Show SENATE BILL NO 20 1 HI HE ACTION of the house in killing killingI 1 I senate bill No 20 O which would give cities cIti the power Dower to condemn water rights subject of course to abundant safeguard should uld by all moans be re reconsidered considered d There is no no valid alid objection to the bill antI and It looks very cry much as asif asif asIf if some seine of the members had permitted a it prejudice against public improve improvements improvements ments for fur cities clUes to run fun away with them There is ia nothing sacred about a wa wu water water ter tet right It is not a thing before lefor which practical men are expected to fall down and worship The law makes it possible possible ble to deprive the citizen of his home h me if the home is ig needed for public j pur par purposes Im poses and whenever a water eater right Is necessary sar to the public pubu welfare it should be possible to condemn it ft IL Under Un del our om present statutes It is possible ble for fOI a few re obstinate ob individuals to block the progress of a city eit toward the securing of oC ail mt adequate water supply This notwithstanding withstanding the fact that the city would be willing to give to those men all their rights are worth The senate bill would do away with all this At the same time the privileges of no citizen are placed in jeopardy All AU proceedings must be had in a acourt acourt court ourt of competent jurisdiction The city must show first the absolute urgent necessity for the water it seeks to con COI condemn COId condemn d If Ie this necessity cannot be shown and shown to the entire satis satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction faction of an unbiased judge the pro proceedings I end at once If the urgent need can be shown shawn a jury of honest hones men i es on the value of the water right and awards the compensation More after the value of the right has been established the jury juay must go fur further further ther and award to the defendant any damages damage he may ma sustain to his prop property property erty rl Thus if a n man has a farm and if he depends upon his water right to tomake wake make his Iti farm productive it is clear that his farm is Injured by b the loss lo c o othe the water right The jury gives him the th full measure of such damages It does dues not seem to us that anything could be fairer It has been urged in iu opposition to the bill that a city cit could go h here re and there and anywhere and take water away awa from anybody and ly This we submit would not be possible po ible Need for fOI the th water vater must be shown first Then the value of the water would be so great in many man cases ca ms I that no city eft could afford alTora to condemn it One Une member of the legislature de declared declared I dared that a city cil might take away from a mining company water vater actual actually ly needed in the operation 06 oA o the mine Could it Let us see A mine that is worth working must possess pos ess intrinsic value alue Could Coul any city elt In this titis state buy buya buJa a producing mine in order to get the water right attached to 10 it Certainly nut The Theon only purpose of the bill is to pre preVent Vent ent the Ule h hOldin up UI of cities by men who M ho under present plesent conditions have dUe cities nt ut their mercy merc We Ve doubt very ver much if condemnation proceedings would be necessary in many instances They might never be necessary for forwith forwith with the Ule right to condemn in Iii the hands of cities clUes the obstinate ones would soon tome cone l me to t fair fall prices for their holdings The house will do no better work in Its dying hours than the reconsider reconsideration reconsideration and nd passage of senate bill Xo No 20 W |