El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1915-06-24

Butte Water Users association. with
the additional provision that in COM
teUancc TO charge should be made for
interest CT depreciation
First Protest Was Limited.
It is significant that at this time no
protest or objection whatever was in
terposed TO the use Of individual con-
tracts or TO the form OF contract pro-
posed for that purpose, and no protest
has since been made on behalf OF the
FL PasO Valley association or its mem
bers-
A few days prior TO April 80, 1915, the
date set by the reclamation commits
sion for disseminating the delivery OF
water to those users who refused to
test was drafted by the Elephant
Butte Water Users association and for
warded 10 Washington for considera-
ton The main, and, in fact. the only
substantial objection made was to the
service charge OF so cents per acre for
stored water and TO the other charges
in excess of actual operation and MAIN
tenance. This is borne out by various
interviews and articles There we've in
Jected into the matter several legal
bubbles ddEigned perhaps to bolster IN
and lend dignity TO the main objection.
namely. the proposed charges They
were objections to the provision for
temporary right OF way during the life
OF these yearly contracts, TO the neces-
sary control by the reclamation ser
vice over the various bitches to enable
delivery Of water. and questioning the
definition OF the term stored water"
Appeals to Washington
Not securing the concessions asked
for the Elephant Butte association
sent TO Washington a committee whose
purpose 1t was to secure the modifica-
tons desired This committee upon
-
claims and was advised that the
charges as heretofore fixed were in
accordance with the law and with the
policy adopted by the reclamation COM
mission for the various projects and
would accordingly stand
The committee then being convinced
that its contention in this regard
would be unavailing. sought to have the
individual contracts abolished. and
asked a return 10 the former plan OF
executing a general contract between
the United States and the association.
the latter in turn providing for the di-
version and carrying Of water
Arguments OF the Committee.
tt was represented to the commission
by the committee that operation under
individual contracts was impracticable
because Of the peculiar laws OF New
Mexico relating to community bitches.
No authority in support OF this con-
tention seems TO have been submitted.
and the committee evidently overlooked
or ignored the fact that the fundamen-
tai laws governing community bitches
in New Mexico are substantially the
same as those in Texas. where indi-
vidual contracts have been used for
many years without am serious diff
culties having been encountered.
Water from the Franklin canal has
been furnished successfully to users
under individual contracts through the
Socorro. Clint and Salatral bitches IN
der conditions almost Identical with ]
those obtaining In New Mexico on the |
Leasburg canal and water has been
furnished from the Franklin canal gen
orally under individual contracts
The association while contending that I
water could not be furnished under in I
dividual contracts has at the same time /
requested that the Leasburg unit be