The Delta independent., 1924-01-11
WATER RENTALS

| IL lhe present system OIL water de-
livery satisfactory? Among the
many things to be considered in re-
adjustment of the project this should
have attention. / would like to see
an open discussion of the subject. We
were promised in the original con-
tract an adequate water right" for
not to exceed $25 per acre.
Now what is the situation? The
government engineers estimated a
1900 second foot tunnel necessary to
furnish adequate water. We are
now irrigating about $4,000 acres and
it requires the full capacity of the
tunnel to supply this acreage. In
fact there has been a shortage at
several periods.
Is 1t true that water for the remain
der of the project must be derived
from cutting down the adequate
water right to an inadequate water
right? What is the use in restricting
the use of water by the acre foot"
system and let it flow into the Gunni-
son River? We have no reservoirs or
other storage facilities Why is it not
best that water users be permitted
and encouraged to use water literally
during the flood season so as to pre-
pare the land and crop condition for
the short water season? Why penal
ize the user of water by an acre foot
measurement and let the surplus run
off the project?
This system makes it almost i'm
possible to protect against excessive
charges if land is farmed by tenant.
Our experience is that on Mesa lands
at least, there is better fruit. better
grain and better alfalfa along the
laterials than in the middle field;
that even where water backs up or
grade of lateral is insufficient there
is no injury to crops but they are i'm
proved in that area.
If we rent ranch and the tenant
draws water as he thinks he needs it,
it will pretty surely be from 81 to Sc
an acre rental charge, and there will
be no evidence of excessive use of
water.
But the bitches and structures are
more liable to injury by a small de-
livery than full banks. The cost of
distribution is no more for full bitches
than half full, and as the water can
not be conserved OF what benefit is
it to restrict the use of water by these
heavy penalties.
In my opinion the amount of con-
tinuous flow necessary for an ade-
quate water right should be ascer-
tanned. This would be somewhere
about one second foot for so acres of
adobe, and one foot for so acres of
Mesa soil. Then this would be de-
livered continuously unless shut off
by request of water user.
The acre foot delivery in keeping OF
accounts and constant changes and
checking by ditch riders, must neces-
sarily add to cost of delivery, and for
what purpose? Is it intended to
make up for the 400 second foot
shortage in size of the tunnel7 1t
is thought that some way we can
irrigate $4,000 to $4,000 more acres
with the present tunnel and system
which is taxed to its capacity? II SO,
it can't be done.
We can cut operation and mainten-
ance at least one-third, perhaps one
half by reduction of unnecessary eN-
penses, including the Washington and
Denver overhead. The average cost
of water delivery before the days OF
government expenses was not over
75c per acre, and the marimum was
S1.10 per acre.
One careful farmer under the NJ.
& D. Canal in 1922 by strict care and
ceaseless economy OF water kept his
rental almost within the minimum or
s1.50 per acre, but by actual measure
ment he received only about one half
the water of previous years, and much |
less than he received before the tun-
mel was constructed, with an expense
of 500 more, whereas his neighbor, |
who used the usual water service, and
then felt he had none too much. paid
$3.50 per acre.
Anyway. we have got to begin to do
a little thinking for ourselves. What |
do you think about II?
f. d. CATLIN.