The Twin Falls times. [volume] (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1905-1916, 1916-01-14
NOTHING DONE ON
LOST RIVER PROBLEM
Claim Made That $50 Settlers
Would Be Deprived of Rights.
WOULD LOSE LANDS If STATE EN-
TERED INTO CONTRACT
Board Holds Hearing OR the Matter,
But Defors Action Until A Later
Date.

More than 500 persons, represezs-
ing about $50 settlers, will be obligas
to forsake their lands on Big Lost
river and Antelope creek, turning back
to the government domain about tweA-
ty-eight thousand acres Of land, if the
state should enter into a contract with
the Utah Construction company for
the rebuilding of the Big Lost river
project, according to Senator Ravena&
Macbeth, who addressed the state land
board Tuesday afternoon.
Senator Macbeth said the settlers ia
Blaine and Custer counties intended
to fight the matter to the end. Legal
steps will be taken to prevent the
Utah Construction company from TAX
ing water from Big Lost river and Ar
telOpe creek, which, the senator Goa
tends, is what the construction COM
pany intends to do should the contrast
submitted by it to the land board Be
approved by that body
1T will simply mean that the courts
will have to determine whether the
Utah Construction company's water
/ rights, taken out in 1905 when they
were granted fifty thousand inches
( from Big Lost river and five thousand
inches from Antelope creek, are OF
greater weight than the right of the
settlers, who have come in, titled their
lands, built their homes and otherwise
helped build up the state since then. /
mean by this that every settler n
Blaine and Custer counties will con-
tribute toward determining their
rights Because the construction COM
pany has done nothing all these years
is no sign the rights of these settlers
can be swept away"
Mr. Macbeth said that under the
water rights granted to the construo-
ton company in 1905 it would net
even become necessary to construct
dam, and that the natural flow from
the Big Lost river and Antelope creek
would be ample TO irrigate the fifSt
unit of twenty thousand acres. x
would mean he said, that practically
$725,000 worth of water rights would
be illegally transferred from ths
Blaine and Custer county settlers to
irrigate the first unit of the construc-
tion company's proposed work, and
that the construction company would
not be obliged to pay out dollar "
transfer the water.
Charles c. Sherman, representing z
settlers on one of the tracts, said the
proposed contract was "pernicious"
Furthermore, he said, it was a ques-
ton as to whether the construction
company could furnish two acre feet
of water per acre for the first unit to
0e irrigated, which is the Arco tract
, of twenty thousand acres He also
declared that there were times when
the settlers would be obliged to have
more than the amount mentioned in
; the contract Asked by the attorney
general if he thought the land board
would be justified in signing the con-
tract with the construction company
providing the company and state en-
gineer could demonstrate that it was
not possible to furnish more than two
acre feet of water per acre, he replied
, in the affirmative
Attorney Snow, representing the
construction company, said that waa
the only method he knew of whereby
the construction company would fee,
that the settler was in good faith. He
fought, however, that after the initial
E payment there should be no further
demands, outside of interest, for pos.
! sibly three or five years. This mattsS
1 however, was up to the constructiss
: company, and not up to him to decide
I I He said the construction company con.
templated a bond of per cent Of the
estimated cost of the construction
e work.
: No action was taken by the board
regarding the contract The meeting
T. was more in the nature of a hearing
and it is likely the subject will bt
= brought before the board again at Al
!, early date.
q