Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1901-05-06
vost concern brief history Of the

vast concern q brief history OF the
case is given below.
In the early seventies Salt Lake eoun-
ty placed In Jordan river an obstruction
known as the old dam. After TINS the
county commissioners decided TO certain
parties known as the prior claimants
herein and to each of the five large
canal companies. the East Jordan, Utah
and Salt Lake South Jordan, Salt Lake
city Canal and North Jordan 10 IN
terest In this dam, and also attempted
to deed l-6 interest In flow OF JORDAN
These deeds were recorded and the var
ious canal companies continued TO pros
ecute TO completion their canals, which
branch out from Jordan river at various
points, the East Jordan and Utah &
Salt Lake leaving higher UP, and salt
Lake City and South Jordan canal far
Their down the stream, coming out to-
gether and continuing together for
about one mile, when the South Jordan
leaves the city canal and crosses river.
Several miles farther down river and
on west side the West Jordan branches
out The first four named being very
close together until they leave the Jor-
dan narroWs, when the East Jordan
turns abruptly to east and supplies the
farms on the foothills, or what Is known
as the upper terrace on the east side
OF the valley. and the Utah & Salt Lake
supplying n silnllar terrace on the west
side Of the valley. The Salt Lake city
canal follows east side OF river along
what IL termed the second terrace. and
the South Jordan supplies a similar
terrace on west side or river.
The North Jordan supplying lower
, ground than any Of the others and COW
ering part Of the river bottom. Testl-
m0ny showed That al the time the pow
er plant was built these can. Is had
been dividing among themseh.i and
the prior appropriations all the waters
Of the river and had been 10y means Of
"A new dam which they had jointly con-
structed-tle Turner dam-whenever
necessity required restraining the water
In Utah lake during winter, and regl-
lating the flow Of the river during the
summer, subject to an agreement with
the farmers OF Utah county. who wee
represented by what was known as the
Utah lake commission. The testimony
showed that the water had been tl-
vidod in the following manner; From
the time the boards were taken out Of
the Turner dam till low water forced a
change each canal had taken ali the
NANNl ik1 N1lidi NbulNl NdllNt anu Nllfl
low water period arrived and a division
was called for by any Of the canal COM
panies an engineer would be sent up
and divide the water equally among
the canals-l-6, including the seepage,
to each--the remaining 1-G being con-
sldered sufficient TO supply the prior
appropriations. When the power plant
WAS built It purchased the right TO
carry water through the channel prev
iously constructed hy the Utah g. Salt
Lake Canal company, and claimed to
have enlarged the same materially.
Their plant Is situated at the low-end
OF the Jordan narrows, and they
claimed right to run the water Of the
South Jordan, Salt Lake city. North
Jordan and prior claimants through this
enlarged canal and redIstribute It to
these claimants without deterioration
as to quantity or quality after passing
II through their plant. 70 this salt Lake
CITY especially objected for the reason
mat II claimed the right 10 take its
water through the East Jordan
Canal company's ditch, after
enlargng the same and carry
same to the city on high
er level and to trade TO the farmers this
Utah Lake water Cor water owned by
such farmers, coming from the noun
tain streams flowing from the various
canyons Of the Wasatca range. and to
bring the water so obtained into the
city through pipes and use il for do
nestle and other purposes In the city,
claiming that the Utah Lake water
was better for irrlgating and the can
yon water better for domestic pur-
poses. The South Jordan Canal CO.,
and salt Lake city further objected
to the action OF the power plant for the
reason that they claimed the power
plant did not distribute the water
In continuous and equitable man
ner, and that II could not do so on
It's present appliances. The Utah a
Salt Lake Canal Co objected to the
distribution of the power company.
claiming that the power company took
the water TO satisfy It's needs, ir-
respective Of whether or no II left
enough to supply said canal company
with Its Just portion Of the water. The
canal companies also claimed that the |
individual appropriations OF water
nave been using more water per
acre than was necessary or profitable |
IN the maturing OF their crops and al |
so that the demands OF the individual
appropriators were far In excess OF the |
actual appropriations made and used
by these individual appropriations. and |
some OF the smaller canal companies |
claimed that the larger canal com |
panies have been using more water |
than they are entitled to under the |
agreement above referred to, and |
claimed the right to demand a division |
or to store their share of the weter |
whenever the lake should be at what |
IL known as compromise point and that |
II the larger canals should use more
than their l-6 of the river during
high water that the excess should |
be charged against them later I'm the
season. The power plant also claims
the right to use whatever water
the prior appropriations were entitled
70 at all seasons Of the year; and |
have the same flow down the river dur
ing the winter season as we'll as sum-
mer. and denied the right OF the canal
companies to store the same In the
lake.
The testimony OF more than f75 wit
nesses was taken during the trial
which lasted from January IA until
March Is, and the arguments occupied
a whole week in April, from the Sth |
TO the 18th.