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

page 238

238 IKRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN UTAH. directorate of the district, certain actions of the directors were considered arbitrary and their legality questioned. Unfortunately for the peace of the communities, some person removed from the record book of the district a number of pages covering the actions of the board from February 17, 1878, to June 15, 1S7!>. and also from March IV*, 1883, to June 8, 1883. The discovery of this fact still further aggravated tin* trouble, and when, on December 27, 1898, stockholders representing 675 shares in the district voted a tax of 15 cents per share on all shares in the district, ordering that if the tax was not paid by April 15, lsi»9, the delinquent shares be advertised and sold, the upper settlers concluded that resistance was their onl}r course. It was decided in Pine Valley and (lunlock that the directors had no authority to levy a tax, and that as a tax it would not be paid. The settlers in Gunloek and Pine Valley were willing to bear their share of the district expenses but they split hairs over the word tax. March 25, 18W, at the meeting of the directors following that at which the delinquent shares were ordered sold, an attempt was made to disapprove the, minutes of the former meeting, the division again being squarely between the representatives of the upper and the lower settlements. The drift of affairs being apparent, the sale of shares on which the tax was delinquent was postponed one month to give time for a friendly injunction suit to test the legality of the district organization. A committee of attorneys was appointed to examine the record* and consult authorities. The report of the committee was to the effect that the district organization was fatally defective in that it did not give the names of the original stockholders of the district, and because the records did not show that the district had been extended so as to include the entire stream. Thereupon the sale of shares on which the tax was delinquent was postponed indefinitely. Although the records of the county court and of the district were not sufficiently complete to stand a test of law, they were sufficiently complete to show conclusively that the district had been extended. The ordering of the extension by the county court on October 2, 1878, may not have been disclosed by the search of the attorneys, but it was, nevertheless, on the books as it is to-day," and also on the books of the clerk and historian of the Mormon Church at St. George. Annual reports of the district required by the law authorizing irrigation districts'' were tiled with the county court and accepted December 31, 1N7^>; May 1, 1880; December 5. 1881, and March 5, 1883, but, with the exception of the report for December 31. 1879, they are missing from the county tiles. No mention is made of the reports for the other years. The unbusinesslike manner in which the records were kept was therefore good ground for doubting the legality of the district. After the report of the attorneys was received, opinion was divided as to whether the district should be dissolved Or its organization perfected. After a year of discussion it was allowed to lapse, the last meeting of the directors being held December 15, 1900. With the dissolution of the Santa Clara irrigation district the problem of controlling the water of Santa Clara Creek was at the same stage as when the church authorities were petitioned for a settlement, on October 3, 1875, with the exception that new complications had arisen through the gradual extension of the irrigated "Book B, Minutes of the Court of Washington County, Utah. &See note, page 236.