The Twin Falls times. [volume] (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1905-1916, 1916-05-18
OAKLEY SETTLERS
BRING ACTION
Apply for Writ of Mandate to
Compel Co. 10 Supply Waller
HAVE PAID MAINTENANCE BUT
REFUSE TO PAY ON CONTRACTS.
Issue Involved Applies to Other Pro-
iecis. Company Withholding Water
To Enforce Contract Payments.

To Enforce Contract Payments.
An action effecting the operation OF
every Carey act project in the state
was commenced Saturday in the SUI
preme court when SO settlers on the
Twin Falls-Oakley project, who have
paid their maintenance and operation
charges for 1916, but who decline to
make payments demanded on their
principal and interest charges on wa
ter contracts, unless the company will
guarantee to supply them with the
amount of water their contracts call
for, applied for a writ of mandate to
compel the company to deliver them
the water to which they are entitled.
Under a clause of its contract with
the settlers the company refused to
deliver water to those who, it alleged,
were able to pay the charges demand
ed this year The settlers claimed
they did not receive sufficient water
in 1915 and had no assurance that the
company would be able to furnish
enough for irrigation this year and
they objected to making further in
terest payments without a guarantee
from the company that its part of the
contract would be fulfilled.
Such condition has never arisen in
Idaho and the outcome will be awaited
with great interest by water users on
Carey act projects. The case required
nearly a week of preparation on the
part of the Deputy Attorney General
d. A. Dunning and W. l.. Dunn of
Oakley, attorney for the Oakley water
users, with the assistance and direc-
tion of Attorney General Peterson.
While the state is not a party to the
action, the attorney generals depart
ment took part as a friend of the set
tiers Mr. Cunning and Mr.. Dunn
worked day and night all week, dig
ging the case out of the statutes. Hav-
ing no presidents to guide them, it
was quite a task for them to frame
/ the complaint, which is a lengthy docu-
ment
The title of the case is Rome Adams
and 90 other settlers VS.. the Twin
/ Falls-Oakley Land & Water company
a corporation, the Oakley Canal com
| pany, a corporation, and j. II. Pue-
licher, George L. Edwards and A. c.
| Robinson. Messrs Pueliches, Edwards
and Robinson are alleged to represent
the bOndholders. The plaintiffs are
settlers owning approximately 1000
acres of cultivated land for which wa
ter is urgently needed
The amount of land on the project
for which water will be required this
year is estimated at p 900 to $4,000
acres. OF this area the owners of be-
tween 1000 and 5000 acres have paid
up and are receiving water There are
| 6400 acres of paid up water rights and
about 5000 acres on which no pay
ment is asked this year.
The complaint alleges that the grow
ing crops of the plaintiffs require i'm
mediate application of water other
wise they will become a total loss. 1t
is alleged that there is now in the
cOmpany's reservoir or canals, under
the control of the defendants, suffici-
ent water which can be furnished the
plaintiffs without impairing the rights
Of others.
While it is not SO stated in the com
plant, the water users claim that if
the company is permitted to withhold
water from them until its demand for
payments is met, they will not be able
to produce crops or earn enough to
meet their payments; that the com
pany, if its action is sustained, can
forever deprive them of water if they
do not make the payments required.
They also wish to be assured that the
company will be able to deliver them
the amount of water called for in their
contracts, concerning which they pro-
fess doubt because of past experience
The state now has under cOnsidera-
ton a proposal to cut down the acre
age of the project to an area COM
mensurate with the amount of water
available,
The company insists that it is in
position to furnish the amount of wa
ter contracted for and that those set
tiers who are able to pay should pay
the charges demanded. 1t is willing tc
compromise with those who are not in
position to pay, so its representatives
declare. The settlers are asking how
/ the company proposes to find out who
are able to pay and who are not They
say the company is arroganting toe
much power All they want, say the
settlers, is a guarantee that their ex-
perience of last year. when they sui.
fered for lack of water, will not be
repeated
The company, say the settlers, car
take other means of collecting its pay
ments 1t holds lien on the settlers
lands for its water rights, so it is al
legged, but that lien, so the water users
assert, does not give the company
power to deprive the settlers of water
thus depreciating it's own security.
In the meantime, the water is eva
pOrating in the reservoir and the crop.
of the settlers are suffering for irriga
ton. Hence the appeal to the suprem,
court for a writ Of mandate to com
pei the company to deliver water. 1
is the most unique proceeding in tn,
history of irrigation in Idaho.-Bois,
Statesman