The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1883-09-08
Irrigation.
Editors Herald:

Your correspondent ssIrrigation'
is mistaken on several points. On
Others he is correct. He is all right
in saying that eff the city can rea-
sonably give them (the dry. benchersl
water for domestic purposes il is ali
right for them to have it." He is
wrong in saying that there is "no
hope for them to have water for
irrigation purposes" AS he admits
''there is a liberal supply of water
below the Jordan canal for frripat-
ing" what shall prevent the CITY
from giving to US a portion of the
water from City creek?
He is in error when he charges us
with begging of the city," We
are not beggars, and in our applicas
tons for water, which have been
frequent, earnest and respectful, we
ask merely for portion of that to
which we are entitled, not only by
the laws. of God AID nature. but
also by the laws of Utah and the
ordinances Of salt Lake city.
l presume that "Irrigator" is the
owner of lot in the city; if so he
will discover that his deed from the
Mayor merely conveys the land and
does not convey water right. In
this respect his deed is precisely
similar to ours on the dry bench. BY
what right then can he claim that
which he would deny to US?
Last spring | was supplied by the
! City Watermaster, G. II. Wilcken,
Esq, with paper headed "Irrigat.
| ing Water Certificate" in which it
is certified that I Was 'entitled &c
use a portion of the water flowing
into Salt Lake city for irrigating
purposes" [ presume that "Irri
gator" will find that his own certifi'
cate reads i'll the same way,
Wherein is there any difference be-
tween himself and a dry bencher
who holds such a certificate?
We do not beg, we do not Scold a
great deal. We venture that the
municipal authorities are beginning
to appreciate the situation and that
when they decide what is the best
thing to 90, they will do it.
[ am informed that there is now
some doubt as to the supply of water
to be drawn from Dry canyon. IF
this be so, the City Council does we'll
to move with care in the premises.
We do not ask that body to waste
$4,000 on an uncertainty. That
sum could be much better invested
in conveying water from City creek
in pipes if only for domestic pur>
poses"
"IrrigatOr" seems to be aggrieved
because we have bought lots and
built houses on this bench and
thinks it better to go to Sugar House
ward. That may be so in regard 0
those who contemplate building at
this late day, but cannot apply to
those who for the last fifteen years
have been erecting houses for
themselves here, having been en-
Outraged to do SO by former NUM-
cipal authorities who sold the lots.
We believe it was mistake to
lay off the land on the dry bench
into lots, and to sell them to
be built upon, but it was one
of those mistakes which are
liable to occur in this life and
which it is impossible to rectify.
The best that can be done is to
mitigate, if possible, the evils, re-
suIting from the mistake, and this
we think the gentlemen at present
composing the City Council are try
ing to accomplish. They are not
responsible for errors which their
predecessors may have committed.
The acts of the latter are now past
recall, and while we deplore the er-
ror, we do not feel inclined to
"scold' the actors or quarrel with
acts which, though erroneous, were
no doubt committed with pure in
tentions.