| OCR Text |
Show CHAPTER VH A TIME OF EVALUATION: DEFINING STATE AND FEDERAL RESPONSD3ILmES, 1921 THROUGH 1935 Introduction By 1921 the state of Utah had functioned extensively in four separate arenas of water management First, through the State Engineer's Office, it had established an effective administrative and regulatory framework. Second, irrigation and drainage districts had provided the mechanism for joint action on the part of farmers and other water users and conveyed power to bond, levy taxes, and condemn property. Third, the state had experimented with state- sponsored water development through direct projects of the Board of Land Commissioners and through lending programs which funded the private initiatives of individual farmers and various mutual irrigation companies, districts, and corporate entities. And fourth, the state had worked with the United States Reclamation Service and other federal agencies to build large federally- funded storage and distribution systems. The state's success in these water management programs was varied. In the realm of administration and regulation, the Office of the State Engineer was functioning well by 1921. The Board of Land Commissioners was still working to wind up its affairs with the Hatchtown and Piute projects, but had otherwise withdrawn from any direct roles in water management. As the decade progressed and during the 1930s, the state's indirect role as financier of small water improvements through its farm loan program was doing relatively well. But the state faced mounting troubles. 1 Between 1909 and 1919, the bonding and taxing features written into the irrigation and drainage district laws enabled water users to organize effectively for local projects. The result was that irrigation and drainage districts were much used, although not always successfully. By the early 1920s many districts confronted overwhelming difficulties. For example, an irrigation district organized on the Blue Bench in Duchesne County resulted in a continuing round of challenges that led ultimately to failure. The district issued bonds that were at first ignored by buyers. After 1921 the Jessie Knight Construction Company took an interest in the project originally proposed by the district. This company led an unsuccessful effort to build a technically difficult delivery system. Unable to irrigate their farms or retire their bonded debt, farmers left the Blue Bench area. In an effort to cut its losses, the Knight Company took over the farms in the district during the 1930s. After a futile struggle, the Knight Company itself failed in 1949.2 Drainage districts at Delta went through a succession of reorganizations as reclamation costs there JSee Table 4, p 80. Blue Bench files, Jessie Knight Collection, Brigham Young University Library. |
