The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1903-01-30
COMMITTEES REPORT
Recommends That the Water
Question Be Settled by Mu
tuaI Agreement.

Provo.
of water-users OF Provo river met TO-DAY
In the meeting house for the purpose OF
hearing the report of the cvinihteese ap
pointed a week ago, and 10 transact IuI-
Their business along the line of expressing
approval or disapproval of an attempt
10 settle differences in regard to water
rights by arbitration. Roger Farrer was
elected chairman. The committee on reso-
IutiOns made the following report:
ITO the Water-users Of Provo River;
"Gentlemen-We. your committee To
whom was referred the matter OF con-
flicting interests Of water-takers OF Provo
river. etc, beg leave to SUBMIT the loi-
leEing preamble and resolution, and
IecOmmend its adoption;
Whereas. We are not at present al
vised of any difficulties existing between
the water-users- Of Provo river, or other
streams in which we have interests, and
other parties claiming rights thereto,
which differences have not heretofore
been settled by mutual agreement, arbi-
tration or judgment of the courts, except
in the matter of the storing of the unap-
propriated headwaters OF Provo river.
Therefore,
"Resolved, That we favor the PROPOSE
ton that the parties interested IN the
storing of such waters make honest
effort to settle all matters relating there
to by mutual agreement; and should they
fail to agree, that they submit all matters
OF dispute to arbitration in preference TO
litigation. Respectfully submitted.
ROGER FARRER, Chairman.
Provo City. Jan. %. 1903"
On the question of adopting the resOlu-
tions Judge Miner stated that the COM
nittee knew of no differences other than
stated in the preamble to the resolutions.
and therefore the committee had said so.
John Henry Smith who was pres
ent. was asked to speak and advance any
ideas he or Salt Lake county water-users
might have on the subject of the resOIu-
tion. Mr.. Smith stated that he did not
attend as a representative OF Salt Lake
county. but merely because he was IN
terested in the water question. He be-
nnKsal 10 ST 20 n
IS the Utah lake was concerned the DIFF
ferences were settled. and if any moditl-
cation of this agreement was desired II
would have to be done by mutual consent
There were. however. questions connected
with the rights TO the waters of Utah lake
watershed, for the reason that there were
complications in the matter OF appropria-
ton. These questions would have to be
settled. and some time ago the matter
was brought to the attention of President
Smith, President John r. Winder and the
speaker, and they had called together
representatives from the various stakes
in the counties which are interested in the
waters of the Utah lake watershed. This
meeting had been held for the purpose Of
trying to secure an agreement to arbitrate
rather than to settle such differences by
the courts. which would be very eX-
q DenSive and diSa greeabIe. The representa-
Ntives of these religious organizations
were now working to the end of gathering
information as to time of appropriation
of water rights, and the rights obtained
by usage. etc.
These questions IL was important to set
tie. and they should be settled as early as
possible. because the longer this matter
was left the harder it would be to get the
facts and to settle any disagreements
that may exist.
All there was about the matter was that
those interested might reach an agree
nent on a friendly and just basis that
would fix their respective rights. He
again referred to the interest taken in
the matter by the first presidency of the
church, stating that the reason for this
interest was entirely disinterested and
for the purpose of keeping the people
from getting into legal entanglements
that might last for years and create i'll
feelings. They were not interested in get
ting any water from one man for an
other man. or for one county from an
other county. The presidency had been
asked by Colonel Holmes and others 70
use their good offices in favor of arbitra-
ton, and they had considered that il was
the right way to settle these questions.
Judge Miner asked Mr.. Smith if he
(Mr. SMITH understood that the contract
between Utah county people and Salt
Lake county people in regard to the regu-
lation of the waters of the lake was a
valid contract and that If any changes
were desired the Utah county people
worid be notified. Mr.. Smith stated that
he so understood the matter.
President Keller explained that he had
not understood that those who had at
tended the meeting in Salt Lake should
make any effort to get information on
priority of water rights. and had not
done So he mad understood that the OBJ
Ject of the meeting was to enlist the serv-
Ices of those who attended in favor of
arbitration. and they had worked to that
end.
Mr. Smith explained that the matter
OF getting data in regard TO water rights
had been referred to as a question in
cidental TO che arbitration of rights con-
nected with the appropriations and usage
of waters.
The question was asked if any water
was now going down the Jordan river.
and was answered by Judge Miner OF
the Utah lake commission that there was
lust sufficient water going down to sup
ply the farmers living along the canals
with water for culinary and domestic pur-
poses. and the rest was being stored
Nj. p Madsen was in favor of adopting
the resolutions, but he had learned now
that the Salt Lake people wanted the
Utah county people and people of other
counties to establish their rights to the
waters of Provo river, and that Salt Lake
county would take all the water to which
the Utah county and other people could
not establish right This opened UP a
new field. something entirely different
from what was considered at the last
meeting.
Judge Miner presented the following
motion: That we recommend that all
water-users of the Provo river ascertain
the extent OF their various rights to
water, and, as far as possible seek a
common agreement as TO the extent OF
each and every right preparatory TO
making such right a matter of public
record"
After some discussion by various speak
crs the motion was defeated the opposi-
ton being of the opinion that adopting
the motion showed a weakness. being an
admission tifat the water-users We're not
entitled to Us much water as they now