Arizona republican., 1903-05-28
conPLIcArING SIMPLE THINGS
Further Remarks on Water Storage
 by a South Slider.

men were given d simple thing to do that ninety-nine of them would com plicate it. This may be an exaggera- tion but it has very much the color oc | truth.
 1t would seem that an object placed | in an open place should be seen by every one alike, but strange to say, | this is not the case. for no two see alike. Why one sees a mountain while | another sees an ant hill and both look ing at the same object is a query that no one will attempt to explain and but few will admit. The only explanation that any one would attempt to make would be to say that the other fellow does not see it that way. So on it goes, and with every object presented to view and every question or theory dis cussed we have all the variations from the ant hill to the mountain.
 The Bible is q very familiar instance of the correctness of this assertion. The Bible is translated of course into our language but is put into the bes, and most simple style of English. and Is really a text book in the study or the language. But how many read it alike? There are thousands of differ ent constructions and as wide apart
 
 white, and every one is ready to stake his life on the correctness of his con- struction. If we have made such a colossal failure in the Interpretation of such plain and simple English how can we hope to express ourselves so as to be understood or understand anything that is stated by another. The articles of the Water Users as- sociation, though not so large Q book as the Bible. have quite as varied an interpretation. One of my neighbors solemnly says that he will sell his land with water and take up desert land for reservoir water. and another says that | if he had desert land only without water he would not subscribe for reser- voir water. Could they be wider apart in their views?
 | Now. if all the argument that could be brought to bear on 1t would not change either Of them then what is the good of argument. Convince man against his will he is of the same opin- ion still must be needed all we can do is to give them plain English and let each one be responsible to himself. The appropriations under the New land d-Hansbrough act are not approp- riations at all: 1t Is simply a loan. A loan is something to be returned. When we make loans in sums of $2.OO0.O00 we expect security for the return. We even ask for security for loans of lesser Amounts. The payments are stipulated, and the money must be re- turned; failures to return this money are not taken into consideration. but We first have the use of the water and we pay no interest. Right here some one will say: it can't be a loan if there | is no interest to pay.
 The secretary of the interior will not | deal with individuals; a community must act together as an incorporated body.
 | Section 8 declares that vested rights shall not be interfered with. The ob- 1 ject of the association is to secure ac- ton by the government" (Sec. 2, Art. IV) Payments to be made to the gov ernment agents. When your payments are all made then your stock shall be deemed and held to have been fully paid up" (Sec. II. Art. V) No bylaws shall be passed or enforced which shall interfere with or affect any present existing vested right of any member of , this association to the use of water for | irrigating. (Sec. 14, Art. VI) This 1 StNliDH Ol liit ti1oONldNiOii 1i NiNlNS Npii- forms with section of the Newlands- Hansbrough act. Yet in the face of both assertions some say that our pres ent water rights will not be accounted in the distribution of water. Then we have again Article XIV, which says: | Nothing in these articles O; incorpo- ration shall in any way interfere with the present rights to the prior use of the waters of the Salt and Verde rivers. At this point is where my two neigh bors get the farthest apart. Strange. too when the act of congress gives them plain English for guidance and | the association not only gives it in the plainest of English but repeats it.
 Another great bugaboo is the thought that after we get all we need some one else may get what is left. Strange that the government should make a provis ion of this kind when human nature is so averse to it. Why. even dog wouldn't stand an arrangement of that kind.
 While every right is guarded and doubly guarded. how is it possible for so much suspicion? We think the next man may get drop more water than we do or the next canal may get little more than our canal does. We even