The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1904-12-11
DISCUSS WATER
FOR SIX HOURS
Real Estate Dealers Have a
Lively Debate.
MANY CONFLICTING IDEAS
DEFINITE ACTION POSTPONED
PENDING LEGAL INQUIRY.

The members of the Salt Lake Real
Estate association spent six hours yes
terday discussing the ordinance pro-
vidlng for the submission to the quail
fed electors Of Salt Lake City at
special election on jan. g. 1905. the
question of incurring bonded indebt-
edness OF $3.50 600 for the purpose of III
oTeasing the water supply. and
bonded debt of Sl5g.O00 for establishing
supplemental sewer system. The only
conclusion arrived at was to have the
legal aspect Of the two propositions in
vestigated and reported upon at all
other meeting TO be held next Wednes-
cay II an agreement can be then
reached the association will go on
record as favoring or opposing the
scheme
J. w. Houston. president OF the as
ISOLATION. presided, and Mayor Richard
p. Morris, Councilman F. s. Fernstrom
and T. r.. Black. John +. Dooly j. ID.
Wood and Charles Crane were present
by invitation as guests of the associa-
ton and TO enlightea its members on
the water and sewerage questions. The
discussion was preceded by q dinner in
enc Of the club rooms.
Talk Is Geneldl.
President Houston announced that 1t
was the desire Of the association mem-
l'ership to have full and fair discus
Zion Of the two questions. After some
preliminary talk on the water ques-
i'on. in which various persons Joined,
Mayor Norris was called on to present
the cityB side Of the proposition 10 bond
the city. He gave an outline of the or
dmance and of the report of the special
committee OF the council. composed OF
CounCilmen Hewlett Dean. FernstrOm
and Wells I'm which all the proposed
sources Of supply are named, together
with the number of gallons that can
re obtained therefTom and the amounts
Of money to be expended and other data
are set forth. He was kept busy dur
ing the next half hour answering ques-
tons propounded by dozen or more
persons. as to why the flow from
Spring Creek was not TO be used; why
IL was sought to bind the city i'm a
contract with 300 or 400 farmers: why
water was not to be bought outright;
- he didn't think it better to have some
Of the features of the ordinance eliIni-
mated: and wouldn't it be advisable to
build the proposed Cottonwood conduit
iirst and make arrangements to get
water as needed later? To all of these
questions Mayor Morris answered that
81 his opinion It would be safe and pro-
per to follow the scheme as devised by
the special committee. He COntended
that the proposition TO exchange water
with the farmers was the best that
could be presented at this time He said
that enough money could not be pro-
vided to buy the land owned by the
farmers in order to secure 10 the city
perpetual first rights 10 the water.
90 nd
others would be satisfied with $500 an
acre for their lands. The borrowing
power of the city was limited to 81, $50.
coo. per cent Of the assessed property
valuation within the corporation.
Only Way, Says Fernstrom.
Councilman FeTnstrOm also explained
the provisions Of the ordinance and told
what the members of the council spec
lal committee were aiming TO accom-
Ilish He said there was no other way
10 get an adequate water supply eX-
cept that embodied i'm the ordinance
and I'm the plan submitted by the COM
nittee and adopted by the council.
John T. Dooly. who was fortified with
maps Of the water sheds of Mill Creek,
Zig and Little Cottonwood, City Creek,
Parley's creek and Utah lake and a
copy of the contract under discussion.
and also a copy of the Parley's creek
water contract. and a mass of other
statistics. occupied an hour and half
opposing the proposed water and sewer
projects. He contended that the meas
urements provided for were unjust to
the city. that the contract with the
farmers made them absolute dictators
IN case of disagreement over the water
supply. that official government reports
showed that the inflow OF Utah lake
vas growing less yearly and was likely
Ia few years 10 cease altogether dur
ing the dry season. and that the con-
tract contains a provision making the
city liable i'm the courts for damages to
the farmers in the event of the failure
Of the exchange water provided for.
The ordinance contains a provision.
said he, that in the event of failure
10 deliver water to the farmers for
twelve hours they may take their water
the same as though no contract existed
and that they may seek damages in
the courts for any injury that may re-
suit to their crops by reason of the fail
IRE of the city TO fulfill its part of the
contract"
Councilman Fernstrom contended
that Mr.. Dooly had placed a forced
construction upon the contract He
said the farmers could after the failure
of the city to furnish them water for
twelve hours take what water they
might need. and that a failure for six
months on the part OF the city TO faith
fully perform its part of the contract
would nuilify the contract. The city
would then be left i'm the same position
AS regards exchange of water with the
farmers as If no contract had been en-
Tered into. The farmers could not get
damages. because the courts would not
interpret the contract that way
Mr.. Dooly read from the contract to
prove his contention. He quoted pro-
lsion giving the courts Jurisdiction TO
assess cumulative damages"
Mr.. FernstrOm said this provision ala
lot contemplate damages that might
result 10 crops.
w. J. Halloran's Position.
W. ]. Halloran said the point raised
by Mr.. Dooly as to damages the city
might have TO pay in case 4 failed to
deliver all the water called for by the
contract was a new and a serious one
TO him, and he advised a thorough dis
Cussion before definite action was
taken. He wanted to know if the $780,
600 bonds could not be voted without
committing the city TO the farmers
contract If so ne would be in favor of
voting them and constructing the Cot
tonwoOd conduit and getting water
later as needed.
J. d. Wood said he understood the
city had until next July to close the
contract with the farmers.
Go ahead said he. "and build the
conduit. and then see if we can't bay
water But if the proposed contract is
shown 10 be the only alternative. go
ahead with it, What We want IS water
and let us get it,"
Charles Crane was opposed to both