Show W I 1 water rights and federalism U V I 1 by J P may roosevelt utah N the dry gulch irrigation company is ia now working on a proposed agreement with the uintah indian irrigation project for settlement of charges claimed by the project to be due and for a working agreement for the ensuing six years this is very import important wat as will appear heroin herein and it covers the following gallant features as we understand them viz dry gulch made certain enlargements on project canals and later als and thereafter used and Is now using the same jointly with the project A very small amount of water is effected on the LaBe fork river or about 1000 shares or acres on the uintah side approximately shares is vitally effected our company furnishes a little less than shares of water to its stockholders Is a mutual company practically tree free ot of debt has no big magnate or other controlling feature it is one of the most cooperative and the largest irrigation company so operated in the west the government claims that we must submit to federal supervision and operation ot of all canals wrid and lat brals regardless of our relative I 1 share in the business it if we haare 90 per der cent and the has 10 per cent wo we must submit to this domination and control on this assumption for the past six years wo we have been charged for this this shares about and on OD this we have a credit of over cash paid making the present ip obligation as claimed by the project a little over the agreement now formulated proposes to settle this bill and pay pa y in advance the 1929 bill of about on an a six year agreement viz we pay the 1929 charge and this fall we pay day as next spring we pay the 1930 charges not exactly known and to be according to the project demand and in the fall of 1930 we shall pay with 6 per cent interest this agreement has two cash items viz iz the charge for each year about 00 this year and the amount to be each year as aa set by the project and one sixth of the old bill or and this old bill draws 6 per cent interest f from rom december 1 1929 making each year a little more ahls agreement recognizes during the six years the projects right of control co atrol but of course give alvea S llie ehe dry gulch the right to consult consul with the engineer in charge but no right of control or supervision on jointly used canals laterals literals late rals etc we W must pay per their demands and admit that we are in practice merely renters of project right of ways mays etc as ag set forth in detail in the agreement this is ii claimed to be unfair contrary to good law and the charge we believe is very excessive our statement is made for the following reasons to wit the state of utah owns owna all the water within her borders in senator sutherland now one ot the U S supreme court judges had placed in the federal statutes in substance the following follow tog inbert ed in a law providing funds etc for reclaiming the indian lads viz that all w water a t e r should s h be tiled filed on appropriated and held under the jurisdiction jurls diction of this state and that enlargements might be made on canals and laterals literals late rals and the same should be under the laws of this state this Is in U S statutes at large vol 34 about page surely this guarantees us a joint right and not a renters right federal wafer has all been filed on proofs made and all done exactly as the white man must do ao there la Is no difference in the law but in practice there is very much difference it you own indian land or it if you are a leas r in the class H territory try your total cost for 1929 would b bi per share or acre acre we d that in randlett section t alie e federal charges to water users f fr r water rented or purchased from project eject managed or federal water I 1 Is tor for this year and that Is the highest h ghast of which we have n heard but if you are a dry gulch water user you must pay on the uintah side about for your part of 69 1 federal char charge tor for 1929 for this year and approximately for this fall the latter on the delinquent amount 11 noted on this basis it would be aar far cheaper tor for the dry gulch to turn the uintah canals over to the government pay the assessed the indian water users and even the on the old bill however as s it is we pay w on all canals for skiing assessment except class I 1 the latter being then this fall it is estlina estimated ted that charges chares will be at least where it Is ia now or at least per share or acre for the and abid 1930 will be slightly higher in all probability I 1 shall or should we pay this toils Is it right Is it 1 fair federal control is the real kernel in the nut but leaving this out should wa he be mide made to pay practically as much for foe using a canal about six or eight miles as on class 11 II as the 1929 2929 entire for their total cost ozi on uintah river canals and laterals literals late rals we do not average a 20 21 per cen cent I 1 r relationship elation ship with the bovein continued on page eight WATER SIGHTS RIGHTS AND federalism continued from page one ane ment or when we pay day them we have paid tor for 20 per der cent or much less of our operating and maintenance mal nten mat cost it would seem to a man of ordinary gum gumption atlon that anve ifould not pay more than 10 20 to 15 1 5 per cent at most of the federal charges or 20 per cent as a maximum because somo some such lesser amount would cover all our rela UVO cost instead of paying 00 or about per share chare tor for the 1329 1929 charges not related to any old bill we should pay abo about ut this higher amount seems to many as more or less a variety of robbery our troubles began when a new engineer came six years ago and began to exercise a super authority no ho immediately started trouble I he ie claimed the dry gulch was not paying enough i and he immediately commenced to force us to pay what he and his hig superiors claimed we should pay we sent an origin engineer eer to washington to try to adjust it but bureau bosses there demanded as any basis tor for agreement that we recognize federal control and our engineer not do ao it 11 1 and we w are proud to say outboard our board of directors would not agree to it it was in december 1927 we believe that president cool cooledge id ge warned congress about them the steady drift to federalization the increase of burea government here in the uintah basin we have a large measure of this autocratic rule vast areas of land are held under proposed reclamation projects forest reserves are the best phase of this federalization and that is enough but our water alwer is tied up too our local power company cannot furnish its ita patrons in about six biz communities with the light and power they need and this condition has been dominant for several years the water Is right there in the river and god knows it would I 1 not be unfair or unjust to let us use it or more of it but federalism says no not now oil development will now be delayed tor for at least four years so BO far as ab fa eral authority may control it and that means about 76 75 per cent of our states lands but this dry gulch irrigation company business is very serious farmers cannot stand this burden of doubling wat water er costs when we were constructing dams making reservoirs volra out of the lakes we stood up under trader it tor for several years paying as aa we proceeded an and dEave llave kept about free or debt and have no bonds to pay day after the 1928 dry year with crops much less than hormal this thia extra load or the doubling of our irrigation costs means defeat to mwry a good man who is trying to make a home and i make a living on oil his farm money to borrow Is almost not here except pt on good rediscount discount re paper our water commissioner Is appointed by the federal court this la is more by stipulation than by force of any law both the state viii law and the federal law states or implies without any doubt douat that such commissioner shall be appointed by the tate engineer yet we submit to this federal authority by sufferance it is time tor for the stockholders oil oh concluded it Is time tor for the stockholders ol of ahe uintah side to get together and advise with the board of directors ve believe that the board will give air consideration to proper pro osta ests and such protest should not e delayed it seems better to know ow what our rights are facts do lot justify this federal charge the aw does not as we see it give the reject control wherein we are arc lut advisors adv laora at most and this virtually by the projects permission statements made herein are accord ng ig to information at hand any or incorrect assumption will it if we me are corrected be oberly admitted this Is written 0 defend tights lights which we regard us Is sacred no one has the slightest delre or intention to weaken or to injure federal operation ot of strictly federal business we all want the idelane to get a fair deal they got out 40 iper cent more land for I 1 brills trills than they needed like likewise wise i cage age land and this excessive farm land and the water has been sells on the market here tor for fifteen cars or more federalism operated i the start on a scale not justified y the facts however we twe want our tights rights hey are just as sacred as indica bights no more and no less ap ardently the only way we may obtain them la Is to get together at uce u ce and do that which seems best as aa intelligent Inte lUgent citizens |