The Coolidge examiner., 1939-07-06
ella Valley Water
Rationing Attacked

After four years of quiescence,
and amid burning drought in the
southwest, the knotty Gila Valley
water apportionment problems were
legally reopened here today by the
filing Of petition in the U. S. dis
trict court by Bilby and Shoenhair.
and Knapp, Boyle and Thompson
law firms representing the Gila
Valley Irrigation district, near SAT-
ford, and the Franklin Irrigation
district, near Duncan.
The two districts represent from
10000 to 10000 acres of irrigated
lands, and declare in the petition
the U. S. water commissioner, C.
A. Firth, appointed by Judge Albert
M. Sames when he signed decree
Of apportionment June 20, 1885, has
incorrectly apportioned the waters
flowing into the San Carlos Reser-
voir behind the Coolidge dam after
the annual apportionment is made
on Januay 1 of each year.
Their would be no suit nor con-
tentions with regard to Firth's in
terpretation of the decree if the San
Carlos reservoir were filling with
water, 1t was declared today, and
although the suit is not directed to.
ward any person with animosity,
the petitioners want the terms of
this consent decree clearly under
stood. The decree was not written
by Judge Sames, but by stipulation
with water users on the Gila river
who had been arguing over water
rights almost since the first white
man settled in the valley Is con-
cerned.
Specifically the petitions attack
the apportionment of water az set
forth under article eight, subsection
two of the decree. by declaring that
Firth, instead of apportioning all
the water which flows into the dam,
after January 1 of each year less
seepage and evaporation and water
delivered to the Kennecott Copper
corporation. Joseph j. Anderson,
Grady L. Herring and T. H. B.
Claspie by priority rights, has been
since 1885 apportioning only such
water as flowed into and remained
in the reservoir.
In other words, instead Of ap-
portioning the additional water as
measured when 1t flows into the
reservoir, lass legal deductions,
Firth has apportioned the addi-
tional water as measured while in
the reservoir less legal deductions.
The difference between these two
methods Of apportioning additional
waters, the petition states, Is one
acre foot per year, which for the
four years on the basis Of $4,000
irrigated acres, would amount to
$4,000 acre feet of water Of which
the petitions state they have been
deprived.
When Judge Sames will hold the
first hearing on the petition was
unknown today as he is out of the
state and the date Of his return is
not known.
BY implication the petition fore
casts a hot and furious legal battle
with the farmers of the San Carlos
project, for should Judge Sames
admit the contentious Of the petit
ton 1t would deprive the San Car
los water users of about $4,000 acre
water per year, and with an acute
drought in all these areas, such an
amount of water would involve
thousands OF dollars worth of yield
in crops.
Authorities on the problems also
anticipate a very likely probability
that the virden valley farmers, who
tore off the locks of irrigation
canals using water from the ella
rive in January Of this year, will
be vitally interested and possibly
represented at the hearings. But
into this angle of the case comes
again the question Of jurisdiction
of the decree when state boundaries
are involved.
Thus, with the first petition filed
attacking the decree, the stage Is
set for another long legal battle
dealing with one Of the VESTS old
est and most touchy problems
water right-Tucson Daily Citizen.