OCR Text |
Show 18 their own irrigation systems and advanced some of the help necessary to ensure success. To a lesser extent, the Davis, Utah, and Weber county courts also helped develop projects and directly influenced many more. Most other county courts were less active, but most still eventually had an important influence on the pattern of water development through the exercise of their adjudicative powers. The Role of the Territorial Government Another method of directing the pattern of water development the territorial government used during this time of institutional experimentation was empowering cities to control water within and beyond their boundaries. 9 Generally city councils were authorized to administer water within the city boundaries and the surrounding areas. It is through these charters of authority that cities such as Salt Lake City, Provo, and American Fork came to play an important role in water development These charters allowed the cities to plan and develop water resources for municipal and later industrial uses. Although later laws changed the amount and type of control cities exercised, they continued to influence and direct water development activities in the Utah Territory and later the state. 10 The territorial government also issued water rights directly to a few water- use corporations. For example, in January of 1853, the Provo Canal and Irrigation Company was incorporated by the legislature. This was significant because the legislature also granted the company the right to divert half the waters of the Provo River to be used for irrigation, navigation, and power purposes. 11 In some cases, the territorial government also granted the control of water resources directly to individuals. This practice had been started by the early church leaders, continued by the state of Deseret, and ratified by the territorial government and county courts. Thomas provides two examples of an exclusive right to determine the type of use allowed for an entire river system awarded to Ezra T. Benson and Brigham Young by the general assembly of the state of Deseret, which were later ratified by the territorial legislature. The legislature also granted partial rights to prominent churchman Willard Richards, who received one- third of the water in American Creek, an arrangement that, in view of his ecclesiastical position, was probably made in the public interest of settlers there. 12 To the extent to which they were truly intended as private grants, these appear to have run counter to the stated policy of the county court law. The 1852 law gave jurisdiction over the division of the water resources to the county courts because they were viewed as being a public resource. But the grants to individuals were based on the premise that water resources could be controlled privately. Such grants certainly had an impact on the types of water projects attempted and on the distribution of the benefits. However, as later laws ( particularly the law of 1880) For a summary of the early actions of cities see Arthur Maass and Raymond L. Anderson The Desert Shall Rejoice, p 349; and George Thomas, Institutions Under Irrigation, pp 92- 115. Examples of this influence in a later time period are the plans for area water development promoted by Salt Lake City Engineer A. F. Doremus. He proposed several canal systems and even interbasin transfers to secure water for Salt Lake City. See p 54. The company was incorporated and the rights granted by the legislature on January 17, 1853. George Thomas, Institutions Under Irrigation, p 48. 12 Leonard J. Arlington, Great Basin Kingdom, pp 46- 47. |