The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1904-12-16
EXPLAINS ABOUT
WATER CONTRACT
Engineer Snow Talks on
Agreement With Farmers.
CITYS RIGHTS PROTECTED
FAILURE FOR THE ENTIRE SIX
MONTHS REQUIRED TO VOID.

George w. Snow, city engineer, when
asked about the criticism made in the
proposed water trading contract pro-
vided for in the bond issue. alleging
that the city was getting the short end
o. the deal. said:
In 1859 il was decided to divide the
water from Big Cottonwood into sixty
shares The owners of the big irriga-
ton ditch have been getting seventeen
shares OF this water. The contract stip-
ulates that in the exchange with the
City. the company is to get % per cent
more water than the city. which is 21-2
shares or 40 more than the company
has been receiving from the creek. The
city is entitled to the seventeen shares,
the amount the company has been re-
Ceiving. BY measuring the water at
the mouth of the canyon we are quite
sure that the city viii get so per cent,
although the contract provides that il
will get but > per cent, as much as is
given away
The only way the contract can be
voided is by the city's failing, through
sn entire season. to give the farmers
the water promised. If the city turns
the water into The farmers bitches for
but A single day during the year it
ment sufficient 10 prevent the for
fixture of the contract.
Reason For other Litigation.
The litigation over the Parley's can
son water, In which suit has been COM
menced against the city. was caused by
H. latter refusing TO live Up to its
agreement and give Gabbott and others
the water due them. In this case the
city got short of water and failed TO
slow any OF 1t TO go to the farmers,
although it had contracted to do so.
hence the farmers asked the court to
declare the agreement void and give
them their original water right back
again.
AS far as the right of the city to
T. ade its share of the water of Utah
lake is concerned. there is no question
as long as the city barters it's portion
cnly. Five corporations and the city
own the lake. -Four pumps force the
water into the six bitches. three on
each side Of the valley. The complaint
IS I understand II. is that the city may
give away more than its share. For It
is proposed by the city to put in an
ether pump at the lake. This is to be
used only in case one of the others
fail to work. so the city will not be
taking more than its share of water by
the installation of the fifth pump.
City May Take Water.
The five corporations cannot prevent
Salt Lake City from taking all the
water 1t needs providing the supply Is
not depleted. Even IL in dry season
the city should not be allowed TO pump
cut the lake for the farmers with whom
II had traded, il could give them in re-
turn from the farmers old supply al
Cottonwood. Inasmuch as the plan
gives Salt Lake City about three times
IS much water as il now has. there
VIII be no great inconvenience If the
city is obliged during an emergency
such as break i'm one of the pumps
a, Utah lake TO give the farmers their
old water back again until the damage
can be repaired. The trouble would be
only temporary and the farmers do not
care where they get their water SO
long as they get it