The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-03-21
COMPLETE CONVERSION.

Our evening contemporary seems t
on the water question. We will not
accuse it Of suddenly reversing its
own position. of which it falsely and
wickedly accused The Herald not long
ago, although we might do so with
considerable propriety.
We published two weeks ago the
article on irrigation submitted to the
constitutional convention by the Irri-
cation Commission of Utah. We sug-
gested that the first, third and fourth
sections might be acceptable, but that
the rest Of the article ought to be
left to the Legislature and would be
out of place in the Constitution. Here
are the three sections we referred to:
Section /. The water of all natural
streams, springs, lakes and collections
of still water, within the boundaries of
the state, are hereby declared to be
the property of the state.
Section 2. Priority of appropriation
for beneficial uses shall give the bet
ter right. No appropriation shall be
denied except when such denial is
demanded by public interests. The
right Of eminent domain shall extend
to land and water rights.
Section 8. The legislature shall by
law divide the state into three ~
water divisions and provide for the ap-
pointment of superintendent thereof
The Evening News took up the mat
ter and fiercely sailed into the article
proposed. 1t tumbled into the blunder
that it was an attempt to rob the peo-
pie of their water rights. Among
other things it said:
The first section is confiscation, pure
and simple, and as such would, If
by the people, who have a vital inter
est in vested water rights as they now
exist. The erroneous nature of this
clause is not in any way relieved by
the application of section three.
AS for the fourth section. 1t is wholly
inapplicable to Utah, as no three divi-
sions which could be arbitrarily made
would fit the situation existing here.
The Herald explained that the
ownership of water and that of land
are entirely different; title to land
being absolute and that to water be-
ing only to it's reasonable use and be-
ing relLnquished by its non-use, and
IlldI lHcTG was lOIulhS III li4C iAcNbdi
of confscation in the proposition Of
the Commission. Now comes the News
with a shifty further criticism of that
body, but with this statement of its
present position on the question which
it thinks might be acceptable in the
Constitution.
1. A declaration of ownership by
the State of all public waters.
2. A recognition of water rights 0he
right to use through priority of appro-
prfation, etc., inhering in the land.
3. The assumption of control by the
State of the distribution of the water
in accord with acquired rights.
4. The institution of a State board of
control composed of a competent State
engineer appointed by the Governor
and confirmed by the Senate, and of
four persons selected from defined dis
tricts by vote of the people; the de-
cisions of this board to be subject to
review by the State courts.
AS this is in substance what the
Commission proposed. and as a declara-
ton of ownership by the State of all
public waters was formerly declared
by the News to be "confiscation pure
and simple" the conversion of our
evening contemporary is so complete
on this point that we may reasonably
hope for its conversion in some other
particulars.