Brownsville herald. [volume] (Brownsville, Tex.) 1910-current, 1931-09-01

IN OUR
VALLEY

10 form the Lower Rio Grande
Conservation district OF Texas.
Meetings explaining the district.
its purposes and aims. are still
being held. eliminating with a
Valley wide gathering at Harlin-
hEen on wednesday night.
Public has been given an ample
eopportunlty to fully inform itself.
/ Temporary directors Of the dis
tilt have left nothing undone to
put the issue squarely before the
voters affected.
ANCIENT ANIMosrrIEs have
been forgotten.
Lions" and lambs have gotten
together.
Are eating from the same trough.
Gaining strength for the same
emf. the further advancement Of
the valley.
Proving that men CAN cooperate
when the urge Is there.
And when the need Is Imperative.
As MIGHT BE expected. op-
position to the formation OF the
district has arisen.
Opposition as sincere as is any
effort In behalf of the district.
Opposition based On grounds with
which we are forced to disagree.
Principally because We consider
tn the manifest advantages which
the district viii bring to the Valley
more than counterbalance any dis
advantages which may result.
ONE LINE of argument against
the district. brought forth by that
Nrcal veteran ot Valley developers.
J. II. Swallow OF Alamo. says that
Zoo much land Is being taken into
the district.
Argues that land o undevelop-
cd viii be developed against the
hes. interests Of land already under
development.
TO which we would point out:
That inclusion Of all land suscep-
tIbic 70 irrigation In the district
serves two purposes.
First: as a safeguard for the
future.
Probably not in your lifetime,
surely not in mine. viii ali the
Land included in the conservation
district be placed under under
irrigation.
We would oppose such a step to-
day or tomorrow or the day after
But-tht time may come.
When such a development would
be vitality necessary.
Not next year. or the year after,
but perhaps In ten years, perhaps
In twenty.
why not be prepared for such an
eventuality2
And why let the fear OF such
problematical action in twenty
years stifle a proposition which
VsFans so much to the Valley Of
ltay7
{sEcOND: THE MORE land in
efLded In the district. land which
r1tny actually be in need OF irriga-
ton waters from the Rio Grande
some day. the better a trading talk
will the Valley be able 10 put up
In It's efforts 20 secure an equitable
division OF the waters OF the Rio
Grnnde.
We must have th-t treaty with
Mexico.
L. NJ. Lawson. American member
OF the International water COM
mission. tells the valley that the
district will be OF inestimable help
TO him in his work Of securing the
treaty
TAXES TO BE imposed by the
district + mentioned in opposition.
All right.
The tax rate is limited TO SC on
L44E UAKW AH A4EQ1L& ~
. the state and county.
Means that a 5000 valuation
farm. for instance. will pay a tax
70 the district or $3.50.
For the protection Of a $4,000
property.
To help insure the wat-r rights
without which that property would
not be worth a tinker's dam.
Let's not blink at a sc tax when
lie have swallowed special taxes
ca1ing from SOC to si.65 In the
VAST without eve a blink.
LOBBYING BY the district Is
opposed.
Remember that the Imperial
Valley district lobbied.
And helped get a s175.OC 600 fed
eral appropriation for the Boulder
Dan. project
Lobbying Is simply presenting
your case where 1t will do the most
good
And that's what the Valley must
do on this water proposition before
IL Is too late
VOTE YOUR sentiments on
Thursday.
we hope they agree with ours.
But vote them anyway.