Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-04-07

that the report Of tho cost Of mainten
nnce n exaggerated. and then admits
that n will cost 1900 year to main
tain the canal: says that no wnshouts
occurred during his administration. but
he docs not say that they aid
that he ''p Il not aware repor'f ina. any any
water has been stolen from the canal
u was not claimed that he was aware
~ ". or that he knew anything about
the canal: says he ala not lose the con-
tract. but does not deny that n II MISS
ING as reported; says that by an agree.
mcnt between the SUPERINTENDENT or
watcrwofks and himself, the canal was
closed last summer. and all ~ the water
turned into the conduit. This Il not
true according 20 his own testimony IN
the uudler case. The canal was not
closed until abandoned by order u tho
city Council.
lie admits that thorr are no records
~ water rights nor measurements In
his office. ~ required by ordinance. hut
fnftcr more than oue.haif NJ his term
has cxpircd) saws that h. Intends 10 80.
cure these records. last year was m
exceptionally dry year. and ncauure-
mentr should have boon made 10 deter.
mine the minimum now Of the streams
and the division ~ tho water
lie says that the "city engineer II
iaborinE under miaapnrehersion as ~
the object u maintaining the canal"
pleasant View dltohD and saws that
zone of the main objects IL 10 provide
mn outlet for the Immense amount 81
surplus water which PUSHES down Par
ley'H creek ~ certain seasons ~ the
year" This 4 the most surprising
statement ~ MI 10 come from a man
who Il NJ the head ~ tho irrigation Do.
nnrtrnent N this citv. nnd Il supposed
" know something about such matters.
The canal viii not carry pcr cont ~
tho volume % water flowing in pariev's
creek during hirh water. and this
amount, n diverted into the canal.
would mako no particular difference In
the size ~ tho stream
He admits That tho deputies who
iestirAd against the city were employed
IN his dernrtment. and that one ~
them r. employed there now. but saws
that he u unable 20 sec wherein the
testimony was damaging Go the city.
They contrndicted the eviicNc. 81 tho
N-wntermsstrr and many other city
witnesses on important points. The
evidence ~ men wh6. while IN tho cifva
employ neglected their duty. ana then
testified that they ala 80 should not
have much weight but n Il not 10 tho
oitv'n Interests 10 employ such men.
No reference WIS made. IN his com.
fnunication. 10 the most important
matter 10 which intention was called
the pollution Of water IN paricy'a can.
yon. The watermas'cr hns dsruty
who II employed 10 ruard this stream.
The Pleasant View diich contract
presented by the COMMITTEES contains n
clause which provides that "the amount
NJ surplus water io which tho said frrf
party shall hn entitled 70 he determined
by the commissioners appointed by the
county court. ~ heretofore" There II
no law providing for the deierminnt lon
~ water rights In such manner. This
tIafIaA =. 81 Il ssINl 10
been rep-alei.
In addition 10 tho reasons Rlven In
former reports why the city should not
take back the pariev'n creek canal N
was agreed. IN confederation ~ the
right of way for the conduit across the
y, Z. reservation that when the canal
was abandoned. the city would M up
that part Of u located on the rcservn-
ton. ~ the cliv. officially abandoned
THIS cnrai last year. II Il now obligated
n tho members ~ the CITY Council
hsk ,hnt they investigate these matters
for ,hemselyer.
Very respectfully
falTncd) y. 9. KELSEY.
city Engineer.
rernstrom deprecated tho quarrel be-.
tween the two city officers aud moved
that the communication he referred
back 10 the city engineer.
Cailistcr said Il was time 10 stop
the controversy and let each head OF
department attend 10 his own business
The quarrel was very unSecmiy.
Itobcrtson opposed Tho motion. The
engineers communication had fur
hished the Council with desired lnfor-
mation from time 10 time. and the
ony way the Council could know
whether or not the city'a water
fighfn were being neglected was
through the city engineer. 4 nec."
he said. mo riFht for consuring this
man hecau.s b" performs the important
dniy o. calling attention to the neglect
admitted In his communication that he
had neglected 10 get records of the sya.
tenn. ana would Try To remedy the neg.
lect this year, For this body 20 CEN
sure the engineer Is unmanly and un-
caillster said that he was not cenuur.
lnF either ofiicer-thnt no was friend
20 both. lie objected 10 one head of
department efltloising another. The
communication was sarcastic and the
Matchmaker. he said, ought 10 take IL
~ an Insult.
Ferns,rom said that he had invest.
rated the things complained Of and
found Il true that the water rights
were not 20 well recorded o. projected
~ they might have been, but that tho
situation was not hair 10 bad "as some
are trying 20 make out" lie was salts.
Ned that Heddnn would DO the best he
could. lie wondered. too. why the en-
rineer. being In office for four years.
had not complained before.
buckle said that for a number N
years recommendation for the record.
lng ana protection 81 water rights had
been made by Mr.. Kelsey and his
predecessors. Again. why was II, he
asked. that the present water de.
nartment objected 10 putting In mod.
ern appliances for measuring and a..
vldlns water, ~ suggested by tho en-
gineer7
1T ~ PREFERRED mack.
Patrick opposed Fernstrom's motion
and wanted the communication referred
TO the ifTisation committee.
Howe said that the engineers original
communication was an attack on the
watermaHter.
Patriok'a motion lost. 10 4. and tho
communication was ordered sent back
10 the engineer nv vote OF ' TO o.
the following Notlrg In favor of the
netioni Allen, calilrtcr. Fernatrom,