The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1904-12-20

the fact that the four canal comDan
have failed to agree TO the terms re-
survey for the development of Utah lake2
WILLIAM IL. TIBBALS.
Salt Lake City, Dec. II.
l. The farmers do not guarantee to
deliver any fixed quantity of water, in
gallons, to the city from Big Cotton
wood creek. Neither does the city
guarantee to furnish any fixed guam
tity of water from Utah lake to the Big
Cottonwood farmers.
The figures quoted above by Mr.. lib
balls, 2l-24O Of the Big Cottonwood
creek. are quoted from just one of the
contracts entered into between Salt
Lake City and the different canal COM
panies owning the perpetual right to
the flow of the stream. There are three
of these contracts with three different
canal companies, alike in terms. Under
these three contracts the city secures the
perpetual right to 50 per cent of the
entire flow of the Big Cottonwood
stream.
During the dry season-July, August
and September-of the year 1900, 1901
and 1902 the average flow Of the Big
Cottonwood was 100000 gallons every
twenty-four hours. Fifty per cent Of
this flow would give the city the per-
petual right to the use of 1G,5OO.OOO gal
Ions of this flow every twenty-four
hours during the season of greatest
drouth
In exchange for this Big Cottonwood
water the city will be required by the
terms of the contract to deliver $3.50
zoo gallons, or % per cent more than
is received from the Big Cottonwood
creek. OF course. if the flow of the
creek should fall to 100000 gallons, the
city would be required to supply but
1O,OOo,OOo gallons from the lake in ex-
change.
Ii must be kept in mind to avoid con-
fusion that these contracts with the
Big Cottonwood farmers are merely
optional and that the taxpayers i'm
voting for the bonds. Jan. 3. are not
voting to ratify the CONTRACTS The city
has secured options from the farmers
for this 90 per cent of the Big
Cottonwood. These options run till
July ], 1905. If at that time it is
thought best to surrender the options,
the city is at liberty to do that. If the
opponents of the present plan have
some better scheme for securing this
water. and viii i'm the meantime pre-
sent it, it is certain that the city Off
Gals viii he glad to accept it.
? There is no connection whatever
between the plan under discussion to
secure for the city an adequate supply
Of water for all time, and the work
proposed TO be done by the federal gov
eminent at Utah lake. BY the use Of
pumps at the intake of the Jordan river
Salt Lake has been enabled TO secure
far more water than was needed for
exchange with the farmers in Parley's
canyon and for irrigation in the city.
This was done in the dryest years that
have visited this section in the MEM
DRY of men. If this water were fit for
use in the city The problem would have
been solved long ago. There is no
doubt in the minds of experts that this
pumping may be continued indefinite
j. and an abundance of water secured
IN this way FOR exchange with the far
mers in Big and Little Cottonwood and
Mill creek in addition to that already
used for other purposes. 1t is a sig
nificant fact that in spite of all the
pumping Of the past season the water
in Utah lake is a foot higher now than
il was at this time last year.
The greatest benefit Salt Lake CITY
could ask Of the federal government
would be to have channel cut at the
intake 80 that the water of the lake
could be utilized without this resort
To pumps. The Salt Lake & Jordan
canal is thirty feet below the<bottom
of the lake and there would not be the
slightest trouble in supplying 100 seq
ond feet every day in the year TO the
farmers and all by gravity if the chan
mel were cut into the lake. As there
are thirty-two streams flowing into the
lake it is fair to suppose that enough
water would be stored in the winter
months 90 take care OF the summer
months.