Arizona republican., 1907-09-05

he developed from -subterranean sour lces. There have been in cultivation
 that is, of lands planted to crops with more or less production-lS0,Vo acres. The owners of these 130OO0 acres nave actually made appropriations, to d greater or less extent, and the whole
 amount of water (except in times or flooD of the river has been appropriat- ed and used for their cultivation. There has, therefore, been no water aVailapie for more extended cultivation, and
 would not be, except it be made avail
 able by some works such as those now | in process of construction under the provisions of the irrigation act. Of thls
 estimated 200, 900 acres capable Of irri- 1 sation by the use of all existing and contemplated sources, 10000 acres at least will have to rely on the suDter-
 ranean supply. This, as l have said.
 is so wholly problematical that 1t has not been allowed to influence the call
 culations of the farmers. This, then, would leave only 50,O0O acres of land | that could be irrigated from the new
 sources of supply made available by the | government works. If the owners Of the 130.000 acres for which appropria- | tions had actually heretofore been
 made. had chosen to remain out of the association and not subject themselves | to any part of the cost of the govern
 ment works. the project would have
 failed because of the prohibitive cost
 per acre of the 50.O0o acres. That cost | would amount to at least $120O0 per | tn1 a | raw and uncultivated lands. The gov l ernmant would not have been justified | in making the expenditure on such se- 1 curity. There were other and equally ! cogent reasons why the government l could not undertake the project unless
 the owners of the prior vested rights, l or the greater part of them.- would | come into the association and contri- bute their proportionate part of the cost It was absolutely essential, then,
 that the owners of the vested prior rights should become component parts l of the association. to ensure the under | taking of the construction of the irri- | gation works by the government under | the provisions of the irrigation act. | The owners of these prior rights ar | gued, and I think justly. that if by
 their coming in and agreeing to pay their proportionate part of the cost of the proposed works. notwithstanding they already had a supply-even if not sufficient one-in order to make 1t possible for the additional 5000 Cor
 10000 acres if we consider the subter-
 ranean sources) to have water. the
 owners of these additional 5000 or
 10000 acres should at least take upon themselves the hazard of the ultimate
 success or failure of the project to
 make available the water. for those
 acres hitherto without any water.
 Briefly, 1t was the proposition of | those having water to assist those not ! having 1t, to supply. upon the ex- | tremely reasonable condition that the latter should take the risk of the en- | terprise. This seemed so fair to those
 not having water, and whose only hope
 of obtaining it was in the construction of the government works. which was not possible without the aid of those | who did have water. that it was of
 course accepted. And thus. by the ar ticles of incorporation. the priority of
 right of appropriation is preserved to
 those Tn whom it was vested.
 I have this to say. that the only note
 of bad faith developed in the course of | this project is the persistent attempt of
 the owners of some of these lands who
 never had water, or if having it. had it in violation of the rights of others. to | defeat this agreement. I mention this
 merely as a disagreeabie feature-the
 attempt is not formidable enough to
 succeed. Could they have begun ear Her they would simply have succeeded ! in wrecking the whole project: as it | is, 1t is an instructive display of bad
 faith.
 I stated that about so per cent of the l owners of vested rights had joined the association. The question naturally presents itself; what is the situation of I the 20 per cent who remain out. The
 answer is obvious: their rights will be
 ascertained by Judicial inquiry. fairly, ! legally, but strictly measured. and | thereafter respected. subject to all the
 variableness. uncertainty. inadequacy ! and unreliability that has heretofare | characterized, and of course will here
 after attend them. Whatever of un- l quacy that have heretofore character
 ized the rights of their neighbors who have joined the association will be
 corrected. made reliable and adequate | by recourse by them to the added sup ply made available by the government | works.
 Among the evils in most communities
 which have to rely upon Irrigation. are ] the encroachments by those under one l or more of a number of separate. inde- pendent systems of diversion and dis 1 tribution, upon the rights of those un | der other systems.
 ATTEMPTING THE IMPOSSIBLE. | In the Salt River valley. which | again take for illustration, there were l twelve or fifteen separate and distinct | canal systems. There was constant and ! irritating disputes between them as to their respective rights to take water l from the river. As most of these sys- tems were managed by corporations. l the real interest of the farmer was too often neglected. There was always the | effort by the canal owner to increase l the area of land to be irrigated, which could only hA accomplished by dimin- ! ishing the supply of water to the ear-
 Tier appropriators. Compromises were