Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1901-11-16

| by corporate capital came as a natural
II not inevitable evolution. There came
a time In the districts first settled
when the opportunities to divert water
cheaply had largely been utilized, and
when the expenditure required was be-
yond the means OF either the Individual
or the corporation Of many individuals.
In this country corporations have, so
far as construction is concerned, taken
the place Of governmental agencies In
other lands. Practically all OF the
larger and costller works built within
the last two decades have been of this
character.
Even in Utah. cooperation was not
sufficient TO reclaim all Of Salt Lake
valley. For forty years the table land
north of the lake one OF the largest
and best tracts Of lrrigable land IN the
valley, remained unOccupied, while the
sons Of the pioneers were compelled to
seek homes in the surrounding states.
To reclaim this land. a canal he'd to be
carried for three miles along the pre-
cipitous sides Of Bear River canycn.
The flow of the rlver had 10 be con-
trolled by an extensive dam and the
Malad river twice bridged hy long and
high aqueducts. and the million-dollar
outlay required wns more than home
seekers could provide
Tho creation NJ wa,er-right complI-
cations came with the bulldog Of cor
porate canals. Previous to this II had
been the rule for those who built ditch
es to own the land thev watersd and
there was little. difference az TO
whether the right TO water went with
the ditch or with the land because the
ownership Of both was united In the
same person. But when companies
were organized 10 distribute water for
others TO irrigate with AMI to derive a
revenue from water rentals, there
arose the question as TO who was the
owner Of the right to the water divert
ed-the company transporting the
water or the farmer who used II. The
laws OF nearly all the western states
make the ditch owner the appropriation
This has created divided ownership
OF land and water. and many canal
companies have framed water-right
contracts on the theory Of absolute
ownership.
OBJECTIONS TO CORPORATE
CANALS.
haVing dealt with the benefits de-
rived from corporate investments IN ir-
rlgation works, II Is now proper TO
point out their defects. The most Sc
rious. one Is that nearly all large cam
ais have been losing investments. The
record Of these losses is so stupendous
that 1t Is reluctantly referred 10. A
single enterprise in one of the territor-
les represents to Its projectors loss
OF over 100000. The Bear River can
al In Utah which cost over million
dollars, was recently sold under judg-
ment for about one-teuth OF this sum.
A single canal In California represents
q loss to It's builders of over 100000.
These are not isolated cases.
The reasons for failure should be
more generally understood. The fol-
lowing are the most important:
O. The necessarily long delay in Sc
curing settlers for the land to be irri-
gated and In obtaining paying CUSTOM
ers for the water to be furnished.
90. The large outlay and several
years Of improbable labor required
as rule, TO put wild land in condi.
ton for cultivation. Settlers of linn
lied means can not meet this outlay