OCR Text |
Show 42 politicians referred to the dilemma again and again. Typical was Governor Heber M. Wells' comment in his 1903 report to the legislature in which he urged Utah's lawmakers to adopt a system of water law which would again place Utah in the position of leadership with respect to the water- rights issues. It was widely recognized, the governor declared: 2 ... that the reputation our people enjoy as pioneers in the use of water for irrigation is not at present equalled by the adequacy and consistency of our laws upon the subject... Of first importance is probably the definition of existing water rights. .. The governor also noted that the state should take advantage of the federal government's offer to help in the reclamation effort. In 1894 the Utah Constitutional Convention began the work of drafting policies by which the new state could govern water. The convention brought together delegates with a diversity of experience and opinions regarding water resources. Some were dissatisfied with the 1880 system and felt that the water question should be settled at the convention. Others felt that water issues should be dealt with by the legislature after statehood was achieved. In addition to these differences, there were three distinct opinions regarding the basic issue of water ownership. The first view was that water belonged to the state. Individuals following this view proposed that the foundation for a system of water rights similar to Wyoming's be included in the state constitution. Delegates of this persuasion brought letters from Wyoming's governor and state engineer explaining the system and expressing support for state ownership and administration of water. The second view was that the federal government owned the water resources and that no provision should be included in the constitution regarding water rights. The rationale was that any rights that currently existed would not be changed by statehood and trying to assert other rights might make the document unacceptable to the federal government. The third view was one that grew out of Utah's 1880 water law. Delegates supporting this point of view felt that water resources were the personal property of individuals and that if any clause was included in the constitution it should declare the water itself to be the property of those who had appropriated it. 3 In the end, the view of letting the future legislature deal with the major issues was adopted. An article was included in the constitution that said any existing rights to the use of water were recognized, but it remained silent on the issue of ownership. Article XVII reads as follows: 4 All existing rights to the use of any of the waters in this State for any useful or beneficial purpose, are hereby recognized and confirmed. 2Heber M. Wells, " Executive Message of the Governor of Utah to the Legislature of the State of Utah" Public Documents ( Salt Lake City, Utah: Skelton Publishing Company, 1905), pp 10- 12. Date of address January 13,1903. The Public Documents series contains all of the annual and biennial reports of the commissions, committees, offices, and boards which the state's legislatures established to administer water in Utah. Hereafter the name of the report will be stated in quotation marks followed by Public Documents followed by the appropriate page number/ s. 3The foregoing paragraph is the author's short summary of the records of debate and motions which are included in the State of Utah, Official Report of the Proceedings and Debate of the Convention Assembled at Salt Lake City on the Fourth Day of March, 1895 to Adopt a Constitution for the State of Utah ( Salt Lake City, Utah: Star Printing Company, 1898), Volumes I and E, pp 156, 163, 202, 217- 218, 226, 244, 272, 299- 300, 339, 578, 623, 669- 700, 711, 1202- 1218, 1232, 1524, 1685, 1795, 1800, 1878. ^ Constitution of the State of Utah, Article XVH, Section 1. |