OCR Text |
Show 17 nor require the services of highly paid lawyers to get their water difficulties passed upon by a competent court. The principles applied were those of community welfare.... Under this system of control and regulation very few disputes found their way into the district or Supreme Court... ,7 The county court legislation was an attempt to supply legal institutions to deal with problems that surfaced as people and communities competed for water. In this law, the legislature attempted to take the best attributes of the pioneering method and mold them into an integral part of an evolving public system of water law and practice. Important among these attributes were the law's recognition that ( 1) some centralization ( in this case the county level) of the allocative process was desirable, ( 2) development and administration by those closest to the resource made for practicality, and ( 3) the public interest could be served by direct action of the government. The language of the initial county court law seems to suggest that the legislature of 1852 intended for all administrative decisions to move through the courts. As things developed, however, certain other public institutions shared authority over water with the county courts. Even more important was the fact that in all counties except the central Wasatch Front counties ( Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and Weber) the county courts played only a limited role in water allocation. They had almost no adjudicative role because the outlying area ( and new) settlements relied on the pioneer method of administration. This would suggest that only when competition for water became common did people turn to the county courts. Water historian and engineer Thomas points out that this selective use and nonuse had the effect of blending the values and practices of the pioneering mode with the regulation by the county courts in the daily practices of many Utahns. Settlement and project decisions and some questions of distribution and organization were coordinated by central and local church authorities, while some questions concerning allocation and adjudication ( between established towns or projects) came increasingly under the purview of the county courts. In Wasatch Front counties the judges and selectmen of the county courts granted rights to use water for purposes ranging from irrigation to milling operations and transportation. They also dealt with disputes related to the right to use water. In their deliberations, they were guided by community interest as they followed the concepts of beneficial use and prior rights. The county court selectmen visited the area of a proposed project or of a dispute. There they collected information and evidence and then decided on a proper course of action. As time went on, the courts of the Wasatch Front counties also exercised their influence in the role of developer or as a source of development funds. In this role county governments joined the central church officials and local interests as developmental agencies. For example, the Salt Lake County Court funded the construction and administration of several diversion dams and irrigation canals in the south and west parts of the county in the years after 1870. Although it was expected that the money would be paid back, much of it was not, thus establishing a clear ( though unintended and unwanted) precedent for government subsidy in the interest of works that were held to have broad public value. 8 It is important to note that most canals were constructed and controlled by those who would themselves utilize the water. The county courts rarely granted private- for- profit oriented water companies the right to use water resources solely for the purpose of reselling the water to other users. Rather, they granted the ultimate users the right to build 7Ibid., p 91.. 8Ibid., pp 53, 67- 69, and 78- 82. |