Durango semi-weekly herald., 1902-11-27

1902. D.. 2ST 63 3l3 l34 80 IL
The amount of water In the Florida
which has been adjudicated for agri-
cultural purposes is 105& feet. This
amount may be subtracted from the
amounts shown by the photographers
report of actual measurements. and
the surplus or that which has been
permitted to waste annually will be
found to be much greater than the
quantity which has been used or
claimed by farmers.
In April. 1900. the surplus was
212A feet. In April. 1901. the sur
plus was 22lY feet: in April. 1902.
the surplus was i99S feet In May,
1900. the surplus was 4s2S; In May,
1901. the surplus was 507A feet. and
for the same month In 1902 the sur
plus was 1861 feet In June. 1900.
the surplus was 202I feet. for that
month In 90l the surplus was 207&
feet In June. 1902. there was def
cheney Of Il 40 feet to the aggre-
gated adjudication 10 farmers of 105A
feet, In July. 1902. there was a de-
ficiency Of sTA feet. In August there
NhF ~ 0hi PluH VI ~ - l''t-
The second contention made In the
so-called protest which asserts that
during the past two years many set
Tiers have taken up land on the Flor
ida mesa under promise that they
would he able to purchase water from
the reservoir system. Mr.. Samain
saws he is not informed as to the facts
but that he does know that should the
city adopt the proposed plan OF wa
ter storage, recovering the surplus
waste waters there would always be
more than enough water to make up
all deficiencies which have occurred
during the months mentioned. Mr..
samnin says tina. the city will not
need more than ten feet OF water. and
thnt should the original plan
Of the reservoir company be
carried ont In Its detail the number
NJ dams and storage reservoirs which
the city may have would enable the
farmers to procure water at all times
NJ the year and the revenues which
the city could thus recover would paw
for the system before the bonds
Nefofn' NHe,
As to the third contention Of the
so-cnlled protest of Florida farmers
that the city can have no title until
the water has been appropriated and
applied the supreme court in Strick-
Ter VS. Colorado Springs 10th Colora-
do, page 81 saws:
"A priority to the use OF water for
irrigation IL a property right and may
he sold and transferred separately
from the land in connection with
which the right ripened"
Quoted and approved In Combs
versus Ditch company. nth Colorado,
mage i51. Irrigatlng company versus
Reservoir company, 25th Colorado,
pnge liS
"The right to divert water from one
public stream. or water shed to an
other stream or water shed, even n II
hc taken into another water district
Is expressly recognized by the legisla-
turc nv the act Of April 8, 1897
Laws OF 1897 page 176.
As to the ffth contention Of the
protest referring to that which is
condemned In Holy Writ. the facts OF
the situation presented in the propos-
ed purchase nv the CITY OF the reser-
voirs and water rights OF the com
pnrv do not bear out tho contention.
The plan proposed ns suggested
above nv Mr. Semain and borne ont
nv tho measurements OF the hydro
craphcr, assures the poor widow and
The rich farmer alike OF an abundance
Of water for domestic and irrigation
purposes for all time to come.
The false promises set out In the
so-called protest OF Florida farmers
are apparent when few fncu are
considered. Should the city
simply huv ten feet OF water. as has
been suggested, without employing
the reservoir system. the farmers
would he In much worse position
than under the plan by which we are
20 vote on the 2nd day OF December.
The government measure OF the Flor
ida river shows during the earlier
months OF each year there Ia guam
tltv OF water VARYING from l50 900 600
to ldo, 900 900 gallons going tc waste
daily.
When this great quantity OF water
Is conserved In reservoirs there can
be no doubt tina, there will be some
what OF an Increase OF water for the
farmer during the periods OF light
flows. For instance. In July. 1902,
there was flow OF only eleven feet OF
water in the stream. the minimum be
Ing as low as nine feet In August OF
the same year there was an average
flow or twen,y-one feet. the minimum
going as low as seven feet
At such times did not the farmers.
with an aggregated priority OF los
feet need more water than they
could secure from the stream What
more reliable source OF water for irrl-
cation then could the farmer secure
than thar which would be offered by
the city. and after he has studied the
situation. he would not refuse to vote
for the city's plan had he vote on
the question.