The Twin Falls times. [volume] (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1905-1916, 1916-03-07
LOST RIVER CONTRACT
FAVORS THE PROMOTERS
Governor Alexander Explains Reasons
for Opposing Acceptance-Does Not
Protect Settlers.

BOISE-"I believe in a contract that
binds both parties without any equivo-
cation, and none of these Carey Act
; contracts, in my opinion are as binding
as they ought to be, as / think they
. give the company entirely too much
: the best of the deal They all do that
and this one does about the same thing
. l could not reconcile myself to the
. terms of this contract, so | was com
PEELED to vote no
I This is the explanation given by
Governor Alexander for his negative
! vote on the contract with the Utah
Construction company for the compile
ton of the Big Lost River project,
! which has been dormant since the or
iginal promoters failed In an inter-
view given a Capital News reporter,
the governor discussed the contract at
length.
! MY duty was to make a contract,
/ as | viewed it, in the line OF reason,
and 1t would be better to have no more
: Carey Act projects than to have any
i more like some we have on hand now
The Utah Construction company and
! the state land board have been flirting
with one another for many year. Mr.
Watts, the president OF the company
I was in my office nearly a year ago,
! and time and again since then we have
! discussed this question.
Z AT our first meeting we discussed
! few cardinal principles:
I First: Two acre feet of water.
+ Second: Fifteen annual payments
I with 6 per cent on deferred payments.
/. Third: To allow old water right
owners on the Lost River project to
! have the opportunity to make new
+ contracts.
Fourth: Not to bond the works for
I more than 100000. The balance of
+ the contract the detailed part of it,
q was to be worked out
! "This contract has been before the
/ land board probably over six months
Z Sometime near the end of last year,
! the contract submitted by the COM
4 pany was rejected by unanimous vote
Z of the board The company again
!. made overtures to the board and pre-
I scented another contract through its
Z attorney. Edwin Snow of this city.
! The contract was taken section by
I section, discussed and debated pro and
+ con to the fullest
+ "Then this contract does not set
3 forth specifically what water filings
i. and what water rights the Big Lost
: River company owns 1t places too
Z much power in the hands OF the state
I. engineer; it gives greater power than
Z should be conferred on any one man.
! 1t provides: Changes may from time
/ to time, be made in the specifications
( by agreement between the state engi-
I neer and the said second party
+ wanted the state land board to have
Z final say in the matter which con-
! slider necessary.
4 ION the same page of the contract
Z it says: The plans, specifications and
i. details for the construction of the dan
+ reservoirs, canals headgates, weirs
Z etc. shall be submitted to the state
/ engineer of the state of Idaho for hi.
I approval prior to the further con
4 struction of any of said works, will
+ the right of appeal by the said SECOND
q party from his decision to the stat
board of land commissioners, and tn
- works when completed shall be in &C
!. cordance with the specifications a
+ finally determined upon
! THAT gives one party the right I
& appeal to the state land board, bu
! allows the state engineer to act indie
4 pendently of the state land board upo
( other matters without right OF appes
+ by the settlers.
Z 1T says: No compensation shall b
/ paid to the land owner for any righ
+ of-way herein provided for l haN
Z always contended in this contract ths
!. the land owner or entryman shout
I not pay for the land occupied by II
Z main canal, nor should he be compel
! ed to pay for water charges on lane
Z so occupied or any maintenance fe
..hI The maintenance fee is so cents pr
acre eternally and counts up consi
- erably, besides the $40 per acre Il
the water right
ION page of the contract 1t say
All of the said appropriated wat
to which the second party may be e.
titled to the extent of two acre fe
per acre, or a pro rata part thereC
for the lands of said shareholders du
ing the irrigation season. This is q
crux of the whole contract in my OPT
ion. If the Utah Construction col
pany agreed to furnish two acre-feet
water per acre, and by the way, tn
Is the second highest duty water
put to in the state of Idaho, then {
company should deliver two acre-fe
If they do not deliver two acre-feet
any one season, then they should n
be able to collect for two acre-fe
and if they delivered, as the contra
says, a pro rata part, they should
able to collect only pro rata pa
of what is due them for that yet
This is my idea of looking at CO
tract, although all the irrigation eng
GERS say that l am wrong, but
any rate, cannot get my mind to &C
sent to a man paying for two acl
feet of water whether he gets 1t
not. This is new way of making
contract and as l wonld not make
contract of this kind for myself, !
not want to make it for the people
the state of Idaho.
ION the same page, chapter 4,
says: Said water is to be measul
at a point not farther distant tn
one-half mile from each quarter S
ton / wanted to add to this, and