The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-07-29
SCANDAL
] ON STATE BOARD
Acts of Idaho State Land Board
to Be Leading Political
Issue.
A SPECIMEN DEAL
IRRESPONSIBLE CRAFT
Did Not Have to Submit Appli-
cation and Changes to
State Engineer.
Special to The Tribune
BY. C, E, ARNEY.

BY. G. E, ARNEY.
BOISE, Idaho, July 2s.-Much more
attention is given today to the many
and various inefficient acts of the state
board Of land commissioners of Idaho
than to any other one subject under
public consideration.
Since the refusal of the state land
board 10 admit the interested public
to their proceedings, which act was
arduously defended by Governor Brady,
/ have received many letters and some
articles touching other regrettable acts
of the board. most of which, after
checking over, I have refused, for one
reason or another, out of consideration
to either a public service or to the
members of the board, to make use Of.
Here is one. however, which has been
gone over with that degree of caution
which warrants its publication. These
charges are correct and conform to the
record. and these deductions are fair.
The author is a Republican of that high
order of men whose word is the slogan
OF fair.plav and of honesty Of purpose
in any walk Of life in which he may
be found.
Here Is the article;
Boise, Ida, July 20, 1910
While the public mind is still alive
to the disclosures made by the recent
eruption in the state land board. II Will
be interesting for the public 10 know
what the board itself Is doing to warrant
confidence, lack OF which It has displayed
in one OF Its employees.
The strange methods pursued by the
state land board, and the gross irregu
laritics in Its manner OF handling public
business has been the subject OF COM
t,ii- H. III
time.
With view OF placing facts before
the people while IL is still time TO remedy
some of these crying evils: there is here
with submitted sufficient OF the record
Of one of the Carey act projects to show
the manner in which this particular prof.
,ct was handled by the state. The man
aer in which the rights of the public and
the settlers have been juggled with and
totally disrcgarded. Is matter of state
wide concern. for the good name OF the
state is bound 10 be involved In these
matters sooner or later.
on the 25th day OF May 1909, a pro-
moter, without any financial responsible
itv. fled a proposal for Carey act segre-
yation Of about 5000 acres on the north
side OF the Snake river in Ada county.
The source OF the water supply for the
rkeT the water 10 be pumped into ca
nais and distributed over the lands seq
regated and other lands aggregating in
all about 1000 acres.
cost o: the water rights for Carey act
and private lands shall not exceed S25
per acre, and he proposes to furnish wa
Ter for the state lands at SIS per acre,
The cost OF the works estimated at
900. but no engineering details were
submitted with the proposal. and conse
1uently no idea could be formed by the
state engineer as 10 the correctness OF
.his estimate The law requires that Of
hcial 10 report whether or not the pro-
posed cost OF construction is reasonable
ltr nah Ia fnr 10
rcason that. as he himself stated, Il have
not been supplied with the data upon
which TO form an opinion as to whether
this estimate ($200 0Q0) is reasonably ac-
curatc, and until | have such data l
not state as 10 whether or not a charge
OF $2o per acre per water right would be
reasonab blc.'
AS a matter OF common sense, the land
board might be expected 10 question the
possibility Of a sound irrigation propo-
sltlon from an engineering and construc-
tlon standpoint which required the con-
struction OF power and pumping plants.
and yet only asked the ridicuousy low
price OF SIS and SIS per acre. when very
few gravity projects are left in the state
where water can be delivered for less
than $50 per acre: and right at this point
the 3oard should have required the pro-
moter 10 show. by a definite plan OF ir
rlgatlon, accompanied by maps and es-
Inmates. how he was able to get water
on the land at such low cost The
board may reasonably be expected TO sec
water right. but the general belief Is that
settler would prefer to pay $50 per
acre. or even more, and get water, rath-
or than pay $25 or SIS per acre and get
nothing but loss OF time.
Again. under the law, the state engl-
neer Is required to report upon all pro-
posals for Carey act segre cations as 10
the sufhclency OF the water supply, be-
fore the board can take any action
toward scgregating the land. The law re-
uuires the state engineer to report
whether or not permit to divert and
appropriate water for the proposed works
has been approved by him"
The promoter, however. at the time
of his proposal had secured no wafer
right. but had merely fled In the office
Of the state engineer an application for
/ permit for u 900 cubic feet per second
4 II the waters of Snake river. Had this
hling gone TO permit IT would have cost
the promoter $1,000 90. but simply filing
an application costs nothing, and as the
promoter at that time probably had not
$1,000. so TO his name the films was never
perfected. Consequently the state engl~
neer could not make the report required
oy law, but simply reported the applica-
Ion mentioned as having been filed. and
D the board did not consider these little
gregula rites OF any consequence, IL ap-
Aroved segregation OF the land being
made for the promoter.
A Change Comes.
We now come TO a change In the plan
u irrigation, the first OF many to be