The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-11-29
THE PARLEY'S CANAL.
Structures of Councilman Robertson
Replied To.
To the Editor of The Herald:

hODl16d 1Os
| To the Editor of The Herald:
The report of the proceedings of the
city council on Tuesday evening, the
10th inst, in regard to the Farley S
canal, was very misleading to the pub
lie Councilman Robertson, according
| to The Herald's report, made q very
convincing argument why the city
should not renew the canal contract
/ Certainly so, as a one-sided argument.
His facts and figures are misleading,
and his statements in many respects
unreliable
"A few of the facts and figures are as
follows, which are a matter of record
and can be proven:
On Sept. 8, 1877, the county court of
Salt Lake county granted to the farm
ers of the southeast bench the right to
the surplus waters of Parley's canyon
creek. In accordance with this, the
farmers built their canal, at a cost of
$1,000, for the purpose of conveying
said waters to their farms. This canal
was built in solid ground, from begin
ming to end. In September, 1888, the
municipal authorities of Salt Lake APP
preached the farmers of the Southeast
bench, to negotiate for the use of their
canal, and right of way, to convey the
waters of Parley's creek to Salt Lake
City.
On the 18th of October, 1888, a con-
tract was entered into between the
farmers and Salt Lake City, which
was agreeable to both parties, and was
conscientiously fulfilled by both, until
August, 1898, when, without warning.
Salt Lake City abandoned the canal,
leaving it in a deplorable condition.
The farmers protested against receiving
the ditch back in that condition, for the
following reasons: In the first place.
the canal constructed by the farmers
was a good, Serviceable ditch, in solid
banks; today it has III feet of flun-
ing in a decayed condition, making aex-
pensive repairs necessary. The farm
ers had the right of way for twelve
years. and used the waters through
their canal. Salt Lake City constructed
the Parley's conduit, tunneling under
the canal in six or seven different
places, making this fuming necessary.
Said Water-tight conduit has been. and
is still, a menace to the canal, so much
so that the city has had to line the
flume in several places with galvanized
iron.
And right here we can account for
MI. Robertson's $4,000 per annum ex-
penSeS.- lie has taken a series of years
and tabled the entire expense. and
then made an average. Three thou
sand feet of the entire amount of
hume, and the expensive breakages. of
which Mr.. Robertson makes mention
IN his convincing argument" must all
be chargeable to the conduit. because
the construction of the conduit endan-
gered the canal, which parallels it.
Inc preakages are caused in conse-
quence of the proximity of the conduit
and not by the canal. This can be cas-
lily proven.
In regard to furnishing the waters of
Parley's creek in the conduit which
should run in the canal when the
waters are muddy in early spring. the
Waterworks department will not per
INIT 1t to run through the conduit. Shall
the farmers be deprived of their right
TO the overflow or surplus and allow
it to go to the lake?
Does Mr.. Robertson wish to convey
the idea to the taxpayers of Salt Lake
CITY that their taxes are being used
Tor the purpose of frrigating the crops
OF a few farmers? Does he think anv
taxpayer is such a fool as to believe
him? The farmers of the southeast
bench do not get the water they are
entitled TO.
All the farmers have ever asked the
city to do is to return them the canal
as they received it in 1888. OF, he re re-
sponslble for any damage caused by the
close proximity of the conduit, and for
the present unsafe condition of the
1ume We do not wish for any CON
trcversy, but simply to answer Mr.
Robertson's arguments in the council.
which we feel were unqualffiedly severe.
The ten members of the council who
voted for a reconsideration did so after
a thorough investigation of both sides
of the question, and the majority of
them are gentlemen of experience in
matters pertaining to irrigation. 1t is
uncomfortable how Mr. Robertson insin
yates that they did so through selfish
motives.
There will be no abandonment of the
canal. If the city fails to use it or
turn it back to the farmers, in accord
ance with the agreement, the farmers
will go along with the use of it,
FARMER.
- <Else-<c---
Sacrifice Sale of Ladies' Wrappers