The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-06-01
CITY WATER RIGHTS
Prof. Paul Discusses a Very In
portant Question.
THE SITUATION In A NUTSHELL.
The City Has No Rights in the Emigration
Canyon Stream, and Never Did
Have Ally.
The Utah Water company proposes to

The Utah Water company proposes to
purchase the right the city has to Emigra-
ton stream If the company will pay any
thing for that imaginary right, the city
ought TO sell its right to that stream at
once to the company. The city has no right
TO that stream, no right in that stream, and
has never even made any claim to that
stream or to any part of it. That stream
belongs by right of original requirement
End continued use to the people of the
First, Second and Tenth wards. These
people went of their own accord, from
time to time, during the last twenty five
years, and dug the bitches, opened the
springs, and built the dams necessary to
bring that water to their lands. The city
had nothing to do with their getting or
using that water. The city did not even
oversee the work, and had no hand IN It.
The people of these wards do not pay the
city anything for the use of that water;
but during several years they paid light
tax for the services of the city water
master in dividing the streams. At other
times they paid their cwn watermaster.
Once, while the people were building one
large dam at a cost of over three thousand
dollars, the city donated fifty dollars worth
OF lumber to aid the enterprise, and com
mittee went from the city council to look
at the dam.
The people of the three wards named
used the water of Emigration cailon right
up to the time of the completion of the
Salt Lake ana Jordan canal. Then they
permitted the city to use temporarily,
Emigration stream, while the city per-
mltted them to use the canal water, with
the distinct understanding that just as
~
factory to the owners of Emigration
stream, the original stream must be re
turned to their bitches. The arrangement
became unsatisfactory last year, and the
people asked for restoration Of Emigra-
ton stream. The city at once complied
with their request, and the people used
Emigration stream last summer for lrrlga-
ton. Then it was learned that certain
parties had been taking the water without
permission, during the years the city had
charge Of the stream: and it became neces-
sary to maintain a lawsuit against the
parties who had helped themselves to the
water. The water was stolen from the
city authorities, who had the water under
their charge, and the people for sometime
knew nothing of this diversion and misuse
of the water. Nevertheless, the city has
not thus far come to the aid of the people,
who are now compelled TO carry on at their
own expense, a lawsuit to recover their
OulCldlS
were in charge of it at the time.
The chief offender in thus taking the
water has been Mount Olivet cemetery, in
which all kinds of flowers and shrubs were
in bloom, while the flowers, grass, gardens,
fruit trees, and even shade trees of the
owners of the water in the blocks below
literally persisted for want of water The
homes of the living were robbed in order to
make beautiful the graves of the dead. Do
you tell US that if the people shall be sue
cessful in their law suit against the GENE
terry, they are to have the satisfaction of
seeing the city sell this stream to a third
party, without even so much as consulting
the owners of the property in question!
Not so fast, gentlemen; hands of, if you
please. Not for million dollars, nor any I
other sum, can the city sell that little
stream, nor any part Of it. Not till the city
has obtained from the owners the right to
the water, can il sell that water. The
water company can probably purchase thai
valuable little stream from the owners of |
II, at much smaller figure than the city |
would like TO charge for it, because the |
stream has been Of comparatively little use |
TO them for the past two or three years. /
But that the city shall arbitrarily sell or |
make over the title to that stream, to any |
third party, viii never be tolerated.
It's not to be inferredfrom these remarks |
that the people of the First, Second and |
shall make use of Emigration stream in |
any proper way or in any distribution of ,
water that may seem best to subserve the |
needs OF the public at large Far from it. |
Provided that the wards named get the !
city water, the people will interpose no |
objection to the city's making such |
use of their stream as the couu-
Gil may decide. Indeed, their pa
thence in the past has been some |
what remarkable. These people have paid |
taxes for twenty-five years to help other |
parts of the city to get the water. They |
paid their proportion Of tax for building
the reservoir in city creek, also for laying |
the mains till the central part of the city /
was supplied with water. After that, |
each person receiving the water had to pay |
nearly the entire cost of laying the mains, |
an expense formerly borne by the city as a |
whole. The former policy was at the eX-
pense of the suburban districts for the |
benefit of the actual water users; the new
policy Of each paying for all he gets is also
at the expense of the outer blocks, since all |
the inner property is now supplied with
water. 1t would have been n very light
tax for owners CT inside property to pay
four mills a foot for wafer mains; but if i
the owners of outside property where
rod of ground is worth less than foot in
the center, have TO pay four mills a foot for
water mains. it is easy to see that the I'M
fortunates of the outside are paying ten
times more water tax in proportion than
the inside owners would have paid. But
the inside owners did not pay for their
mains; their mains were paid for out of
the general tax. There is clearly some in
justice here
The dry benchers have frequently been
heard on the water question. Yet sim
pie statement of our case dwarfs even their
well grounded complaints into insignlfi-
canoe A single instance viii make this
clear Mr.. G. w. Symons preferred to buy
lot in the Tenth ward at $500 rather than
a lot on the dry bench ct $50, because the
former lot had a good, clear waser-right
and the latter had no water-right at all and
at that time 10 prospect of any. The gen
tleman was surprised, therefore. to find
that the dry bench lot he lad refused to
take was supplied with city ,srater
and was now worth several times more
than his own lot, because the former had
now the water fpartly athis expense. too)'
while his own lot didn't have the water.
And such is the history of most of our lots
as compared with those Of the so-called dry
bench. We have no quarrel with the dry
oenchers, Notwithstanding.
We think it within the financial ability of