OCR Text |
Show Mfl. DOOLY'S THREE POINTS. Thus far the only opposition to the City Council's plan for the increase of the water supply of Salt Lake has been from Mr. Dooly, so far as publla and reasonable presentation have been seen. By this we do not mean that he is the only one opposed to the plan. On the contrary, we know many who are opposed op-posed to It for one reason or another, and some who oppose It through misunderstanding. misun-derstanding. But so far ns the public consideration of the question has gone, the points he makes are the strong ones In opposition. It is well to consider these points, therefore, In the candid spirit and to the view of protecting the public Interest, Inter-est, in which they are presented. The first point relates to the possible failure of Utah Lake as a source of supply. sup-ply. Inasmuch as the possibility of furnishing fur-nishing the farmers with the quantity of water that the option calls for In exchange ex-change for the water from the canyons depends altogether upon the supply from the lake, this point in effect raises the whole question. If it is a serious danger, then not only the exchange proposed now Is Impracticable, but any other plan based upon such exchange' Is Impracticable. But In view of the report of the experts ex-perts who have Investigated Utah Lake with a view to this precise question, we are of the opinion that this supposed danger of failure In the lake's water supply Is so remote as not to be worthy of such consideration as should act as a deterrent. Professor Swendsen, who is In charge of the surveys, measurements measure-ments and examinations of Utah Lake, says expressly that "there Is no question ques-tion about the supply In the lake being sufficient for the purpose." The third point is so closely allied to the first that It stands or falls with it. The damage question would not arise If the water supply did not fall. "While the calamities of nature the "act of God," as our legal friends phrase them -are such as humanity, either individually individ-ually or collectively, has to reckon with in all Its undertakings. The second point Is one of mere detail. It relates to the times of measurement of the flood of the streams. If there Is any Injustice to the city (n this, probably prob-ably that Injustice could be mitigated by the time the contract came to be signed, on the first of July next, by which time the demonstration of the nblllty of the city to deliver the requisite requi-site water can be made. In so far as objection may be made to the City Council's plan on the ground that the Utah Lake Improvement may fall through the hostility of some of the water users and the Indifference of others, (we speak now of the plans of the Government engineers and experts under the immediate supervision of Professor George L. Swendsen,) It Is well to keep in mind that tho city's plan as now presented to the people contemplates the reinforcement of the canal supply by the Installing of another an-other pump by the city, without waiting wait-ing for the action of the farmers. The city plan does not In any way depend upon the Government work, though If this were put through in time, the additional ad-ditional pump contemplated might not be necessary. But the important plont Is that the city's plan is In no way dependent de-pendent upon the Government's work. Mr. Dooly does well to present his objections". ob-jections". Otllers who oppose the plan should also show Why they do so. The public wants all tho Information on this matter It can possibly obtain. |