The times-herald. [volume] (Burns, Harney County, Or.) 1896-1929, 1907-11-02

no person or corporation to re-
claim, and no money to carry on
the project with, we respectfully
recommend that the application
Of the State of Oregon, on behalf
of the Harney Valley Improve
ment Company, for the segrega-
ton and reclamation of all of
those lands embraced in the State
Desert Land List No. 5. be re-
iected. and the lands be restored
to entry or other disposal.
Dated at Burns, Oregon, Aug
ust %. 1907
WM. FARRE. Register.
Receiver Gowan writes an OPP
inion under date of Oct. 81 in
which he concurs with Register
Fare. However. he receives
the matter on rather different
lines. In his opinion he says:
Il concur with the Register in
his general findings herein, and
in his recommendation that the
application of the Stateof Oregon,
on behalf Of the Harney Valley
Improvement Company. for the
segregation and reclamation of
all of those lands embraced in
the State Desert Land List No. .
be rejected, and the lands be re-
turned to entry or other disposal.
We do not deem the plan
proposed by the Harncy Valley
Improvement Company feasible.
Storage of water in the two main
canals would be- entirely made
quate TO the requirements of the
acreage proposed 20 be- reclaimed
and embraced in this selection.
ltis self-evident that with any
gravity system. large storag,
reservoirs are absolutely neccss-
airy TO conserve the waters. to be-
released during the season for
irrigation of the lands for grow.
ing crops.
The selection agent NJ. Fitg-
Gerald, states that in his opinion
the proposed plan is not sufficient
I ly adequate lsee page So. mot
an available source of water sup
ply " page S2l. do not think
il feasible" page 92l; that al
ready all the waters Of Silvies
river lthe main source of water
supply for this selection) has
been adjusted by court DEGREES
and arbitration among the num-
erous parties in interest (see
page 95).
While il is true, as stated by
the Register, that the Harney
Valley Improvement Company
were not direct parties 10 these
suits and arbitrations, yet the de-
cree is binding, nevertheless,
upon Mr. William d. Hanley, one
Of the principal, and the most
interested, party herein. By the
terms OF said decree and arbitra-
tion he is prohibited from taking
only the waters of said river suf-
iicient for the irrigation of seven
sections of land and limited as
to the time of diversion, to-wit:
May ] 10 July of each year
IL can hardly be- considered
that he may be allowed TO do in
directly, what he may not do di-
rectly, and not place himself,
and his Representatives and sue
cessors, in O position of contempt
of court and that said decree isl
not only binding upon him as a
party in interest but upon
mis- representatives and success
sors who are bound thereby.
The maximum flow of water
in Siiyies River, during the most
favorable years, is shown to be
about 900 cubic feet per second.
and in duration 20 days only.
during the month of April, and
then decreasing to 100 feet, be-
fore the close of the irrigation
season. This in itself clearly
shown and want of a sufficient
water supply for the purpose of
reclaiming this large selection Of
land.
Again, considering the court
decree, marked Exhibit a.
and the 800 cubic feet of water
appropriated from said |
river, as shown by the numerous |
exhibits filed in this protest, it is
clearly shown that there are ac-
quired water rights more than
to consume the waters
of said river. II
While it may be considered I
that the mere recording of a
Water Right" Is not a full and \