The Twin Falls times. [volume] (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1905-1916, 1913-12-30
A COMMUNICATION
To the Stockholders of the Twin Falls
Canal Company, Greeting:

Canal Company, Greeting:
In view Of the determined opposi-
ton to the present management of the
Canal company, it may be that some
would like to know what real objection
there may be to same, and for my part
will explain my reasons for desiring a
change.
] am aware that the ablest men
make mistakes and often-and espe-
cially so in large objection
able matters creep in that escape the
notice of the management, and much
of the criticism heard is perhaps un-
just; but there is much complaint of
extravaganza on the part of the man
agement, some of which seems to be
well founded.
However, if we could feel that the
affairs of the company were being
properly handled in other ways, then
| the heavy maintenance charges might
be tolerated
When / learned that the state con-
tract made no provision for loss by
seepage and evaporation, it seemed
plain that ere long the system would
not be able to furnish from our decree
| the one sec. foot of water per so acres
| as designated.
Gov. Brady, of wide experience in
this line, admitted that in our case
thirty per cent was very reasonable
estimate.
When in 1912 / learned that, with
less than y of the land under cultiva-
ton, it was found necessary to divert
between 200 and 300 sec. feet over our
decree, to supply the required amount
to the settler, | saw no reason why we
should not obtain decree for the ex-
ira amount used, hich.-while it
would come after the Minidoka and
North Side tracts,-would be prior to
any later projects, and would usually
furnish us water till after July 1st,
when our heaviest demands are over.
But upon broaching the subject to
orr Mr.. TAYLOR found him to be very
strongly opposed to any such proce-
dure and explained that we already
had as much water as we could hold
and perhaps more.
Later | approached Mr.. Harlan and
found him equally opposed to same, al
though he admitted by his own esti-
mate, upon basis of 1-3 loss, that if
we diverted $500 sec. feet, we would
still be $50 short when our 100000
acres were all under cultivation.
But when urged to secure as much
OF this amount as our canal could
carry, he replied that before we filed
upon any more water, that he would
like to make a series of experiments,
to ascertain if the tract was not liable
to go to seepage.
| have talked with many others up
on the subject nearly all of whom
favored it, including our attorney, Mr.
Bowen; few were indifferent. but
only the two above mentioned opposed
the plan, yet they failed to explain how
the plan could iniure us. in any way
only as much water would be diverted
rs would be needed, and if later we
found that we could spare it, it should
sell for q large amount
We will spend perhaps 100000 for
a reservoir to augment our supply only
in occasional years, and yet water
now free as air.-that we need every
year through the growing season, and
which we must have to avoid being
cut down in our allowance,-is allowed
to remain unappropriated.
Having been a stakeholder in
canal company that spent over $4,000
in vain ATTEMPT to recover a priority
that was lost through neglect, and is
now worth over one-fourth million
dollars, and that very nearly lost an