Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1900-12-20
WATER DISPUTES.

ing or Of interests between the farmers
OF Utah county and the farmers Of salt
Lake county, nor between either Oh
them and Salt Lake City. Every at
tempt 10 stir up strife on the water
question whether on the part Of papers
or individuals. or companies or cllques
should be heavily sat upon and given
quietus.
Some time ago a settlement Of the
main question as TO the relative water
rights OF the two counties, was ef-
fected In what was then understood TO
be a satisfactory manner. It was In
tended 10 be final, on those points that
related to the respective claims and
necessities and legal demands Of the
parties in dispute. A special High
Council heard the case, as It affected
members Of the Church. and much time
and patience were devoted TO a full
investigation OF the matter
We mention this to brighten the mem
DRY Of Mormon farmers who are per-
sonally interested in the water rights
then and now involved. and who chiefly
compose the different canal companies
that obtain water from Utah lake for
irrgating and other purposes. They are
In duty bound TO respect the decision
then reached, and ought 10 be iniiu-
eneed by It In any new controversy that
has arisen or may arise concerning
the same subject.
Apart from that II would be very
wrong and unfortunate for the people
Of Utah county 20 entertain the idea
that either the canal companies Of salt
Lake county or the corporation Of Salt
Lake City, have any intention or desire
TO encroach upon the rights Of their
neighbors to the south, We are sure
that there is no such a feeling on their
part. On the other hand the people Of
Utah county ought not to harbor any
wish to hinder improvements, by which
an increased quantity Of water can be
obtained here, when It will not be TO
the detriment Of Utah county.
4 greater water supply is absolutely
necessary to the welfare and progress
Of this city. Il would also be highly
beneficial to the agricultural interests
Of this county. If this can be obtained
without injury to our friends near
Utah lake, they ought not to be up in
arms about such measures as are need
full to be had, to draw from that nat
ural source such a volume Of water as
may be lawfully taken.
The recent litigation in that county
demonstrated the fact that frivolous
and erroneous objections were raised
against the insertion Of boards IN the
dam. The story about compromise
point by which the court was at first
induced to issue the injunction, was
manifestly false and absurd in the way
IN which It was presented, and the dis
solving Of the injunction was inevitable
when the truth was made TO appear
The delay caused by the
injunction should be taken in.
to account by the commissioner,
who will have to act very soon. Tn,
interests Of this city and county are O.
great Importance, and they ought no
to be jeopardzed. At the same time
Of course, no rights Of Utah county OF
any OF its people should be invaded
As to the litigation between this cit!
and the power dam people, the court
will have to decide. They will be guild
ed, no doubt, by the established princl
pies and usages that govern such mat
tiers, and will not be likely to oyerrid
public and civic rights and acquire
ments, TO specially favor private specu
lations or enterprises. II Is about tim
that all attempts to deprive the city an
the lrrigating companies Of prior right
shall be settled FOR good These canno
be surrendered without irrepa1ble IN
jury 10 public interests. and the soone
the law on these questions of dispute O.
finally decided, the better It VIII be foi
all parties concerned Utah county an.
Salt Lake county ana city however
ought not to be at loggerheads. We are
all friends, OF ought 10 De, and n dis
putes arise they should be settled IN
friendly manner, with q view TO mu
tual benefit and 90 the spirit iha
prompted the decision we have alreaj,
referred Co. and which none Of u
should desire 20 evade or forget.