Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-11-25

/ the farmers. And at best 70 ives
! thought-as one farmer expressed It.
nthey are not In touch nor In sympa-
] thy with the plain and practicable
methods Of the farmer, only 10 20 far
az no is made 10 pay toll into their
! treasury"
Considering that such was the CAGE,
three plans were proposed Tor combat
Ing the Irrigation association, viz: To
Join tae Irrigation association, and
when enough farmers had Joined oil
iur Ia anu change the name Of the
nstociation and vote down all inter.
ested In water corporations; TO at.
tempt 10 checkmate their Influence by
holding meetings In opposition 10 eDJ
they may hold. " form the State Ag-
ficuliufal society, m originally de.
signed, and ze8lously guard the aErl-
cultural Interest OF the State, without
references 10 any other mstter, but be-
we'll prepared Tor stli.deiense against
Irrigation corporations.
Hofe let me state that the records Of
Hait Lake county chow that siHteenU6)
Irrigation and land companies have
Incorporated In the past two ycaf,.
One of these companies Hlonu has in-
corporated Tor ten millions Of dollars.
Fouf Of tho largest companies in the
territory ore not Included In the above
sixteen. AZ Tar a. / can estimate,
there have been incorporated In Utah
In the past Two years Irrigation oomps-
mics WITH ~ aggregate OF AZ least hfty
millions VI dOllars. 10 this desirable
state Of a1sir?
II has heretofore been the browning
Pride Ut Uiah, Of which chs has proud
~ boosted, that her canals and entire
irflgating systems were owned and
controlled by the bona fide iftigatofe.
This IL "a Il should be. In some in-
stances, however, l believe II absolute
ly necessary that oapi,sl thlIs hold ol
the larger plants. fear, however, that
tho "ntsoluis necessary limit Mss
been passed by millions Of dollafH.
But II Is said by a0me that this Lriugs
In capital and thus builds up the coun.
try. Let US sec how the country h
built ny. One OF these companies,
through lts engineer, sHyE "rhe esti.
mated cost OF bringing water onto the
$1,000 acres OF lsnd is IL proposed 10
reclaim II about S0O, 900. The company
sells water rights At $40 per acre, with
an annual fee OF 90 cents por acre tor
maintenance" 10 viii be seen from
these figures that 500, 900 ~ put In and
tS2J,OOO taken oui--,hu people, mean.
while, paying "Ie maintonaaco,D
which probably lnuiudes.lulorost on the
Investment The conclusions are OBJ
vious. Yet this company sells iis
water rights chonpor aud puts ~
"maintenanco" lower than any other
corporation know Of in Utah. The
engineer addE "lf properly man
aged, this enterprise should prove 10
DO a lucrative Investment, with good
fetufne ~ the ownofe." Eminently
obvloutl
The value OF tho irrigation works
owned anu operated by the people Il
estimated 10 DO between ten millions
and fifteen millions Of dollars. Now
come the irrigation corporations aud
propose 10 develop tins Irrigation watsrs
TO several times their present worth.
Ia conclusion, let me say that 1t q
meeting of the Utah Irrigation assocla-
ton, held in the Assembly hall In Salt
Lake CITY during last October, l sat
and llstsuod TO what might DO thought
10 be n combination trade against wafer
corporations. II remained, however,
tor one speaker 10 say, In substance;
The great danger In Utah Is that the
waters may fall into the hsnds OF cor.
porations. To this heartily agree,
but would add that tho greatest danger
In Utah Il that the waters may fall In
TO the hands Of the corporations repre-
sented by the officers Of tho Utah
Irrigation association.
A. A. MILLS,
President State Agricultural Society.