The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1907-10-04
VISIT SOURCE OF
WATER SUPPLY
Parties to Famous Suit Make
Interesting Trip of
Inspection.
ENTIRE SYSTEM GONE OVER
WATER BEING WASTED BY UTAH
LIGHT & RAILWAY CO.
ENTIRE SYSTEM GONE OVER

In order to familiarize themselves
with the exact conditions which must
be confronted and the general topo-
graphy of the country, the central fig
ures in the suit brought by the Pro-
gress company against the city and
other defendants to adjudicate the wa
ter rights in Big Cottonwood creek. ac
companied by Judge Charles w. Morse
of the district court, who is trying the
case. yesterday toured the section in
volved in the litigation.
Those in the party were Judge
Morse, Franklin S. Richards special
counsel for the city; Waldemar Van
Colt, one of the attorneys for the Pro-
gress company; c. S. Kinney, repre-
senting the Ellison ditch rights; Louis
G. Kelsey, city engineer; A. L. Dore-
mus, assistant city engineer; John 2.
Cahoon, head of the Progress company
and the actual plaintiff in the case, and
Attorney Condit.
The party left the city on the
O'Clock Murray car yesterday morning
and went to the power plant CT the
Progress company on State street, near
Sixteenth South street. Here they
were met by teams, which conveyed
them over the ground, the trip making
necessary a drive of fifty miles, and not
being finished until $50 o'clock in the
evening, when the city was again
reached.
A Noteworthy Dispute.
The suit is probably one OF the most
noteworthy disputes over water rights
ever tried in a Utah court, and its out
come will affect every citizen of Salt
Lake and every water user on the
creek
The Progress company claims for its
three power plants the right to prac-
tically the entire flow of the creek from
Oct. 1 to April l and a small right
during the irrigation period between
April 1 and Oct. l. If their contention
is sustained it will mean that the city
will be compelled TO either purchase
their rights or give UP the use of the
water from Big Cottonwood from Oct
l to April l. which would mean a vir'
tual abandonment of the $4,000 con-
duit. The only other alternative would
be to purchase the Progress company's
right for s1S5,0O0. which is the value
placed upon it by the company.
One of the main factors in the con-
troversy Is the Jordan & Salt Lake
canal commonly known as the City
canal, which carries water from Utah
lake through the district watered BY
Big Cottonwood. This canal runs north
and south about four miles from the
entrance to the canyon. In order TO Sc
cure water rights in the creek at the
intake of the conduit, the city ha:
made contracts with the owners o.
rights west or below this canal to fur
nish them this water in lieu of the wa
ter which they had been obtaining from
the creek. This water has decided!
muddy tinge, and while better in many
ways for irrigation purposes than tbs
water from the canyon stream, is %
no use for culinary or household pur
poses. The farmers who gave up theil
rights in exchange for this water, how
ever, all have springs on their places
or have sunk artesian wells, and are
thus supplied with all the water needed
for domestic use.
Progress Company Claim.
1t is claimed by the Progress peopi'
and by others having rights betwee.
the canal and the conduit intake tina
while the city has secured these lowe
rights, IT is at the same time deprivin:
them of their flow, as all the watc
which previously went to the peopl
below the canal who have surrendere,
their rights first passed through thei
canals and was of benefit to them. TIL
Progress company, which has tw
power plants below the canal, one nea
the state fish hatchery and the othe
on State street, are the most seriOu
directors, as they claim that they hav
a primary right to all the water fron
the creek during the winter season
and that those who gave the city thei
rights had no authority to do so 70
that particular period at least
The State street plant is the loves
of the water right holders on tn
creek. and the company claims that
the city continues TO take the share G
water II claims at the intake fiftee
miles away. its water during the win
ter or small flow season will be so di
unfinished that il will not be able t
run either the State street or the oil
Miller plant at the fish hatchery.
What the City Contends.
The city, on the other hand, claim
that the Progress company is in n
ways injured by the diverting of pan
of the creek into the conduit, and tina
II has now, and will have this wintel
Continued on Page 6.