The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1902-03-28
PLAN TO Get
CIT"S WATER
eoo,sfI Votes to Let Canals in
For Third Of Cost
p,yoR WILL VETO ACTOR
ELECTORS SHOW LACK OF MER-
TIN GENEROSITY PLEA.
qsYOR WILL VETO ACTOR

--r-rrVnOUs scheme TO let the
--.,rfrsr canal companies share in
a.. municipalities appropriated
raise and lower tie level If
lake was rut through the city
oh last night by a decisive vote.
5. fs REGARDED as more than prob
.rsr the executives objections to
.-rre.rs action. expressed in veto
800. win prevail on this as
-..4r it seems TO have been time
--.7 which the council occupied in
~. -77s.5aratiau of the subject last
--s- and mn conference between repre-
-,s-fr-s 7f she canal companies and
tsa municipality Tuesday afternoon
.-f yesterday afternoon.
~ result Of the negotiations Nnca
..r. h.er under consideration was re-
.--.5 t1 the council last night ir spe-
81 session. The report was in the
-c.s resolution. which secit5d that
raaf Jordan. South Jordan, North
r--s7r and Utah d salt lake Canal
...rl.s are DESTROYS of sharing with
... .i.r f1 the benefits TO be derived
..- DEVELOPMENT Of the city.s appro-
--rs5 rfzht o. store and draw off
80. water in Utah lake. and pro
80 the following as q basis OF
...-s.r 90 De entered ilt0 by the mu-
.f-sIfv and The FOUR canal compa-
ls.
Basis Of Proposed Contract.
That each canal company pay 20 the
.tr tra sum of $500 for an equitable
.-sra I'm the appropriated right, that
,as canal companies join with the city
RI Hrrs-rutiug an action at law as
-sr De- necessary. Co quiet the tIJi5 of
H. fr. mutual interests iu the lake.
rt.h title has become impaired by
..sssr 1f alleged unlawful diversions
81. Do Utah county bench lands of
.sfsr which feeds the lake, and that
rra city Join with the canal companies,
Zach equally sharing the cost eSti-
ra-e6 al $4,000 TO install a pumping
rIart no the lake outlet TO increase the
f1v into the canals during the periods
6i scarcity.
AZ the council session the adoption Of
tta suee.al committees report was
vigorously opposed by Robertson, Dav-
eIe- aa3 A. q. Davis. Nigus opposed
il In committee. he being the only one
20 vote in the negative. but in the
council meeting he stood for the prop
rsit1n 10 adopt The vote stood s t. 4.
sharp voting with the minority. Hew-
geo. Spence and Thomas were absent.
vulnerable Points Exposed.
In announcing his objections To tire
entire prop siti0n. Robertson declared
that the COST o. the city already Of de
y-0pIng and protecting the additional
water rights in Utah lake was over
$4,000 and he could not be convinced
that 20 would be prudent To let the
'a1al companies in ON a basis of about
third OF the actual cost. especially
nce the majority Of the canal COM
Tlnies had, by their actions a couple of
years ago. made il necessary for the
city 90 meet large extra expenses in
Che matter.
The councilman further attacked the
proposition on the ground that IT would
be legal 20 delegate the councils au-
th5r.ty to the board of canal cOmpa-
uy presidents. as suggest 3 in the
camnittee's report. Another vulnera-
DIE point in the report, aside from the
Indefinite amount of money proposed
o. be- expended according TO his rea-
srning is the proposition to pump out
me lake water. Tn the event that the
level aid not get back to the normal
me next season IL would be necessary,
Do thought 90 continue the pumping
hHHH.|rH .H
me river thus entailing "a large lnd
almost continual expense.
Disadvantageous to City.
Quoting from Angus NJ. Cannon. who
had taken a prominent part at the aft
Hloon conference that the city could
wen AFFORD to be magnaUimOus toward
.-- canal companies. siuce the drOuth
% 'dr county Indirectly affected CON
l.l,'ni in the city. Councilman Daveler
maintained that had it not been for
lae peryerseness of some of the canal
companies. neither the municipality nor
lae farmers would be I'M the plight they
-f now for lrrIgating water He saw
nothing but seIhshness i'm the actions
- the canal people and an abnormal
amount or advantage To them I'm the
Il2los-tion before the council.
statement by Attorney Varian. for
me cana. companies. at the conference
.aal The city has not the right 1t is
9--Fr2 Io have two additional waters
j. IAN lake and that it could not per
-5., This right without the consent Of
NE canal companies. had weight with
l..hstom ana EardIey i'm winning
.'s. support TO the proposition to CO.
-3la ou the terms outlined.
"Al- the matter has vet to be
J t'Se,t upon by the directors of each
.ta'l company. il Is the belief that
,.@F "lI concur I'M the proposition as
u passed The council declining TO make
more liberal concession.