Salt Lake Tribune | 1916-12-24 | Page 2 | Seeking to Settle Water Controversy

SEKIi TO SETTLE WATER CDNTRDVERSY Development Company Files Its Affidavit in Piute Case. BEFORE LAND BOARD Rights to Surplus Flow in the Sevier River Are Being Disputed. That the sta.te of Xtuh proceeded to construct the Piute reservoir dam and to launch the Piute project without a drop of water to put in the reservoir or upon the project, and in an effort to save itself it-self is socking to beat the Sevier Land & Water company out of water rights in the Sevier river to which It is entitled, is in brief the charge made by the land company in an afiidavlt tiled with the state land board by the company, in connection con-nection with tho controversy between the company and the state over water rights in the Sevier river. By means of documents showing the various steps in the progress and development devel-opment of the Sevior Land & "Water company's project and the action of the state, the company seeks to demonstrate that its contention is correct. The company does not charge that the land board deliberately proceeded upon the Piute project knowing that it had no water, or that it had voluntarily attempted at-tempted wrongfully to deprive the land company of its water rights, but it is alleged al-leged that the state engineering department depart-ment of former years is responsible for the situation and has used the, laud board to further its cause. Surplus Flow Involved. The controversy between t he state and the company involves 163,000 acre feet of the surplus flow of the Sevier river. The company, under an old filing known as the Bagley and Lyman filing of 200,000 acre feet, applied for this amount of water, wa-ter, originally to irrigate more than 1000 acres of land in Millard county under a Carey act project. Later the company, according to the information presented to the board yesterday, yes-terday, gave up its Carey project by agreement with the state to purchase S3. 000 acres of state lands and to use the water to irrigate this. The company contends that the state cut It down to 3,OO0 acres, but sold this and received payments for it regularly. The company was preparing to use the water under its riling on this land, but, as explained by Frank D. Kimball, manager of the company, com-pany, litigation was started by other water wa-ter users and they were Indefinitely delayed de-layed in their work. Position of State. In the meantime the state, through an affidavit filed by V. J. Lynch as secretary secre-tary of the slate land board, protested against an extension of time on the project of the land company, on the ground that it had not made the developments develop-ments necessary, and protested against giving the company the 163,000 acre feet of water now under controversy. The affidavit, a copy of which was submitted sub-mitted by Mr. Kimball, alleged that the state had prior filings on the water and that the land company was not entitled to the water because it bad not done the woik necessary or done as much development develop-ment work as the state. This affidavit, according to the allegation allega-tion of the land company, does not set forth the truth. The company claims that its filing was prior to any filing by the state affecting the waters in question, and that it had done all the development work possible, in view of the litigation that had prevented it carrying out its work as at first planned. Contentions of Company. It was contended by the company, and the affidavit and records were submitted submit-ted In support of the contention, that white the land company was tied up by litigation the state proceeded to inaugurate in-augurate the Piute project, taking advantage ad-vantage of the situation in which the land company found itself, and still knowing that the land company had a filing on every drop of water that the state would need for the Piute project, and that the state had no water for its project unless it could in some manner get the land company's water. The company claims that the state sold to and accepted money from the land company for lands of the state which the state knew the company proposed to Irrigate from the river and then set about a project of its own for which it had no water, then undertook to take from the land company its water to make good on the Piute project. The state officials deny that this was done or that the state has plaved unfair un-fair In the matter at all. The state contends con-tends that the land company did not carry out its project work as it proposed to do, that it lapsed and that the state simply undertook a project of its own.