Arizona republican., 1916-11-05

, proposition; 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 l 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 i of this water shall be determined"
 And that was the origin of the case of 1 Hurley against Abbott which resulted
 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.
 Then came another question, Now,
 mark you as l said a moment ago, this
 irrigation act which appears here, and
 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,
 tkat the Secretary of the Interior
 should make investigations by his en-
 gineers and if he should determine
 upon examination that q project was
 q 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
 inent and probably will require for it's , solution legislation by the Congress of
 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 go and take public land that had been
 designated to receive water from one f of these projects could know the land
 and could know the cost of the water
 The government was secure in Its pay , ment for the cost of the water because
 1t retained the title to the land Re , member. if you will please. because n a that is q distinction upon which the solution of the dispute between the government of the United States and 9 the water users of this valley now de- e bends The public land remained tn, , property Of the government so that
 the government could enforce payment , | and the price 10 be paid was the esti- a mated cost that had been published.
 But there were very few or very lit
 tie public lands in this project-ver,
 little Of public lands in this valley tha
 could be made the beneficiaries of thi,
 law The government. therefore. couls not retain title to the lands that wer' ' in private ownership IL could no
 secure to itself the repayment of thu :. cost of this project unless some privat' N contract was made between these own U CTS and the government of the Unite,
 States.
 e Kibbey Devises Contract.
 n I prepared a contract and proposed
 1t Co 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 To voir against the will of the people 0 e this valley. That. as a legal proposi = ton. is absolutely true because-ant IS let me suggest 1t to you, that at tha D time there had been appropriations fo n water for nearly two hundred thousan
 acres of land. It is true that some c
 the lands under such an extensive ap 1t propriation might have had very littl d water. but they had some rights: an lf the least of them had the right to ob le feet and to object effectually agains 10 anybody putting in a dam or reseryoi y or otherwise in this river and interfer er ing with the right they had acquire d 10 the appropriation of water. Som of people think that the government coul of have come down here and built that ie and I think the government official 1e today think so-strangely.
 m Water Users Protected.
 'h SO insisted in this contract. that ss they did build a reservoir in this val It ley. no one would be entitled 10 tn IS benefits of the use of the water store
 and developed and distributed by tha
 project except the members Of the Sal IS River Valley Water Users Association al Nobody else could have 1t. and upo y- that condition. alone this con tract pro In yides could they come into this valle m and construct those works.
 lt In return for that. the Salt Rive s' Valley Water Users Association. | 'y this contract. approved by the vas majority of the votes of the sharehold CTS of the association. agreed that the ~ would pay in not less than ten equi 'h lnstallments the cost Of that projec v Now. mark you, no preliminary est y' mate had been made as to what ths y' cost should be- We simply said to u se government, "Go ahead and build thi 'n reservoir. and if you do build 1t und' e. the terms of this contract. and certain in ly you can't build t otherwise. it sha e. be for the benefit of the shareholde at of the Salt River Valley Water User ne Association and we will pay the cost on To Pay Reasonable Cost.
 ay What Is meant by the cost? Any Co nd that the government might desire at charge2 The cost of disastrous mi or takes? The cost of grievons errors an engineering? Certainly not Tn
 term-we contend that when we agree {. to pay that cost-it is precisely as ITS two of you had agreed that one wou ,m construct a building adapted to certa UT purposes the other would pay [