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 244

244 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN UTAH. water in the same gulch northwest of Middleton, amounting to 1 cubic foot per second, to be used for irrigating 20 acres; and Sheridan Andrus and Henry Schlappy, jr., claim, on August 9, 1897, the water to be obtained by tunneling three-fourths of a mile northwesterly from Middleton, amounting to 2 cubic feet per second, to be used for irrigating 20 acres. In Washington the control has been vested in the city council since the city was incorporated February 18, 1870, section 10 of the incorporating act containing the provision that "the city council shall * * * have control of the water and water courses leading to the city, provided that .such control shall not be exercised to the injury of any rights already acquired by actual settlers thereon.'' Mill Creek, which furnishes water to the fields below town, is not under the control of the city, but instead, is under the control of the Mill Creek Water Coinpam'. Although this company is loosely organized, the interests are so small as to have caused but little friction. HARRISBURG AND LEEDS. The water of Quail Creek, on which Harris burg and Leeds are located has been used extensively for mining operations at Silver Reef, as well as for irrigation at Harrisburg and Leeds. An effort has therefore been made to keep title to the water clear, and although it has never been in court, nearly all transfers made have been recorded. June 26, 1873, the users from Quail Creek agreed to have all rights determined by a board of arbitration, and on March 4,1874, the decision of the board of arbitration wan rendered. Among the provisions of this decision were the following: (1) When all the water of Quail Creek shall measure 120 inches or less, in the head gates, at the jM)int of division of water between Harrisburg and Leeds, the primary claims, consisting of 162 acres, shall draw 07.5 per cent, and the secondary claims, consisting of 118.75 acres, shall draw 32.5 jkt cent of the water in said creek. (2) When alt the water of said creek shall measure from 120 to 150 inches, the primary and secondary claims shall draw equal shares of water per acre. (."*) All water in said creek over 150 inches shall be deemed surplus, and shall be equally divided by the water master* to nil claims of water included in the several classes of claims as hereinafter set forth, according to the acreage of said claims. (4) All sales of water rights hereafter shall be made by transfer and record. This (Incision was satisfactory to those concerned and has been the basis for all titles since then. During the past few years there has been some disagreement over* the title to the water for 18.5 acres at one time owned by the Christ}7 Mining Company, duo to a failure to record certain transactions. Although some rights at Hiirrishurg and Leeds are nominally priniar}- and some secondary, all have l>een treated alike in distribution for some time, although assessed differently for ditch maintenance. CLAIMS TO WATER FROM Ql'AIL CREEK. A number of claims to the water of Quail Creek and its tributary springs have hecn tiled fW)ni time to time with the clerk of Washington County, of which the following is a summary: May 8, 1890, Thomas I', (iillespie claimed all the water between the head of Leeds Ditch and a point in Quail Creek 4,000 feet in a northwestly direction, for mining and milling.