The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1906-05-04
SHOWS THE WATER
RIGHTS OF CITY
Continued from PAGE 1

1T was also claimed that some of the
lands in the upper part of the district
had acquired rights by adverse use.
but this was disputed by the parties
below, who claimed that they had not
used the water upon these lands a suf-
f1cient length of time to give them a
prescriptive right.
IAN investigation of the matter, in
Guiding the interviews with the water
masters and others who were best in
formed on the subject. and an examina-
ton or the records showing the distri-
button of the water, so far as such rec
ords We're attainable, showed that dur
ing recent years the Big ditch the
Lever canal and Hill ditch had not
been receiving the full quantity of wa
ter awarded to them by the arbitra-
tors, the Big ditch only receiving II
shares, the lower canal shares, and
the Hill ditch 9 shares
City Was Protected.
while the owners Of the water
rights of these bitches claimed the full
amounts stated in the award, the city
made the exchange upon the basis of
the quantities which they are now re-
ceiving. For example the contract
with the Big ditch provides that the
city shall deliver 71-2OOths of the water
flowing in Big Cottonwood creek. which
is practically the equivalent of 21.3
shares, the maximum quantity award
Whlch was the basis of exchange. The
same may be said Of the Lower canal
1t must not be supposed that the
exchange was made upon the basis of
the minimum quantity claimed, because
II appeared that the parties were not
entitled to more, for the facts ELECTED
did not justify that conclusion. Rut
inasmuch as there was a dispute about
whether the Big Ditch was entitled to
II or 2I-60ths of the water, it was in
tended to keep the city on the safe
side so that it would be sure to get all
it paid for with a fair chance of get
ting the full quantity stated in the
award.
In this connection it should be re-
membered that the city agrees in the
! contracts Of exchange to maintain all
OF the existing rights of the parties
making the exchange, and, if it should
! be finally determined that these parties
are entitled to the full quantity of water
stated in the award the city will get the
use of 21.3 shares from the Big Ditch.
When IL mas only paid for II shares
or at that rate.
1T was understood at the time that
the full quantity of water to which
these parties were entitled could not
De utilized by the city in its conduit
without injuring other parties. because
some or the water comes into the creek
between the conduit and the heads of
the bitches where is is now used. This
is due to the change in the place of di-
version. But, while it cannot all he
utilized as potable water. that which
comes into the creek below can and will
be utilized for irrigation and will form
a part of the water which the CITY is
required to furnish the farmers So
| that no part of it will be lost and the
city will get the full benefit of all that
the parties are entitled to receive.
Should Get Tanner Ditch.
This question about changing the
place of diversion is one of the prin-
cipal reasons why the city authorities
were anxious to get the waters of the
Tanner ditch. which would have given
the city nominaIly 43-6Oths of the
stream. I still consider it very import
ant so far as the citys interests are
concerned, that these waters should be
acquired, because that would practfc-
ally settle the matter and probably
avoid vexations and probably expensive
litigation.
In passing, may say that this ques-
ton, as to the change in the place of
diversion would arise on any stream
In this state Wherever the water is
taken out above other users, when ii
has previously been taken below them,
this question is bound to arise and there
is no place where the city could go for
water that such would not be the case.
1t applies to power rights as we'll as ir-
IlSdIlO1l-
I'm this connection il may not be
out of place for me to say that the city's
plan for acquiring water rights, as
understand it, was not intended to be
confined to acquisitions by exchange,
but to include the purchase and even
condemnation Of water rights when the
interests of the city would be best sub
served thereby. The scheme was so
elastic as 10 include all legal methods
Of acquiring such rights
Why Contracts Were Not Specific.
THE water right is described i'm the
contract as all of the right of it. the
party of the second part, 10 the use of
all its portion of the water flowing in