The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-06-07
Decision of United States Land
Office Cancels Entries of
Former Owners.
SITE INCLUDES LAKES
In TWIN PEAKS DISTRICT
Probable Council Will Take In
mediate Action TO Secure
Reservoir Tract.

The local United states land Office
Monday received a decision OF tho com
missioner OF the general land ofnco AT
Washington, by which the city of Salt
Lake IL is believed, may proceed 10
f! enter upon the water lights III tic Twin
Peaks reservoir site. The commissioner
holds for cancellation the claims III T.
j. Anson, Henry Barnes and w, l..
Dykes, who sold their title 10 the city
some time ago. There is saio to be an
adverse claim held by Inc Brown SANFORD
company. If this claim is net legal ana
Is not sustained the city now may enter
upon the water rights. Three lakes arc
included. the Martha, Phoebe and Na'h-
crime. In addition TO these principal
hodics. there arc also Twin lakes ana
others.
Lakes Are Involved.
Several years ago tho city purchased q
series of lakes in the Cottonwood district
from Anson and the others. Included In
the purchase were lakes Martha, Phoebe
Katherine. the Twin lakes and others.
The Twin lakes were claimed by Anson
and others though their title was DOUBT
full A sum Of $4,000 was paid for tie ne
lakes. including the Twin lakes. Inc
land was all unsurvcyed.
II later developed that the rights 10 the
Twin lakes claimed by Apson and the
others were not available for the city,
because the application made by Anson
called for tho OF the water for irrien-
ton and the city desired 10 use it for
ausmcntinS its water supply
October II, 1907 81 SIP, cial agent OF the
land office reported to Commissioners Den
nett that Anson and the others had rot
constructed the reservoirs Tor which plans
had been filed and right OF way asked
and Mr.. bennett directed the register
and receiver OF the land office to notify
the city. which had in the meantime
succeeded TO the rights Of Anson and the
others, that sixty days would lie allowed
In which 10 show cause why the appli-
cation for the reservoir should not be &c
volied.
The register and receiver on December
"a, 1909 transmitted the answer OF Mayor
Bransford on behalf of the city, In which
II was petitioued that the application of
Anson and others be permitted TO stand
and the city's rights as the assisnce OF
those persons be protected On Fcbru-
airy II the commissioner considered the
cItys petition. An examination Of the
statutes coupled with the allegations in
the mayors answer clearly determined
that inasmuch as the reservoir was never
constructed by Anson and the others
even In the event that the city did con-
tanned lawfully, because Anson had made
the application for the purpose OF irriga-
ton.
City Relinquished Rights.
The commissioner accordingly held that
II the city rellnquished it's rights ac-
Guired from Anson and others II would
then be permitted to file application un-
der the act OF February ]. 1905, but that
tho application would not be considered
while Ansons application was on record.
commissioner that a notice had been
served upon the city and no action had
been taken.
BY tho decision the commissioner re-
vOlynG hjS priOr action In accgptiDC
50 that any and all rights which the
city succeeded 10. through Anson arc
cancelled. This leaves the city free
to make a new application on Its
own behalf under the act OF February 1.
1905. which concerns rights OF way
through national forests.
To perfect It's right to the use Of the
lands for reservoir purposes the city Is
instructed TO file application under the act
Of III 1901 LSt Msce 5es
domestic, public OF other beneficial USE
Inasmuch as part OF the lands are In the
Wasatch forest, application must be filed
for such portions, under the act of Feb
ruary !, 1905.
May Be Other Claimants.
Whether or not there arc any claims
upon the ground at present is matter
OF doubt. 1t Is said by some persons
who are In a position to know that the
Brown Sanford Land and lrrigating COM
will come before the rights OF the city. it
is alleged that these rights have not been
considered by the commissioner of the
land Office, The Brown Sanford company
has constructed dams in the lakes and
made other improvements,
1t is probable that the matter Will
come up In city council and be settled
there. The decision as announced is In
favor OF the city, it Is stated. and the
way will be clear. If the rights OF the
Sanford company do not inter-
(cre,