The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-04-18
TIE IRRIGATION ARTICLE

do not seem TO understand the Ian
guage and intent of the article on
irrigation, which has been reported by
the committee to the convention Also
because the letter comes from one OF
the preceptors of the Agricultural Col
lege, who would be supposedly COM
petent to pass on the merits of the
question, if he thoroughly understood
it. Let his letter be the evidence of
that:
To the Editor of The Herald:
I have watched with interest your
position on the irrigation proposition
now before the Constitutional Conven-
ton. Your consistency and your
vehemence / have admired, though |
very much disagree with you in regard
to the effects of the proposition if
adopted, Allow me to criticize through
your columns your editorial of last
Sunday morning on this matter.
In speaking of the proposition you
say Each person or association of
persons holding water rights is
secured in all the title already ac-
CURED The very proposition itself
is certainly a denial of your statement.
The title already acquired" gives to
each person or associa ton of persons"
the right to control and distribute the
water which by the acquired right
they now use. The proposition before
the convention confscates this control
and distribution to the state-the power
to be exercised by state officers.
Further on you say ut is certain
that much water is now wasted by
improvident users, and this ought to
pc restrained" To this we all agree.
But shall the men who own valid
rights lose the control and distribution
I xr-l tav. n,
else may be corrected? 1 say, no. Let
US get at this in some other and more
simple way
Again you say, But there must be
no deprivation of vested rights" re
not, then sections 8 and of the
proposed article must be stricken
out. Again, Nothing of the kind Is
intended in the report of the comn,it.
zee: Allow me to say that such
is intended. 1t is what the article
Is drawn UP for and n fIIIe
the Dill exactly. The article gives the
poard power to control and distribute
the water. and when this power is
taken from the people they are de-
prlVed Of vested rights"-rights that
they now exercise Under the article
as 1t now stands the board could 90 on
10 every irrigating ditch in Utah and
distribute the water as they see fit.
Inc lrrlgators must either submit or
pc consoled with instituting a law suit.
fail TO see the necessity of this.
You conclude: 1.-The idea. that any
KIND OF confiscation is involved in the
provision is a great mistake, and the
expression of it has given rise To much
needless alarm 1t matters little
what we call it, whether confscation
or changing the power to control and
distribute from the irrigators to the
state, 1t amounts to the same thing
Ii the article is adopted the irrigators
can only use the water from such
sources and at such times and in such
quantities as the state officers see fit
TO alloW-with that happy thought. if
you don't like it appeal to the courts.
This change of power from the individ-
ual to the state without compensation
is what L understand by confiscation.
irrespective of what it might properly
be called, the effect is the same. The
article gives to the board underlined
and unlimited powers-powers that are
dangerous from any point of view.
On this ground, alone, fail to see
how it can be defended
Let us conclude that if irrigation
matters are in such a chaotic muddle
that such extreme powers may he
given to board, then give the legis-
Iature the power to create this board
that 1t may readily be got at If suc1
q board is necessary, is there a man
who can say why the legislature
shouid not be given full power to
handle the question?
Now, Mr.. Editor, assume that Won
favor any proposition that you think
will bring about a better condition i'm
irrigation. l would favor any such
proposition that my Judgment would
decide upon for the same purpose. In
my opinion you are mistaken, both in
The nature and in the effects of the
proposed article. 1 consider it con-
fiscation in reality if not in deflni-
ton; not necessary and very danger
Gus in that it gives board powers
that may be abused and work great
harm to irrigators.
A. a. MILLS.
Agricultural College and Expert
ment station.
The shortest answer to all that is
the article as reported to the conven-
ton. Here it is:
Section 1.-The waters of all natural
springs streams. lakes and collections
of still water, within the boundaries
of the state are hereby declared to be
the property of the state; but such
ownership shall in no way impair any
existing, lawfully acquired right to
the use of said waters.
Sec. Priority of appropriation for !
beneficial uses shall give the better |
right. No appropriation shall be de-
MED except when such denial is de- |
manded by public interest. The right |
of eminent domain shall extend TO |
land and water rights.
Sec 3-The legislature shall divide |
the state into suitable water districts, |
and provide by law for the appoint
ment of a state engineer, the election /
of board of control and such other |
officers as may be deemed necessary. |
Sec. 4-The board of control shall be I
presided over by the state engineer
and it shall have the supervisor of the I
waters of the state, and Of their ap-
distribution and diver
sion, under such rules and regula-
tons as may be prescribed by law;
Its decisions TO be subject to review
by the courts of the state.
Lest there may be some confusion
Of mind as to the exact meaning and
bearing of the article. little explain
alton will be necessary. It must be
to begin with. that no.
body in Utah owns any OF the
waters mentioned in the article. BY
priority Of appropriation many persons
and companies have acquired the legal T.