Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1901-09-17
SALT LAKE CITY. SEPT. II 1901.
THE PLAN TO RAISE UTAH LAKE.

The farmers Of Utah county, or at
least those who have land near the bor-
ders OF Utah lake, appear to be alarmed
over the proposition to turn a portion
OF the headwarters OF the Duohesne and
Weber rivers into Provo river, so as to
raise the surface OF the lake and fur
nish an additional water supply TO salt
Lake City and county. From our Provo
correspondent We learn that the people
there chiefly interested in the proposed
changes, prefer the schem for low
ering the bar In the Jordan river, so as
10 permit Of greater ilow from the
lake, TO the plan for the increase of It's
waters by way Of the Provo river.
The objections raised are that the
lake would be permanently raised so as
to damage adjacent lands, and there
would be danger OF overflow Of the
Provo river In seasons OF high water,
II is very natural that some Of our
friends In Utah county are exercised
over the measures In contemplation. No
doubt some Of them are sincere In the
fears they express. Others there are
who seem to entertain a dog-ln-the-
manger feeling towards their neIghbors
IN this country. We DO not think there
Is any real cause for alarm or for jeal-
ousy.
II is presumable that the increased
flow OF the Provo In the manner pro-
posed, will occur only at a season of the
year when the waters can be spared at
the source Of supply. Utah lake IS
natural reservoir. IT Is desirable that
Il be made adequate TO the needs Of
both counties which draw upon 1t.
Any arrangement that can be made to
effect this, ought to be favored by peo-
pie who are entitled TO the use Of It's
waters, whether they live In one coun-
~ or the other
II ought to occur to rational minds,
that IN q great project like that In con-
temptation, respect is bound to be had
for existing rights. II an increased
flow Of the Provo river can be had In
order to raise the lake, regard must he
had to property along It's banks. Any
damage In consequence OF the change
would have TO be met by parties res
ponsible for that change. So In regard
TO the raising OF the lake. This is in
evitable. And II IL not designed that
any person shall be injured for the bene-
fit OF others That should be clearly
understood Provisions must and will
be made for the protection and COM
pensation OF parties In any way dam
aged by public or private improves
ments.
II Is probable that people taking wat
er from the Provo river vii be benefit
ed by an increase In its volume, and so
with many persons in Utah county by
the Increase OF the lake, But farmers
on the lake shores would have TO be
compensated, no doubt, for any loss
OF land that might occur through the
raising OF the waters.
All these considerations suggest CO.
operative effort between the people OF
Salt Lake and Utah counties. There
need be no conflict There should be
mutual understanding and unity OF ac-
tion for mutual benefit II is right
and reasonable that our friends and
neighbors should take steps for their
own protection, but we believe they can
be taken In friendly spirit in which
they should be met by Salt Lake City
and county. Fraternity and co-opera-
tion are far better than suspicion. dis
eerd and litigation.