| Show HUMUS TEllS THIS j 1 OF WATER MED RIGHTS l City Has Rights He Says But ButT I I T f Th II They Y Are Somewhat Muddled i Y t i Jr INTAKE TAKE IN WRONG PLACE i Courts May In linn Hmo to 10 r. r ill Is Js Claimed and What ter t r GI GIVS Th waterworks committee of oC th the tho rH Pity city Cohn council lJ held n n meeting last evenIng even even- Ing to hoar from Attorney Franl Franklin FranklinS Jj- Jj S S. t in lit regard g to 10 the Iho matt matter r t fit if f the eH city's water rights In Big DIg Col- Col canyon camron I Councilmen Muli Mulvey Mul- Mul i vey Martin tt Tuddenham a and atul 1111 ODon poll of Jt ln th J committee were vere present r With It Ii Davis I The rhe meeting fleeting was vas an nn adjourned on one r from flom I t ho the one held some oine weeks ago ngo when a adjournment nt was wa tal taken n I in In n or or- I der r to hear from Mr rr r. r Richards ll who 4 at UI that time WO was l out of th tilt the elt city Mr h Richards presented 1 f facts acts and anti figures showing ho th the work accomplished accomplish ed VII while h ho h. was Acting as special eflIn counsel c In the matter on in behalf of the pity J- J llie waters of Big Cottonwood canYon can- can Yon yn fn according ng to a at al table hlo bl prepared h by A Richards are among the tho P various as c i 4 I 1 1 J 44 f E 1 g J r 4 Ul f ame of Owner j g 1 I L 0 c I t- t 0 r.- r. tt i uJ ri cr cro o 18 ditch u OG Blown nna san san- j I r orti 21 3 i r lJ 1 2 nJ Cl I r 10 Or If 0 J llIson ditch Itch c 07 J Jt t t Newman ditch I 0 j Tanner ditcH r I I iSIS Green ditch 3 38 s f 1 Walker ulker ditch In I 0 r Parr ant anti Harper h n I c 0 16 OC 06 Al r OO h ennui canal n 1 G. G IS BI 11 1 3 isi dU h j I 9 J t if 1 00 ro I 0 f Claims elt City Own Half J. J The Tue water rights Mr Mi II Richards said J were le divided Into sixtieth and the ther 7 r city lt Hail bought tim the rights of orthe the Lor Lower Low Lo- er fr r can canal l Big ditch and Hill Hili ditch litch amounting in all to 10 9 sixtieths according ac oc cording to In the of or the thet t 1 As a matter malle of oC fact vv however pl vir Mr Hi Richards hard maintained vr 1 the the cIl city really possessed sessell 30 sixtieths th according to In lit tiLt the apportionment of th the Uw rif df f arbitration hold hAM in 1 S O and which divided the tho water according to his table That apportionment Mr Ir Richards st stated ted was the city's gal t ownership In the stream arean and atul while conceding that a law lawsuit would probably ably be lie required l to demonstrate the ot h w J iH a. a Iff fJ H lt Its proprietary hn th the contracts ot M 1 Ui amount amount- o nt oc Of r w rth tt t to th o 1 t t boush still n the they f 01 lh the right title and ui interest t In and t to all n water rights ve vested ted In the yen ven- dors If 1 that was r-o r 0 and he hl held heM that the contracts were legally ironclad iron Iron- clad the tho city really possessed J se Sd practically practically cnn cally thirty sixtieths of the wat water of L Big Cottonwood 1 Tanner He advises though h. h that the lie cH city 4 z purchase the Tanner Tanne ditch flitch rights which with what the city already i. possessed po c e would give gl glan an absolute majority majority ma mn- 1 of ot th the tho water waler in the canyon and anel anelI I 1 j would obviate tiny any practical necessity Of if a lawsuit While the the- ditches t hU ht the tho city were below th the tho o Intake ze of or the new conduit the Tanner Tann r L ditch W was L' L IS not therefore th the elt city would of I ti from oni lom the seepage page of the Tanner Tannel ditch while hlll 10 losing Un H the present pl grant rant which th the city engineer gave In Iri rough figures fIguie as ns S being a loss Im s of 26 2 ii per n nce ce cent t in In seepage c flaget This seepage rlue to 10 be he the tho main cO con con- t the tho water owner r lIh With the acquirement of the Tanner anner hitch ditch all such questions would bo hC Silenced Mr rr Richards said ald except among th tho small owners j The llie points of diversion of or the wat water vater r constituted t all the contention Mr MI Richards stol stated ll If the intake of all the city TI rights ht wn was oho above the tho Int ow or-ow conduit th the thc City would know better where where- It stood t od of questions number In 1 reply eily- to lo tI ft from rom roin the tho commit committee tN and aUl City Cily lilies Mr J Richards said that while hll the Bagley and amI Knudson rights had hadI ho atIs- atIs I f lu w e vc been heen determined was vas their thiL apportionment was ns I IOP les' I fled 1 Ihan they claimed The They wanted a u certain portion of the water and while they were WOla H to 10 some It wn was ns not hut but to 10 torun for the thit purposes of If irrigating run their th mill Just how hio much water that would taJ take he could not say saV council or com com- 1 former had the or I to lo inquire Into Ino th the s appointed d determine 11 to lo mailer n been able abl approved any measure UI therefore Ho lie 11 looking to 0 the tho securing of the Tanner r ditch Ii rights a as soon on a O JO possible Court To rn the thc Mu Iu l Go Richards I Is h According to Mr tl St Is the owner owner owner-of of oC no flo doubt that the city haV ha hou bought ht but butI such water a ap as they ther of If tho wot water waier r must mint have Iato Ia the ther I e quantitY In the corn is lIe He to be Le In M his tf figures th lh to the r l ar In 10 the ones on ill rn wa va the which Fan time the to lo the owners own own- were the first ncr dItch people Big Uig In ers oIs of water r rights thiC walor In Iii having taken s who ditch people 1 lo-io lo 84 8 thE Big In t. t IS 18 ic in 19 were appropriated th their lr water waler next |
