Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-05-04

the claim was made by some of the
parties living in the upper part of the
district that some of the wet lands IN
the lower part had lost their right to
water for irrigation, but this was de-
MED by the owners OF those lands, who
claimed that they had always been ir-
rtgated, aud that 1t was necessary.
FULL QUANTITY NOT RECEIVED.
at Was also claimed that some Of
the lands IN the upper part OF the dis
trict had acquired rights by adverse
use but this was disputed by the par
ties below, who insisted that the water
had not been used upon these lands
a sufficient length Of time TO give a
prescriptivc right TO 1t.
IAN investigation Of the matter In
Guiding interviews with the water
masters and others who were best in
formed ON the subject, and an exam
nation OF the records showing the
distribution of the water, 50 far as
such records were attainable showed
that during recent years the Big ditch.
the Lower canal and Hill ditch had not
been receiving the full quantity of wa
ter awarded Ia them by the arbitra-
tors, the Big ditch only receiving II
shares. the lower canal shares and
the hin ditch 10 shares.
While the owners of the water
rights of these bitches claimed tho
full quantities stated In the award, the
city made the exchange upon the basis
of the quantities which they are now
receiving. For example, the contract
with the Big ditch provides that the
city shall deliver to II I-2O0ths of the
water flowing In Big Cottonwood creek,
which Is practically the equivalent Of
el.3 shares, the maximum quantity
awarded to It. or II shares plus % per
cent, which was the basis OF exchange.
The same may be said OF the Lower
canal.
CITY ON SAFE SIDE.
ut must not be supposed that the
exchange was made upon the basis of
the minimum quantity claimed, be-
cause It appeared that the parties were
not entitled to more, for the Facts
ELECTED did not justify that conclusion.
But lnasmuch as there was dispute
about whether the Big Ditch was enu-
tied to II or 2l-60ths OF the water, II
was intended to keep the city on the
safe side so that It would be sure to gel
an Il paid for with a fair chance OF
getting the full quantity stated in the
award,
ON this connection It should lac 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, II 1t should
be finally determined that these parties
are entitled to the full quantity OF wa
ter stated In the award the city VIII get
the use Of 9l.S shares from the Zig
Ditch. when It has only PAID Tor IL
shares--or AT that rate.
'It was Understood at tho time that
the full quantity OF water 10 when
these parties were entitled could NOT
he utilized by the city In its CONDUIT
without injuring other parties. because
some OF the water comes into me creek
between tho conduit and the heads OF
the bitches where 1t IL now used rms
Is due to the change I'm the pace OF
diversion. But, while II cannot all be
utilized as potable water, that when
comes into the creek below can ana
will be utilized Tor irrigation ana WIZ
form q part Of the water which tne
city Is required To furnish the FARMERS.
So that no part NJ 1t VIII he lost ana
the city will get tho fun benefit W Az
that the parties arc entitled 20 receive
WOULD SETTLE THE MATTER.
This question about changing the
place of diversion Is ono OF the prln-
clpal reasons why the city authorities
were anxious 10 get the waters Of the
Tanner ditch, which would have given
the city nomlnally 4S-60ths Of the
stream. | still consider II very import
ant, 40 far as the clty's interests are
concerned, that these waters should
be acquired, because that would prac~
tlcally settle tho matter and probably
avoid vexatIous and expensive litga-
ton
IN passing, may say that this ltes-
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
60 for water that such would not bo
the case. 1t applies 10 power fishi5
as well as irrigation.
In this connection II may not be
cut OF place for me TO say that the
ctys plan for acquiring water rights
was not Intended TO be confined To ac-
questions by exchange. but to include
the purchase aud even condemnation