White Bluffs spokesman. [volume] (White Bluffs, Wash.) 1907-1938, 1931-04-23
10 Year Old
Testimony Does
!. Not Apply Now
Conditions Affecting
Water Rights Entirely
Different Today

In circular letter with Hanford-
White Bluffs, Wn., date line and adj
dressed 'sMr and Mrs. Land and
Water Right Owner" received by
land owners in the valley recently,
some excerpts of testimony are quo
ted, that were given in the court hear
ing back in 1921, when the Northern
Pacific railroad was seeking to en-
Join the officers of the Priest Rapids
Irrigation District from collecting
the. assessments against the railroad
company'ss lands. From the few quo
tations given, it seems q1ite apparent
that the writer's Of the circular letter
were hoping to mislead the residents
here now into believing that the dir
ectors of the irrigation district plan
to deprive the people of their water
rights through the bond issue to be
voted on next Saturday.
A brief review of the plans of the
irrigation district at the time of it's
organization. and the conditions ex-
listing with regard to Priest Rapids
at that time, casts quite different
light on this testimony.
When the district was organized,
the Washington Irrigation & Deyel-
opment company was negotiating
lease from the federal government
for the building of 96-foot dam at
the foot of Priest Rapids. 1t was gen.
orally believed then that the dam
would be built and in operation prior
to this time and it was the hope Of
the people here that with the build
ing of the dam the valley might Sc
cure water for irrigation by gravity
from the crest of the dam. The irri-
CATION district was organized for the
purpose of making preliminary
survey to determine. the feasibility
of bringing canal down the valley
from the top of the dam; to make
the necessary representations to the
Federal Power Commission to protect
and preserve the then existing water
rights in any lease that might be
given on the Priest Rapids site, and
upon the building of the dam to begin
the development of an irrigation sys-
tenn to cover the district, unit at a
time. The necessary surveys were
made and the proper showing made
before the Federal Power Commits
sion with the result that in the lease
later granted, clause was inserted
protecting the water rights.
Had the dam been built, it might
have been desirable to exchange the
rights under the old Hanford con-
tracts for gravity water from behind
the dam and a great many Of the
settlers in the valley at that time
would have been glad to make such
an exchange. In this connection it
should be remembered that the suit
to quiet title that finally resulted in
the socalled Bourquin decision had
not then been initiated nor the extent
of the water right lien determined
by the courts. The canal proposed by
the irrigation district to be brought
down from the crest of the dam
would have been high enough to de-
liver water into the present canal at
Coyote Rapids and it was the plan
of the district to effect such an ex-
change or trade with the builders of
the dam in the event such proposal
met the approval of the land owners.
The testimony quoted was given
in response to the questioning of the
Northern Pacific into the plans OF
the district. A big majority of the
water rights at that time would have
been gladly assigned by the owners,
under proper safeguards, for gravity
water and in few cases the district
would have had to condemn these
rights and pay therefore such sum
as the courts might have determined
as Just compensation.
The conditions surrounding the pro-
ject today are far different from
what they were back in 1921. The
extent of the water right lien has
been determined. the possibilities of
the dam are far more remote and
there is an entire new deal facing
the settlers today.