OCR Text |
Show WHO OWNS THE WATER ; . , HOLES? An editorial In the Salt Lake Telegram) CONFLrCTDSTG schools of governmental gov-ernmental thought clash in a case now pending in the federal district court The United States government versus Schmutz brothers. broth-ers. There are several issues involved in this case, which concerns the ownership of four water hales in southern Utah. On one hand we find ths stag's ownership to waters within its boundaries Questioned. On the other hand ve find the federal government stepping in as champion cham-pion of the rights cf the general public. Singularly, each side is using the same argument to support sup-port its contention. The history of the case is brief. Bumble Bee springs and three ether water holes in Iron and AVishington counties are located on public land withdrawn by President Presi-dent Coolidge by water withdrawal order No. 107, on April 17, 1928. According to government contention, conten-tion, the three Schmutz brothers cf New Harmony filed upon this water after the presidential proclamation proc-lamation had been issued. The state ; engineer allowed the filings after j a juries ot coherences with the interested ranchmen in that district. dis-trict. The federal district attorney then filed a complaint .asking the federal court to declare these springs to be public waters and aaking that the defendants be prevented pre-vented from diverting cr attaching attach-ing for private use any of the waters. One cf the government's cor.len-tion cor.len-tion in the case is that th?5e springs have fcaen used for forty jeavs as watering places by the stockmen cf ths region. It is also contended that the withdrawal order or-der followed and was in accord with laws passed by congress. i The state engineer, in accepting accept-ing the Schmutz filing, took cognizance cog-nizance of the fact that the general gen-eral public had been using: the springs -for these many : years, which under Utah law, are subject sub-ject to appropriation. Had any one person been using the waters for a considerable length of time he could probably have established establish-ed an owership -to the water. The state engineer, not a party to the suit, has said In correspondence corre-spondence that he has been accepting accept-ing filings on federal-withdrawn waters because "until the courts hold otherwise this office will not recognize federal control of the waters of the state." This brings again the old conflict con-flict of the powers of the federal government and the powers of the state. The state ownership of the waters within its boundaries has been one of the basic contentions of every state In the west. The theory goes back to certain provisions provi-sions in the enabling act. Water which rises on public domain, or government owned land, is state water, according to the state theory. the-ory. If the state owns, the water the federal government has. no right to say what the state shall do, state's rights advocates maintain. main-tain. Thus do a few water holes in the great dry west rise up and test again the relationship of the national na-tional government to a sovereign state. . |