpress Books of the Governors, 18 69-1907. Wyoming State Archives and Historical Department, Cheyenne. State Engineer's Office. Cheyenne, Wyoming. State Engineer's Correspondence, 1891-1898. Wyoming State Archives and Historical Department, Cheyenne.

Official Government Publications

Australia Mead, Elwood. Report of Investigations of Land Settlement and Irrigation Development in America. Melbourne: Albert J. Mullett, 1914. . Report on Fodder Conservation. Sydney: Alfred James Kent, Government Printer, 1923. . Report on the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Scheme. Sydney: Alfred James Kent, Government Printer, 1923. Yearbook of the Commonwealth of Australia, 1919. Mel­ bourne: Albert J. Mullett, 1919. Yearbook of the Commonwealth of Australia, 1927. Mel­ bourne: Albert J. Mullett, 1927.

California California Division of Land Settlement Report, 1918-1930. Sacramento: State Printing Office. California Division of Land Settlement, Final Report, June 30, 1931^ Sacramento: State Printing Office, 1931. 228 Colorado Second Biennial Report of the State Engineer of the State of Colorado, 1883-1884. Denver: Collier and Cleaveland Lith. Co., 18 85. Third Biennial Report of the State Engineer of the State of Colorado, 1885-1886. Denver: Collier and Cleaveland Lith. Co., 1887.

United States Annual Report of the Commissioner of Reclamation. 1924- 1932. Annual Report of the Department of Labor, 1915. Annual Report of the Reclamation Service. 1918-1923. Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior. 1933-1936. Boulder Canyon Project: Final Reports, Part I. 2 Bulle­ tins. Boulder City, Nevada: Bureau of Reclama­ tion, 1948. Chittenden, Hiram W. "Preliminary Examinations of Reser­ voir Sites in Colorado and Wyoming", House Document 141. 55 Cong. 2 Sess. Serial 3666. "Federal Reclamation by Irrigation", Senate Document 92. 68 Cong. 1 Sess. Serial 8238. "The Hoover Dam Documents", House Document 717. 80 Cong. 2 Sess. Serial 11229. "International Water Commission, United States and Mexico", House Document 359. 71 Cong. 2 Sess. Serial 9233. Mead, Elwood; Schlecht, W. W.; and Grunsky, C. E. The All-American Canal, Report of the All-American Canal Board. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1920. Mead, Elwood. Irrigation in Northern Italy. 2 vols. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1904-07. 229 . Summary of Soldier Settlements in English-speaking Countries. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1918. . The Use of Water in Irrigation. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1900. . Water Right Problems of the Bighorn Mountains. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1899. . Water Rights on the Missouri and Its Tributaries. Washington: Government Printing Office, 18 99. "National Soldier Settlement Act", House Report 216. 66 Cong. 1 Sess. Serial 7592. "Problems of Imperial Valley and Vicinity", Senate Docu­ ment 142. 67 Cong. 2 Sess. Serial 7977. "Proceedings of Southern Reclamation Conference", Senate Document 45. 70 Cong. 1 Sess. Serial 8870. "Reclamation and Rural Development in the South", House Document 765. 69 Cong. 2 Sess. Serial 8735. United States Department of Agriculture Yearbook. 1899- 1907. u. s. Statutes at Large, XXXII. u. s. Statutes at Large, XLII. u. s. Statutes at Large, XLIII. u. s. Statutes at Large, XLV.

Wyoming Journals and Debates of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Wyoming. Cheyenne: The Daily Sun, 1893. Second Annual Report of the Territorial Engineer of Wyoming, 1889. Cheyenne: Bristol & Knabe Print­ ing Company, 1890. Second Biennial Report of the State Engineer of Wyoming, 1893-1894. Cheyenne: Bristol & Knabe Printing Company, 1895.

Newspapers and Periodicals Cheyenne Leader. 1893. Cheyenne Sun-Leader. 1896-1898. Cheyenne Tribune. 1894-1899. Chicago Record. 1898. Cichago Tribune. 1894. Chico California Enterprise. 1920. Denver Republican. 1901. Great Falls Tribune (Montana). 1900. Laramie Republican. 1897. Los Angeles Times. 1899. (Melbourne) The Age. 1915, 1923. (Melbourne) The Argus. 1909. Merced Sun (California). 1923. New York Journal. 1897. (New York) Journal of Commerce. 1922, New York Times. 1919-1936. Orland Register (California), 1925. Reclamation Record. 1915-1924. The Reclamation Era. 1924-1936. Redlands Citrograph (California). 1903. Sacramento Bee. 1900. 231 (Sacramento) Record Union. 1902. San Diego Union. 1925. San Francisco Call. 1899, 1922. San Francisco Chronicle. 1899. San Francisco Examiner. 1920. Stockton California Record. 1919. Washington Post. 1929. Washington Star. 1899.

Interviews Adams, Frank. Interview by Willa Klug Baum, winter and spring, 1958. Typescript in Regional Oral History Office, University of California, Berkeley. Kreutzer, Mrs. George C. Interview. January 7, 1970, Sacramento, California. Mason, J. Rupert, Interview by Willa Klug Baum, April, 1958. Typescript in Regional Oral History Office, University of California, Berkeley. Mead, Thomas Chase. Interview. January 3, 1970, Boulder City, Nevada. Packard, Walter E. Interview by Willa Klug Baum, April, 1964. Typescript in Regional Oral History Office, University of California, Berkeley. Swett, Frank T. Interview by Willa Klug Baum, May, 1961. Typescript in Regional Oral History Office, Uni­ versity of California, Berkeley.

Books Mead, Elwood. Agricultural Development in Palestine. London: Zionist Executive, 1924. . Government Aid and Direction in Land Settlement. Fort Collins, Colorado: The Courier Press, 1916. 232

. Helping Men Own Farms. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1920. . Irrigation Institutions. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1903. . The Ownership of Water. Denver: Times Printing Works, 1887. . Wyoming as an Agricultural State. Cheyenne: Tribune Job Printers, 1894. Roosevelt, Theodore. An Autobiography. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1916. Smythe, William E. The Conquest of Arid America. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1911.

Articles Cady, Vernon M. "A Western Experiment in Land Settlement", Survey. XL (September 21, 1918), 684-86. Dodge, Henry Irving. "Back to the Land for Soldiers, An Interview with Franklin K. Lane, Secretary of the Interior". Country Gentleman, LXXXIV (Feb­ ruary 15, 1919), 3-4, 43-47. "Editorial Comment". The New Republic, XXXIII (January 17, 1923), 185. Jones, "Bob". "Agricultural Leaders of the Pacific West, I—Dr. Elwood Mead". San Francisco Examiner, December 10, 1922. Mead, Elwood. "Buying a Farm in the New Way: The Success of California's New Plan". Ladies Home Journal, XXXVI (June 1919), 36. . "Community Farming". The New Republic, XLI (February 18, 1925), 327-32. . "Conquering the Colorado". The American Review of Reviews, LXXX (September 1929), 54-60. . "Farm Settlements on a New Plan". The American Review of Reviews, LIX (March 1919), 270-77. 233

. "Government Aid and Direction in Land Settlement". American Economic Review, Supplement, VIII (March 1918), 72-98. "How to Build Up the Rural West". Sunset, L (June 1923), 32-33. "Irrigation in Australia". The Independent, LXVIV (October 6, 1910), 756-63. . "Japanese Land Problem of California". Annals of the American Academy, XCIII (January 1921), 51-55. "New Forty-niners". Survey, XLVII (January 28, 1922), 651-58. . "The New Palestine". The American Review of Reviews, LXX (December 1924), 623-29. "Problems of Irrigation Legislation". The Forum, XXXII (January 1902), 573-81. "Rural Life in America". The American Review of Reviews, LXXIII (March 1926), 303-304. "Solution of the Land Question". The New Republic, VI (April 29, 1916), 348-49. . "State Colonies to be Centers of Purebred Live­ stock". The Pacific Rural Press, XCIV (September 22, 1917), 277. . "What Australia Can Teach America". The Inde­ pendent, LXXI (August 17, 1911), 367-71. , "What We Have Done In Haiti". The New Republic, XLVIII (November 17, 1926), 378-79, "Report of the Central Board of Review on the Carlsbad Project, New Mexico". Reclamation Record, VII (July 1916), 298-308. "Revision of Cost Projects". Reclamation Record, VI (March 1915), 97-100. Shaw, Albert. "California's Farm Colonies". The American Review of Reviews, LXIV (October 1921), 397-404. "The State Colony Settlements". Transactions of the Commonwealth Club of California, XVI (November 1921), 260-285. "They Stand Out From the Crowd". The Literary Digest, CXVI (September 23, 1933), 9. Wilson, Edmund. "Hoover Dam". The New Republic, LXVIII (September 2, 1931), 66-69. Woehlke, W. V. "Be Sure You're Right, Then Stick! How Elwood Mead Rose to the Top on This Principle", Sunset, XLV (December 1920), 27. "Has Federal Reclamation Failed?" Sunset, LIII (July 1924), 14-15. . "Food First, How One Western State is Staking the Farmers". Sunset, XLV (October 1920), 35-38

Miscellaneous Material Eighth Census of the United States, 1860. National Archives. Mead, Elwood. "Tobacco". Handwritten thesis in Agricul ture, Purdue University, Thesis #30, 1882. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Session of the National Irrigation Congress, 1900. Chicago: n.p., 1901

Secondary Works

Books Barnard, Marjorie. A History of Australia. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1963. Bermant, Chaim. Israel. New York: Walker and Company, 1967. Boyd, David. Greeley and the Union Colony. Greeley, Colorado: The Greeley Tribune Press, 1890. Conkin, Paul K, Tomorrow A New World. Ithaca, New York Cornell University Press, 1959. 235 Darling, Arthur B. , ed, The Public Papers of Francis G. Newlands. 2 vols. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1932. Daws, Gavan. Shoal of Time: A History of the Hawaiian Islands. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1968. Dufour, Perret. The Swiss Settlement of Switzerland County, Indiana. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Com­ mission, 1925. Fuchs, Lawrence H. Hawaii Pono: A Social History. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1961. Garran, Sir Robert. "The Federation Movement and the Founding of the Commonwealth", in vol. VII, part 1 of Cambridge History of the British Empire. Edited by J. Holland Rose et al., 24 vols. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1929- Golze, Alfred R. Reclamation in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1952. Gould, Lewis L, Wyoming, A Political History, 1868-1896. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968. Greenwood, Gordon. Australia: A Social and Political History. Sydney: Halstead Press, 1955. Hancock, W. K. "The Commonwealth, 1900-1914", in vol. VII, part 1 of Cambridge History of the British Empire. Edited by J. Holland Rose et a^L., 24 vols. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1929- Hays, Samuel P. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959. Hepburn, William. Purdue University: Fifty Years of Progress. Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press, 1924. Hicks, John D. Republican Ascendency, 1921-1933. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1960. Hundley, Norris, Jr. Dividing the Waters. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966. 236 Israel, Fred L,, ed. The State of the Union Messages of the Presidents, 1790-1966. 3 vols. New York: Chelsea House-Robert Hector Publishers, 1966. Kleinsorge, Paul L, The Boulder Canyon Project, Historical and Economic Aspects. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1941. Kuykendall, Ralph S. and Day, A. Grove. Hawaii: A History. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1948. Lampen, Dorothy. Economic and Social Aspects of Federal Reclamation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1930. Langford-Smith, Trevor, and Rutherford, John. Water and Land. Canberra: Australia National University Press, 1966. LaNauze, J. A. Alfred Deakin. 2 vols. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1965. Larson, Taft A. History of Wyoming. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965. Lindsay, Charles. The Big Horn Basin. Lincoln: [Uni­ versity of NebraskaJ, 1930. McGearv, M. Nelson. Gifford Pinchot. Princeton: Prince­ ton University Press, 1960, Peffer, E. Louise. The Closing of the Public Domain. Palo Alto: Stanford University Pro'-.s, 1951. Penick, James, Jr. Progressive Politics anu Conservation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968. Phillips, Clifton J. Indiana in Transition: The Emergence of an Industrial Commonwealth, 1880-1920. Indi­ anapolis: Indiana Historical Bureau and Indiana Historical Society, 1968. Pinchot, Gifford. Breaking New Ground. New York: Har- court, Brace and Company, 1947. Pratt, Helen Gay. Hawaii, Off-Shore Territory. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1944. 237 Pringle, Henry F, Theodore Roosevelt, A Biography. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1931. Revusky, A. Jews in Palestine. New York: The Vanguard Press, 1936. Robbins, Roy. Our Landed Heritage, The Public'Domain, 1776-1936• Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1942. Shaw, A. G. L. A Short History of Australia. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1967. Shaw, A. G. L. and Nicolson, H. D. Australia in the Twentieth Century. Melbourne: Angus & Robertson, Ltd., 1967. Steinel, Alvin T. and Working, D. W. History of Agri­ culture in Colorado. Fort Collins, Colorado: State Agricultural College, 1926. Swain, Donald Christie. Federal Conservation Policy, 1921-1933. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963. Tennant, Kylie. Australia: Her Story. London: The Macmillan Company, Ltd., 1962. Thornbrough, Emma Lou. Indiana in the Civil War Era 1850-1880. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Bureau & Indiana Historical Society, 1965. Webb, Walter Prescott. The Great Plains. New York: Ginn and Company, 1931.

Articles Conkin, Paul K. "The Vision of Elwood Mead". Agriculture History, XXXIV (April 1960), 88-97. Dunbar, Robert G. "The Origins of the Colorado System of Water-Right Control". The Colorado Magazine, XXVII (October 1950), 241-262. , "Water Conflicts and Control in Colorado". Agri­ culture History, XXII (July 1948), 180-92. 238 Ganoe, John T. "The Origins of a National Reclamation Policy", Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XVIII (June 1931), 34-52. Hansen, Anne Carolyn. "The Congressional Career of Senator Francis E. Warren". Annals of Wyoming, XX (Janu­ ary 1948) , 3-49. Hess, Ralph. "The Beginnings of Irrigation in the U. S." Political Economy, XX (October 1912), 807-28. Jackson, W. Turrentine. "Administration of Thomas Moon­ light, 1887-89". Annals of Wyoming, XVIII (July 1946), 139-62. Page, John C. "Memorial to Dr. Elwood Mead, Late Reclama­ tion Commissioner". The Reclamation Era, XXVI (November 1936), 247-50. Reid, Bill G. "Agrarian Opposition to Franklin K. Lane's Proposal for Soldier Settlement, 1918-1921". Agri­ culture History, XLI (April 1967), 167-79. . "Franklin K. Lane's Idea for Veterans' Coloniza­ tion, 1918-1921". Pacific Historical Review, XXXIII (November 1964), 447-61. . "Proposals for Soldier Settlement During World War I". Mid-America, XLVI (July 1964), 172-86. Walker, Tacetta, "Wyoming's Fourth Governor--William A. Richards". Annals of Wyoming, XX (July 1948), 99-130. Walter, R. F. and Code, W. H., with the assistance of Frank Adams. "Elwood Mead, M. Am. Soc. C. E." American Society of Civil Engineers Transactions, CII (1937), 1611-18.

Unpublished Materials Iowa State University Archivist, Dorothy Kehlenbach, to author, February 24, 1970. Miller, James R. "Pioneer College Presidents". Typescript, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, 1962. 239

Moeller, Beverley Bowen, "Phil Swing In Washington: The Boulder Canyon Project". Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, 1969. Wattles, Ruth J. "The Mile High College: A History of Colorado A & M." Typescript, Colorado State Uni­ versity, Port Collins, Colorado, n.d. Wilbur, Ray Lyman, Jr. "Boulder City: A Survey of Its Legal Background, Its City Plan and Its Adminis­ tration". Unpublished master's thesis, Syracuse University, 1935.