The Fallon standard. (Fallon, Nev.) 1920-1958, 1924-05-14

assessed some $4,000 against this
project for rights of way for drain
age through government owned land
the members of the water board sery-
ed an injunction againt the enforce
ment and later the matter was with
drawn pending some other settle
ment.
Again the proposition comes up in
more serious form, as the reclama-
ton bureau is insistant that before
the allowance is made for future
drainage that sum will have to be
set aside to pay for right of ways
through the drainage sections of gov
ernment owned lands.
The water board is informed that
Il is expected that this district will
make arrangements for approximate
ly 100000 in addition to the s245.-
600 for drainage construction "sucn
sum being estimated sufficient to re-
oompense the government for such
nrlgable area right of ways
Considering the fact that several
investigators have been over this
project and that the fact finding COM
mission has recommended a reduc-
ton of charges against water users
and homesteaders it seems that there
is some screw loose.
If right of ways are to be paid to
the government for constructing
bitches, drains and highways across
such lands then the private owner
has the same rights as this, IL eu-
forced, will undoubtedly result In
some very bitter contentious and like
wise a far more expensive plan of
construction throughout this pro ject.
The following letter was received
by members of the water board:
Reno, Nevada, May 8, 1924.
Referring to the right OF ways
dispute which the government de-
sires settled before entering into a
supplemental drainage contract, we
have been in consultation with Mr.
Dent of the reclamation bureau for
the past two days formulating a form
Of contract which would meet the
general approval of the individual
water users and of the United States
| government, and relieve the irriga-
| ton district from assuming the liza
bflity of payment to the government
| for the construction cost of irrigable
area occupied by drains, canals or
highways The government has sug-
gested form of drainage contract
under the terms of which the irriga-
ton district would assume the pay
ment of approximately 100000 In
addition to the S245p00, for drain
age construction, such sum being es-
timated sufficient to recompense the
government for such irrigable area
right of ways.
We enclose herewith a proposed
form of contract in which we have
endeavored to take care OF the three
points to meet the situation. These
points are as follows:
ID The individual water users
guarantee payment to tie govern
ment of the construction cost of the
irrigable area destroyed by drains,
canals and highways at the rate spec
flied in their individual contract.
! (This is to meet Mr.. Hameles state
ment that it is questionable in his
opinion, whether or not the govern
ment can enforce payment of the
construction cost of such irrigable
area We do not agree with Mr..
Hamele in this matter and believe
that the government can, without
any question, enforce the payment of
such construction cost regardless of
the fact that right of ways have util-
lied irrigable area. Inasmueh, how
er, as Mr.. Hamele takes tllis position
the question must be disposed of
either by amicable agreement with
the individual water users or by liti-
cation, which, of course, would be
more or less expensive.)
"l2) A guarantee by the United
States that the water right applicant
will acquire the water right for the
entire irrigable area In his farm unit
as per his individual contract, re-
gardless of the utilization of a por-
tion of such irrigable area for canals,
Grains and highways. (You will re I.
call that Mr.. Towle, Mr.. Glazier and
others have insisted upon this un-
derstanding in order that they could
get the benefit of the minimum o. &
M. charge and In case of shortage be