The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-12-27
Supreme Court Hands Down
Important Decision in Jor-
dan Canal Case.
HAS RIGHT TO ENLARGE
Contemplated Improvement
viii Prevent Shortage of
Water in Future.

Ssl' Lake cit' Niu uc' have 10 psy ,lr
$4,000 damages entered against it IN tne
condemnation proceedings N obtain
right of way 20 enlarge tho East Jordan
canal In an opinion handed down los
tho supreme court Tuesday afternoon. in
solar a. tho damages arc concerned. the
judgment of the district court in the ac-
tion brought against the East Jordan r.
riGation company hy Salt Lake city is
reversed and the case remanded TO the
trial court With instructions 10 retry tho
case for actual damages 70 the property
Of tho irrigation company 10 be incurred
by the enlargins OF the canal.
With View TO diycring the water
from the salt Lake & Jordan canal 10
tho East Jordan canal. that II might be
exchanged With the farmers or Cotton
wood for water from the Cottonwood
creek. which ~ IS proposed 10 turn into
the CITY waterworks system, the city be-
gan tho action to condemn the Tlsut q!
way or easement. The city desires Ia
Increase the capacity Of the East Jordan
canal from 10 cubic feet per second 10
800 cubic coet per second.
Seeking Elevated Supply.
The East Jordan canal IS nineteen
miles long running from its intake on
the Jordan river near Utah lake 10 kt,
lower In elevation and further down the
stream the Salt Lake & Jordan canal
referred TO IN the decision as tho city
canal, which is about tventy-nine miles
long. has It's intake. This canal runs
through the eastern part Of this CITY
The city desires 30 divert the waters from
the Salt Lake Jordan canal into the
East Jordan canal, which would bring
the water 10 an elevation OF practically
eighty feet higher up.
The farmers are az present using the
waters OF Cottonwood for irrigation pur-
poses and II is proposed TO exchange the
additional water from the East Jordan
canal for Cottonwood creek water. which
Is clean and potable. and which VIII be
diverted into the city waterVorks system.
| This, II Is said will greatly increase the
city water supply and the question OF
shortage Will be Thing Of the past.
Law Is Held Valid,
The lower court gave the city the right
| to enlarge the canal under the law CIV
! ing associations and corporations the
right 10 enlarge bitches and canals Tor
! irrigation or other beneficial purposes
pensated for damage 10 his property re-
| sulting from such enlargement. II was
| the contention OF the East Jordan Irrl
| CATION company. the respondents In The
action. that the waters Of the East Jor
| dan canal would be damaged for culinary
| and domestic purposes 10 the extent o'
$4,000 and that the delivery OF tnme NJ
| the extent OF $50 900. The validity of ths
| law was attacked by respondents. but the
supreme court holds that there Is moth
| In its decision the supreme court says
that the attitude Of the respondents OF
! the damage question was Illustrated IN
some OF the contentious Of counsel who
/ argued that what the city gained by i'm
proyement the company lost and that !
the city desired 10 widen the canal u
| should take over tho whole OF the prop
crty. Tho supreme court thinks that this
IA not the intent Of the law and IN send
Ing the case back 10 the trsl court i
instructs the lower tribunal 10 try tn
fAv e1,.t1 Il n
only reversed insofar as the damage qucS
ton is concerned The lower court /!
upheld in the tndsmen, hat he In, liz
should have the right 10 make II.
Tanner Case Decided,
Tho supreme cour, also handed dovr
an opinion in tho case ol Caleb Tame
against In. Provo Ranch. Canal q lrfi
CATION COMPANY and ne Nor'h union ~, tr
Same principle as docs the other cas-
decided yesterdsy. Both opinions ar
Sy G9,Sf pS .,cs I@silse u Il fS MsGaaiy an
, Justice n y. Stsup writes sepsrs,
concurrinc opinion In each case. jus
. ticc Staup disscnted on the theory tina
r there Is a doubt as 10 whether or not III
} law coutc cmpiatcd the enlargement or
I canal for an advantageous exchange q
waters as Is the question inyoNed d. IN ~, N
Jordan Irr,ga ton company.
Tanner brought suit against the irri
, CATION companies 10 condemn or obtain
! tight TO increase tho size OF two lGters
I canals CARRYING water from the PROV
= river To land OF the defendant comp5nie
u Tanner has a ten second cuhlc-foot rlgh
r 10 tho waters ot Provo river, and h
n desires 90 enlarge the tao canals Of Nh
defendant companies thet he might TAX
k water TO certain lands which are no.
= arid The lower court gave him the riEf
d 10 do this and the two companies ar
realed The Judgment ~ the lower couI
% in this case is affirmed. The slrren
. court holding that the respondents right
n were thoroughly protected In that a bon
a was required Of Tanner and also actu