The twice-a-week Twin Falls times. (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1916-1918, 1917-02-01

acres OF land, whereas we have, as
shown by the last annual report, sold
shares OF water for about 200, 900
acres, leaving 40 600 shares unsold and
held as treasury stock. But while the
stock has remained in the treasury the
water it represents has not been kept
out of the canal We have always US
ed our full appropriation of 5000 Gu
bic second feet for watering lands en-
titled to but $500 cubic feet, the addi-
tional 500 feet being used to make up
a shortage caused by leaks. seepage
evaporation, and the like. The ques-
ton is not how to divide this 500 feet
of water among the present landOwn-
ers, assuming it could be saved by ce-
menting or otherwise improving the
canal system, but how long we will
be permitted to retain this 500 feet OF
unapportioned water. How long can
we continue to use water for 24O 900
acres of land on only 100000 acres?
In view of the letter recently written
to our board of directors by the Twin
Falls Land & Water company, it may
be a more pressing and important
question than some of our stockhold-
ers realize.
Suppose that outside parties file up
on this 500 cubic second feet of water,
claiming that we have not complied
with the law and made beneficial use
thereof, and that their filing, after
the long and expensive litigation which
would surely result. is finally allowed
by the courts. If, as has been roughly
estimated, we now lose 500 cubic sec
ond feet through seepage and other
forms Of waste, and if our original
filing were cut down by 500 cubic sec
ond feet it would mean that we would
have but 1000 feet actually available
for irrigation by the time the water
reached the main body of the tract. or
enough, on the present basis of one
cubic second foot for each eighty acre
tract, for 100000 acres. In that case
we would have to spend hundreds of
thousands to cement all of our canal
system so as to save the last possible
drop of the 500 feet of water now
wasted. and even then we might have
to reduce our present allowance OF
five-eighths of an inch per acre. or
perhaps substitute a system or rota-
ton for our present continuous flow
On the other hand, let us suppose
that we have available tracts of good
land on which a part or all of this I'M
apportiOned water can be used. II
we can save this water and apply il tC
the lands now unirrigated the owners
of lands under the present canal sys.
tenn will not be hurt thereby, since
it makes no difference whether the
water is taken out of the canal by
means of leaks Gas at present) or by
= means of a pumping plant On the
contrary, they would be benefited
since all of the water now wasted i.
gone for good, whereas a considerabl.
part of the water pumped onto higher
! lands will drain back into the mair
canal and thus increase its flow. 1
1t can be shown further that the con
! struction work can be done at a prof
II sufficient to pay the cost of cement
ing the worst parts of the main canal
q Thereby avoiding an issue of bonds
or else heavy assessment on on
,. stock, that the installation of a pump
ing plant at the drop" will do ava
= with the dangerous condition whic
! now exists there; that it will give II
n electricity for heat, light and powe
q at much lower rate than now pre-
e walls; that it will add thousands @
4 acres of high priced lands to our ia
n list and greatly increase our popula
ton; then it seems to me we ough
all of us to be in favor of the propo
sition. At any rate, come to the meet
= ing on February 20 and help thras
the matter out
J. H. BARNES