The Hawaiian gazette., 1902-02-11
THE KOHALA WATER BILL.

what lines the Republican Central
committee opposes the bill now pend
ing before Congress granting certain
oater rights to Samuel Parker's cor
puration; but there are certain features
bout the bill which cannot but be con-
demned by every impartial person
OF the value and necessity of utiliz-
ing this and other surplus water there
can be no question. a large amount
If water is running TO waste, which, II
diverted to the adjacent dry districts
will greatly increase the productivity OF
the SOIL and create wealth which does
not now exist. There is no difference
OF opinion upon this point. But there Is
radical objection to the way in which
it is proposed to be done. Some of the
objections are as follows:
This is a purely local matter. and
should therefore be subject to local
control.
Congress has already turned over to
the local authorities the full control
and disposition of all government lands
except certain specified reservations for
the direct use of the Federal govern
ment. Leases or sales of government
lands carry as incidental to the land
the water and other appurtenanCes be-
longing thereto. Through its power to
lease or dispose of lands, the local gov
eminent has, therefore, full power to
dispose of water which is on the land
conveyed. But the technical point
has been raised that there Is no spe-
cific power authorizing the local gov
eminent to dispose of water alone,
separate from the land on which it is
located.
Under these circumstances the logic
a; and proper thing to do Is for Con-
gress to pass an act comforting upon
the local authorities whatever power is
necessary to grant rights to use pub
lie waters, so as to bring into beneficial
use not only the Kohala water, but 9TH
or waste waters elsewhere available.
The power can be hedged about
by all proper restrictions. as Is now the
case with the land law; but in all fair
ness to the public welfare and to local
interests, the disposition of local gov
eminent waters should be in the hands
of local authorities, who know the local
conditions and the rights of the mat
ter, instead of being the subject of pri-
| vate grant by Congress, who can know
of the matter only at second hand.
1.-The bill does not correctly state
on its face what it means. Its title
and its text speak of nothing but
rights of way" for bitches and reser-
voirs. The fair inference to be drawn
from the wording of the bill is that the
| corporation has water Of its own, and
simply seeks a right of way across In
tervening government land. AS a mat
| ter of fact, practically all of the water
| TO be obtained and transported through
such rights Of way is the property Of
the government. In other words. the
bill says right Of way" but it means
water"
J. This reminds one of the tramp with a
magic "soup stone" which, upon being
boiled in pure water, would produce a
rich broth. He demonstrated the claim
to the farmers wife, after borrowing
| from her, 'just to flavor the soup, n
| little meat, potato, onion, salt and pep
! per.
3.-The bill proposes to grant the
rights of way, and incidentally the wa
ter, for nothing. Both Mr.. Parker and
| the so-called Gehr Company have of
| fered the local government a rental of
! $1,000 Yer annun for this same water,
! with the statement that, after the wa
ter is being delivered through the ditch
they will pay into the Territorial treas
ury five per cent of the gross receipts
per annum, with a guarantee that the
same shall amount to not less than
S2500 per annum.
Why should this public property and
franchise be given away, when parties
stand ready to pay handsomely for it?
4-The bill makes direct private
grant of the property involved to a
specific corporation, instead of putting
1t up for competition to the highest
bidder. Another corporation is seeking
this same water, and is ready to pay
FOR it. Why should they not be given
an opportunity to get it? Why should
one corporation be favored more than
the other?
1t is claimed that the other company
consists only of spectators, without
capital to carry out the work,
An absolute reply to this is that al
spectators can be shut out by requir'
ing from bidders an approved bond in
sum large enough to prove good
faith, requiring the expenditure of q
certain amount of money, and the com
pletion of the work in given time.
The bill grants the power of eminent
domain to the corporation but provide
none OF the detailed safeguards usually
accompanying such powers. No nay
ment for land taken or property dc
strOyed is provided for.
This attempted grant of power may
be unconstitutional, but it is IN un'
comfortable thing to have even an UNI
constitutional statute passed that aiveS
a corporation a prima facie right tC
contiscate private property withou;
compensation to the owner.
6-The bill contains an elaborate de-
scription of the boundaries within which
the grant is to be eXercis ID. the Terri
! tory described being q villa and mac
ce'sinlc mountain region. DOVE n@al
the end of the bill it adds joker, how
ever, in the shape of a provision thai
the rights granted shall apply II ''sucf
other public lands in the Districts o
North and South Kohala ana Hama
kua as may be necessary to properl!
supply the consumers of water