Arizona republican., 1916-11-04

, propositions; and he said to Mir Fowler and to me, q am authorized to say yes ! or no to your proposition. It will be upon one condition, however. that I | will say yes and that is that you in- | stitute a suit by which the rights of | the individuals of this valley to the use of this water shall be determined" And that was the origin of the case of | Hurley against Abbott which resulted l in the Kent decision-a simple. easy
 thing to talk about now. But that was
 the origin of it, and that was the con-
 dition upon which We had the assent
 of the Interior Department to give us the benefit of the Reclamation law
 The Question of Security.
 T Then came another question, Now mark you as l said moment ago, this
 irrigation act which appears here, and
 l am not going to worry you with at
 tempting to read it. is primarily and
 essentially for public lands; and the
 theory was. as laid down in this law,
 that the Secretary of the Interior
 
 gineers and if he should determine
 upon examination that a project was
 n feasible one, he was thereupon to
 make an estimate of the cost of that
 project and to designate the number of acres that might be irrigated by it. Remember-because that is the funda- mental point in the dispute. that we . today have with the Interior Depart
 lnent and probably will require for its } solution legislation by the Congress oi the United States. The secretary was to have, estimated the cost and told
 what acres by publication could be
 taken This refers remember. to pub
 lie lands Any man who desired to gC and take public land that had beer
 designated to receive water from one of these projects could know the lan(
 and could know the cost of the water
 The government was secure in Its pay ment for the cost of the water becaus,
 it retained the title to the land Re. , member if you will please. because IT that is a distinction upon which tn,
 solution of the dispute between tn,
 government of the United States anC the water users of this valley now de. Q bends. The public land remained thu , property of the government so tha
 the government could enforce payment , and the price to be paid was the esti. mated cost that had been published.
 But there were very few or very lit.
 tie public lands in this project-yer!
 little of public lands in this valley tha
 could be made the beneficiaries of thi
 law. The government. therefore, coult not retain title 10 the lands that wer'
 in private ownership It could no
 secure to itself the repayment Of th' . cost of this project unless some privat contract was made between these own < CTS and the government of the Unite,
 States
 c Kibbey Devises Contract.
 n I prepared a contract and proposes
 it to the Secretary of the Interior tha y he sign it. IL was based upon the the S ory that the government could no e come in here and construct that reser % voir against the will of the people O . this valley That. as a legal proposi : ton. is absolutely true because-anl s let me suggest 1t to you. that al tha 1 n water for nearly two hundred thousan
 acres of land. IL is true that some c the lands under such an extensive ap t propriation might have had very littl d water. but they had some rights. an # the least of them had the right to ob e feet and 10 object effectually agains 70 anybody putting in dam or reservoi y or otherwise in this river and interfer IT ing with the right they had acquire d 10 the appropriation Of water Som )f people think that the government coul of have come down here and built tha Ie and I think the government official ,e today think so-strangely.
 n Water Users Protected.
 'n So I insisted in this contract. that es they did build reservoir in this va II ley no one would be entitled to tt is benefits of the use of the water store
 and developed and distributed by thi
 project except the members of the Sa IS River Valley Water Users Association al Nobody else could have it. and upo J. that condition alone this contract pro In vides could they come into this valle m and construct those works
 ie In return for that. the Salt Riv, s' Valley Water Users Association, ! v this contract, approved by the va majority of the votes of the shareholt s CTS of the association. agreed that the 'i would pay in not less than ten eau LII installments the cost of that projeC p- Now mark you, no preliminary est y. mate had been made as to what tn y' cost should be. We simply said to q SC government. "Go ahead and build tn on reservoir. and if you do build 1t und e. the terms of this contract, and certaii in ly you can't build it otherwise. it shs e. be for the benefit of the shareholde at of the Salt River Valley Water Usei ne Association and we will pay the cost on To Pay Reasonable Cost.
 ay What is meant by the cost2 Any co nd that the government might desire at charge? The cost of disastrous mi or takes? The cost of grievous errors an engineering? Certainly not. Tn
 term-we contend that when we agre
 to pay that cost-it Is precisely as ITS two of you. had agreed that one wou m construct a building adapted to certa ur nurnoses the other would pay