Truth. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1901-1908, 1905-09-23

insists that the case shall be con-
Quoted according to his ideas, or like
a sick man who calls in a physician.
ignores the physicians advice and
treats his own case
The Liberty Park wells scheme is no
new one. 1t has been talked about for
10 years or more, thoroughly investi-
gated and unanimously disapproved
OF by the most competent hydraulic
engineers such as A. F. Doremus, f.
Z. Kelsey, Messrs Ritter and Bacon
and others. These men know what
they are talking about they are thor.
oughly up in their business and no
one questions their honesty and in.
tegrity Their advice is unequivocally
against the plan. The crowd that
passed the resolutions at the meet
ing, however, would have none of it
although probably not one of them
was capable of passing on the merits
OF the scheme in any sense 1t is
safe to say that not one in ten of them
has ever seen the wells or would
know anything about them If they
had. They just took the bit in their
teeth and went it blindly. There is
no doubt that the Cottonwood plan is
the best for the city and the city ad-
ministration is right in adopting it,
| What is objected to is the methods
that are being employed to put the
plan in execution. 1t is wasteful al
most criminally so, detrimental to the
citys interests and fraught with much
doubt as to it's success.
Truth has several times pointed out
its utter effectiveness but as the mat
ter is of the greatest Importance to
the city it will do so again.
The contracts which have been en-
tered into between the city and the
Cottonwood water owners is such as
no sane man in the position of the
city would make. BY the contract
the city undertakes to bring water
from Utah lake to exchange with the
farmers of Cottonwood for Cotton
wood creek water. This in itself is
quite an undertaking when it is con-
sidered that Utah lake is falling and
that the capacity of the present canal
is inadequate to carry the quantity of
water required, even If that quantity
can be obtained. When the terms of
the contract with the farmers are
considered it is a very wasteful under.
taxing. First, by the agreement al
ready enterd into the farmers are to
| oA'Nh 81 Pei COll lllOTe water imam
they give the city and in addition the
farmers are to be given a cash bonus
OF $40 per acre for every acre of land
now irrigated by them with the w.ter
the city is to receive from Cottonwood
creek in exchange for the Utah lake
water; further the city agrees to con.
struct and keep in good repair the
canals necessary for the distribution
OF the Utah lake water among the
farmers and it is further provided
that II at any time the city fails to
supply the stipulated amount of
Utah lake water, the farmers may i'm.
mediately retake the Cottonwood
water from the city. It is truly a one.
sided contract. Then the city, to car
ry the water from Cottonwood into the
city's system, must construct a con-
dult which will, cost a quarter of a
million dollars. It's a big risk for
the city to take under such a con-
tract. Just as Truth said nearly a
year ago, when it opposed the issue
OF the million dollars in bonds, the
present administration will spend the
million dollars and the city will get
very little more water. The city could
nave purchased the Cottonwood water
outright from the farmers at less ex.