The Hood River glacier. (Hood River, Or.) 1889-1933, 1905-03-16
FAVOR BONDING
TO GET WATER

| When q rising vote was taken by
the farmers at their meeting Tuesday
afternoon at the Barrett school house,
some 60 declared themselves in favor
of forming bonding district for the
construction of an irrigating system,
and about 20 voted in the negative.
The members of the county court
Judge Lake and Commissioners Hib-
bard and Straightforward that after
noon with the farmers in order to get
an understanding of the proposition
set forth In the petition of the Barrett
farmers. In the forenoon the mem
bers of the court we're shown over the
farming lands in the proposed irrigat-
ing district by j. II. Shoemaker, one
of the leaders in the movement for
the bonding district.
In the afternoon 100 farmers gath
cred at the school house, and at :45
we're called to order by f. G. Sher
rieb, who, in the absence of Chair
man Angus, was presiding officer for
the meeting. G. Il. Markham was
secretary.
That the farmers needed more water
was not disputed. How best to get it
was the proposition in the minds of
all. A great majority Of those present
| had very decided opinions that by
creating bonding district of the
farming lands within the proposed
irrigating district the water problem
could be best solved. Others believed
the bonding proposition the most un
wise method Of solution.
Those favoring the bonding scheme
explained that there are but $50 OF
l275 inches of water available for 10, 7GO
acres OF land They were convinced
that ditch could be constructed for
$50, 600 or less, that would bring out
sufficient water to meet the needs Of
the farmers for years to come. The
farmers must have the water and they
cannot see any other way than by
bonding to get it. All other schemes
have failed.
: Those opposed to the bonding idea
. said IL will take an expenditure of
S5, 200 to make surveys and definite
estimate of the cost, which they say
win not be less than S75, 600 and may
amount to S125, 5,000 When only the
! lands of those who can legally be re-
tained within the proposed bonding
district are considered, the total
: assessed valuation of the property will
be only 100000. As the irrigating
, ditch will cost this much II not more,
where can the bonds be sold, ask
those who oppose the scheme.
M. P. Isenberg started the discus
! sion by declaring that II the cost of
, the bonding scheme was within reason
he favored 1t, otherwise he wanted
out quick
I Chairman Sherrieb declared there
was no way to get at the cost ques-
, tion until the bonding district was
, formed and the assessment levied to
pay the expenses of competent sur
yeyor. He believed the ditch could
be constructed for 100000 at the out
side.
G.. r.. Castner said there we're $50
or 275 inches of water for present use.
There Is no water In sight, and ''what
he declared, ARE our lands worth
without waterY We are willing to
take the chances to see what the cost
will be. Estimates have been made,
believe, that water can be brought
] from Sandy Flat at cost not to ex.
ceed S45, 900. Water we need, water
ws must have. Let us tie ourselves
together and get 1t. -"
"Where are we to get water from
! anyother sourceY" asked j. II. Shoe
Q maker. "The country through which
the ditch will have to be built offer
a difficult route over which to brinl
water. We must have the water, ant
we must pay for getting 1t out som,
time or other Ii private capita
puts in ditch we must pay enough
II for rentals to return interest ON th
g capital invested,
= Some of the farmers In the foo
II hills wanted to know how high VI
Il water could be brought for them, ant
!, 1t was explained that water from tn
Supply Co.'S. ditch would be used Oh
J. the uplands. II, Locke, who lives II
Il the extreme northwestern corner o
# the proposed district, declared that |
/ would be impossible to get water Il
J, him. He had plenty of water anC
I; would pull out of the district an,
way. He moved that vote be takel
i to see If those who have water woult
s be set out of the bonding district
8 Judge Lake arose and stated ther
was too much rambling off the ques
r tion. He could see that the farmer
o wanted water. What the court wa
there for was to find out how many
{ wanted in the proposed irrigating dis
Q trict and how many did not. He wa
anxious to have vote taken to show
how many favored the project.
Frank Davenport stated that HI
!. favored the project personally, buI
!. the Jumper company of which he wat
member did not.
: Commissioner Hibhard then quoteC
the law, which states that property
| indirectly benefited, even If it be &
brick building in the city, is con.
} sidered subject to taxation in the dis
trict.
John Wilson moved that a vote be
taken. Angus seconded the motion,
Charles II. Warrens arose to STATE
that he had plenty of water and that
he considered it unfair that he SHOULD
J. be taxed to get water for his neigh
Dor, when it would not enhance thu
value of his property.
Chairman Sherrieb declared tina
Warrens got water because his neigh
bors permitted him to have it.
d A. A. Jayne, owner of 9S acres o
It land in the proposed bonding distric
% and also attorney for those opposing
Q the move, believes the bonding
l. scheme would work an injury to th
d property. eve want WATER" declare,
d Mr.. Jayne, "but we don't want Il
10 pay too much for it, There is such
% thing as water being too expensive
% | want to see what IL will cost befor
| buy water. This whole scheme ap
n pears sort of an educational schem
n "a plan to spend 5000 to see il W
10 can get water.
IS "The assessed valuation of the Ian,
10 in the proposed district is S73, 600. |
Il all those we're set out who want to ge
out, the value might be only $50, ,OOt
n What would bond buyers think O
If such proposition?
2 1.-THE thing to do is to raise none
Q and pay for ditch of our own. Niue
h of the land in the proposed district
IS not susceptible to irriagtion from tn
same combined source. 1t would cos
y almost as much to enlarge the uppe
% ditch as to build the main ditch.
A k.a.uls.,. a.. ~ .AnN, AnpI