The Idaho Republican. [volume] (Blackfoot, Idaho) 1904-1932, 1909-07-23
BIG LOST RIVER WATER GOES TO
SPEER

| SPEER
George S. Speer. successor of the
Big Lost River Land & Irrigation
company yesterday morning won a
victory over the Mackay Irrigation
company, when State Engineer Steph-
enson handed down decision in the
celebrated contest case on which rest
ed the fate of the project, embracing
100, 900 acres of land.
| No sooner had the findings of the
engineer been announced than Speer,
through his attorney, n. Nj. Ruick,
| filed suit in the United States dis
trict court to quiet title to water un-
der his Lost River permits, as against
the alleged claim of the Mackay COM
pany. This action was taken to head
off an appeal from the engineers
decision to the district court, and
was instituted in the federal jurisdic-
ton owing to Speer's residence In
the state of Illinois. This action, Mr..
Ruick stated had been instituted to
settle all possible questions affecting
the water rights.
flushing Construction
| The effect of the decision is to still
further assure the success OF the pro-
Eject for which contract has been
awarded to the Corey Bros. Construc-
ton company of Ogden and which it
is estimated will cost $3,000,000.
Construction gangs are now at work
and sub-contractor Is employed on
every mile Of the main canal, a dis
lance of 25 miles. Water, 1t Is stated,
will be ready for distribution to set
tiers next season.
| The contest was instituted under
the statute which provides construC-
ton work under permit, or filing
upon waters, must be completed
within Ave years and one fifth OF the
work within two and half years
or right of subsequent appropriation
shall obtain. This provision of law
was held constitutional In a recent
opinion Of the supreme court grow
ing out Of this proceeding.
| First Cost Small
The original Big Lost River Land
& Water company procured two per-
mits for the diversions of waters Of
the river, 1907 and 174S, aggregat-
ing 1900 cubic feet OF water The
cost of works was estimated at $780,
600. This was in the spring of 1905.
| Two years later, or at time when
| $50, 900 worth of work had been done
the plans were enlarged and permits
amended, the amended permits giving
| $4,000, 900 as the cost Of the works.
The contention of the Mackay COM
pany was that the construction work
should have at the end of two and
half years aggregated one fifth of the
cost of the works as given in the
amended permits.
Subsequent to the filing of the
amended permits, Notwithstanding the
Big Lost river company own the res
ervoir sites, canals and right-of- way
and had entered into contract with
the state land board for the segrega-
ton and reclamation OF $4,000 acres
of land, the Mackay Irrigation COM
pany filed an application to irrigate
the identical land covered by the Big
Lost River project, stating the same
points of diversion adopted by that
company. This was at time when
the Big Lost River Land & Irrigation
company was In financial straits and
the apparent purpose was to take the
project up In case the old company
fell down.
Taken Over BY Speer
In February It's affairs were taken
over by George s. Speer of Chicago,
vice president of Trowbridge & Niver,
who reorganized the company and
resumed construction operations and
still further enlarged the project to
include 10000 acres more land.
The decision of the state engineer
follows:
"Mackay Irrigation company, lin
tied, corporation, contestant, VS..
G.. s. Speer and the Big Lost River
Land & Irrigation company, limited,
corporation, contestees:
After due consideration OF the Pc
tition of contestant In the above en-
titled action, together with the affi-
davit and other papers fled therein
by the contestee, George s. Speer, the
contestants petition for the cancella-
ton of permits Nos. 1907 and 1748
is hereby denied for the following
reasons, towit:
THAT from contestants petition
and from a personal examination
made by me of the various diversion
works. set out In the permits in ques-
tion and In the application upon
which said permits were issued, 1t APP
peared that the holders of said per-
mits had duly expended upon the con-
struction work under said permits
the sum of $50.00C.00 on the various
diversion dams, canals and laterals re-
ferred to In said permits and a fur
Their sum of $30,00O.00, upon reser-
voir and dam.
THAT ne-fifth of the construction
work required under said permits and
each of them had been done within
one-half of the time allowed for the
completion of the works called for
In said permits.
For which reasons 1t is hereby
held that the terms of the permits
hereinbefore mentioned and each of
them have been compiled with as to
the completion of one-fifth of the
work within one-half OF the time al
lowed for the entire compilation of