OCR Text |
Show CO-OFERATION AND UNDERSTANDING In this issue of the News are printed remarks on the subject of underground legislation by E. F. B. Daude, and also an open letter by E. C. McGarry. Within the past two weeks, the proponents of water legislation have had their side of the story given full publicity in this paper; consequently, conse-quently, we feel it only fair that opponents of the measure be accorded the same favor. We take the liberty of asking our readers to study what the other side has to say on the issue and in all fairness to them, hand your copy of the paper about to your friends with the same freedom as was done with the copies containing Mr. Haskell's remarks and . Prof. Peterson's warning. There are two sides of any question ques-tion and we believe that Milford people are open-minded enough to consider both angles. We are a little sorry that the agitation on the question ques-tion has reached such porportions as to perhaps confuse readers who live at some distance and are not acquainted with the situation. The matter is a big one for the Milford Valley to handle, and therefore is written up in this paper at its full news value, but there is a possibility that readers on the 'outside' will be led to believe that we are facing a calamity in the near future. We know that among those who disagree here, there exists no thought of wishing to cause an impression on the outside which would be harmful to the prosperity of this part of Utah. Therefore, let it be known here, that geologists who spoke in Milford, one advocating underground water legislation, legis-lation, and the other not seeing the need of it, BOTH state that they see no cause for alarm. Professor Peterson, state geologist, and director of the extension department of the Utah Agricultural college said in an address here that he could "see no limit in sight to the development of this valley." This paper goes to some length to set forth this thought as we fee! we are representing the beliefs of all people concerned con-cerned here. As we see it, friends of water legislation merely wish to definitely assure themselves a perpetuality of water for farm use, such as has been done in Utah regarding re-garding stream water, and with the same prudence that a man lays by that part of his income which he can spare for financial insurance. On the other hand, opponents believe be-lieve that the last decade of farming here has shown no problem of underground water shortage, and a's they feel thus, they do not wish to run whatever risk there may be of retarding the development of this section to its full possibilities. We will close this discourse by saying that we have little knowledge of water problems, and hence we do not attempt to instruct our readers on the subject through the weak voice cf this paper. But we do feel that (at the time this is written Wednesday) the constituents of Representative Represen-tative Jefferson are laying a Herculean burden on his shoulders should-ers if they expect him to be able to take care of their wants at this late day. Why was not the question gone into at length a couple of months ago; the quantity of underground water fairly closely estimated ; and our representative sent to Salt Lake at the opening of legislature prepared with complete data with which to fight through his people's wishes? |