OCR Text |
Show 236 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN UTAH. ent settlements there was uncertainty as to what authority the city council really had. No one knew what the rights kkalready acquired by actual settlers" were. September 23, 1S71, a motion was made in the city council praying that the county court hold a special session for the purpose of adjudicating the rights acquired prior to the granting of the St. George charter. Instead of such an adjudication, on »Jan-uary 20, 1872. the uncertainty was temporarily cleared up by a compromise suggested by two of the church authorities acting on behalf of the people of Santa Clara and the city council of St. George. On the same day it was voted to form under the law of January 20, 18(55," the Santa Clara irrigation district, extending between certain ditches, and from the Threemile Place on Santa Clara Creek to the west side of Main street in St. George. During the next year the controversy continued, culminating in charges being filed with the church authorities against certain of the water users. Diversions above had so increased that water was scarce for domestic purposes in Santa Clara settlement. It was not until August 4, 1873, that a public election was held to decide on levying a special tax of $3.50 per acre on the land within the proposed district. The tax was carried and the district declared organized according to law. With the formation of the Santa, Clara irrigation district it was supposed that the controversy would end, but it did not. August U, 1873, it was suggested that a committee be appointed before whom every right on the stream should be proved, but no action was taken on the suggestion. October !i, 1875, a general meeting was called at the instance of the lower settlers on the creek, who could not get water for the planting of fall wheat. It was then decided to petition the church authorities to determine the rights on the stream. The petition was granted and on February 5. 1876, an agreement was submitted to the irrigators. as holders of '• acquired possessory rights by use and appropriation of till of the waters of the Santa Clara River for agricultural and other purposes." By this agreement they Hound themselves to abide by the decision of three referees who should "fully and finally adjust and have duly recorded" every claim to the water of Santa Clara Creek for the >k present benefit and future security" of the settlers. There is nothing in the records to show the outcome of this agreement, but a similar agreement was drawn up and signed March 13, 1*78. August 31, 1878, the board of arbitration appointed by the later agreement rendered a lengthy report, containing the following provisions: i I ) Tluit the limits of tin1 Santa Clara Creek irrigation district bo extended so as to include the whole *if Santa Clara Creek, the extension to ho accomplished by petitioning theeounty court. >'2.\ That of this district, Vine Valley should form the first siibdistrict; from the Eightmile Springs to the Warm Springs should form the second nubdistrict; from Magotsa corral to the lower "All act was passed by Territorial legislature and approved January 20. 18(>o, providing for the incorporation of irrigation companies. I'nder this act county courts were authorized to organize irrigation districts, upon ]«etition of a majority of the citizens, in localities requiring more wattr for irrigation and in which there should he unclaimed streams that could be made to supply this need. The ait provided further that after the organization of s-iuh a district the citizens of the district might organize an irrigation company to locate and construct canals and assume management and control of the irrigation works of the district, for such purpose being empowered to levy and collect taxes assessed against all the property in the district, or only tin lands to be benefited. The act required that the board of trustees of the company should make annual reports of the progress and condition of the company to the county court. (Compiled Laws of Utah, 1-K76, Chap. Ill, sees. 505-528.) |
Source |
Original book: Utah exhibits [of the] State of Arizona, complainant, v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego, defendants, United States of America and State of Nevada, interveners, State of New Mexico and State of Utah, parties |