OCR Text |
Show 63 The Piute Project Only slightly less disastrous was the state's involvement in the Piute Storage and Irrigation Project which was bid in 1908. Construction started the same year. Considerably larger than the Hatehtown Project, it was designed to bring 20,000 acres of land under cultivation. Construction cost was initially estimated at $ 150,000, but expenditures rose quickly as structural problems with the site were encountered, design changes were made, and the project was expanded to irrigate nearly 40,000 acres. Costs reached $ 1,018,000 when project operations began in 1914, which was a huge sum in that period. 29 From the first, the Piute system was known for washouts on its long canals, and considerable redesign was required. In the process, the project was expanded considerably, and new canals to service these expansions increased the project's final cost. After the completion of the project in 1920, the Board of Land Commissioners recommended selling it to an association of water users. The anticipated advantages to the state of this proposal were: ( 1) the state couid collect the payment for its investment from one entity rather than from each individual farmer, and ( 2) the state would no longer be responsible for the maintenance or for the administrative problems of distribution. The proposal was approved and a contract negotiated based on the state's actual costs of $ 1,018,000 ( less payments received), plus the five percent interest the legislature mandated to be collected from its initial completion in 1914. The total value of the contract was $ 1,300,272. A down payment of $ 130,000 was required, with yearly payments of about $ 99,000 for twenty years. 30 The Piute Project's new owners were responsible for the collection of payments, maintenance of the reservoir and canals, and organizing water users into a self- governing body. The Office of the State Engineer continued to contribute technical expertise to help the project's owners with this responsibility. Problems soon developed with the arrangement. In the first place, the project's owners made a down payment in 1920 of only $ 65,000 rather than $ 130,000. Rather than declare the contract void, the land commissioners decided to allow water users an additional year to raise the unpaid half of the required down payment Unfortunately, falling agricultural prices and a legal dispute concerning water rights combined to cause total default on the remaining payments. In addition to being faced with low prices for their commodities, project owners soon became the target of legal action by other water users in the area. When the courts decided against the Piute water users, the water users maintained they had been misled concerning the project's water rights and refused to make additional payments. 31 The Hatehtown and Piute projects not only failed to bring about the economic growth which had been hoped for, but they failed to return to the reservoir land grant fund even the monies which had been extended to cover their respective construction costs. This depleted the fund by both the principal involved and the accumulated interest. The question can be asked, why were the projects undertaken in the first place? The Board of Land Commissioners originally planned 9State of Utah, " Annual Report of the Board of Land Commissioners to the Governor of the State of Utah for the Year 1914," Public Documents, p 8. 30The terms of the contract are given in State of Utah, " Biennial Report of die Board of Land Commissioners for the Years 1919 and 1920," Public Documents, pp 7- 8. The only payment received was one half of die required down payment 31The reports of bodi the Board of Land Commissioners and the State Engineer from 1910 until 1937 contain many descriptions of the activity on Uiis project Contracts and legal actions are included in die Board of Land Commissioners' reports. |