The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1904-12-22
Mr.. BLACKS SUGGESTION.


blng Interested az the water question
put before the people by q majority OF
the council, / would like 10 call the atteH-
ti9n OF the people TO a few figures that
nave come to my knowledge which close
~ relate 10 the workings OF the contract
which seems to me TO be the vital point
II the present scheme, which is the I'M
IalrnesS or that part that gives only
monthly measurements and % Ger cent
moro water than We receive. To show
the unfairness of this Contract I viii take
the year 1902. which shows Big Cotton
May 10. 1902 the flow was 272 second feet,
June -, 1902, the flow was 197 second feet,
July Is. 1902. the flow was q second feet
Aug. -. 1902. the flow was 3 second feet,
sept. u. 1902. the flow was y second feet.
These figures show that under the con-
tract we would be compelled 20 furnish
water rs follows
From MAY Is to June Is. $40 second feet,
From June IS 20 July Is. Z46 second feet,
FROM July - TO Aug. Is. 50 second feet.
From Aug. 10 TO Sept. Il. A second feet.
And n we were to receive the entire
flow Of the creek
On June Is We would receive only 197
second feet.
On July IL we would receive only 81 sec
Ond feet
on Aug. 10 we would receive only b. sec
ond feet
ON Sept. Is we would receive enly z sec
ond feet and would have to furnish
the greater amount as shown by the sec
ond table of figures, and on June j. we
would Dc delivering = per cent more than
we would receive.
July - 1890. ..... go. 2Si per cent
Aug. Il ..........E...... I2S per cent.
Sept. 10 ...-....-... ..... 63 per cent
These figures show also that on July Is
We would have to deliver 80 per cent more
grafton. Parley's and Big Cottonwood
creeks and water from the proposed de-
Velopments of Utah lake. The first four
named creeks July Is. 1902 show their en-
fra. 20. L., Hr,gr
added To the proposed Utah lake 100 sec
ond feet, shows 1S9 second feet rs the en-
tire flow of all. while on that day We
would have to furnish 246 second feet.
or fifty-seven second feet more than we
could furnish If We did not use a single
gallon for any other purpose. And under
the Parley's contract We have to give as
much water as We receive. outside OF the
canal water used for Irrigation of the
city. which would reduce our supply at
least twenty-five second feet.
In looking over these figures the Ques-
ton arises: Where are We going to get
this additional water for these poor
farmers? How are we going 20 prevent
q default in the contract? And, If the
farmers at the end of twelve hours take
thei- water back. what will we do with
our $4,000 conduit r. r. BLACK.
Mr.. Blacks argument is based on a
misconception of the facts that ought
TO be palpabIe even TO critics of the
proposed addition 10 the citys water
supply He assumes, to begin with,
that the city's contract is with the users
of al of the Big Cottonwood water,
whereas it has contracted with almost
exactly SO per cent Of jhe canal supply.
Instead Of using az second-feet IN May
as "a basis Of his argument, he should
havc.used only IA feet: IN June about
loo feet and on down into September,
about fifteen second-feet-
But his measurements. on May IS
and June u. are no argument at all,
because when Sig Cottonwood meas
ures pc second-fcet. City creek alone
is high enough to supply water for a
population Of about geo eco. and there
would be no practical need of using
any Of the Big Cottonwood supply.
Again: The Big Cottonwood di,ch,
the Lower canal and the Hin canal. al
told cannot carry more than thirty-five
second-feet Of water: wher their share
Of the supply ulsSen that capacity the
surplus goes into the Jordan river
The city Of salt Lake has filed on al
OF the surplus Eater in Big Cottonwood
creek; ali the canals on that creek will
not use over sixty feet. ard when the
measurement exceeds their demands
the surplus is city property
Il is assumed that the city is propos-
ing contract which will give tho
farmers - per cent more water than
they deliver To the city. Under the
most biased construction OF the con-
tract. the excess il favor Of the farm
err il not 3 per cent, and the advantage
10 the city much more than offsets even
that small concession.
it = evident that Mr.. Black has been
misIed IN his figures and that his con-
tention IS hardly serious enough to be
worth the space required for discussion
Salt Lake needs the Big Cottonwood
water: it is offered an exchange or
terms much better than can be had
later Il the options secured are not TAX
CT ~. II the contracts can be modified
10 the further advantage Of the city
IL would be well. Of course. TO get the
notifications; but there should be No
hesitancy about voting for the plar
unless some more valid objection j:
produced than has been suggested Sc
far: certainly Mr.. Blacks objection Is
not worth considering.