OCR Text |
Show 83 Deseret v Hoopiania of March 1925, the Utah Supreme Court upheld the law which required water applications to be filed with the State Engineer's Office. 32 Further, it specified that the application process was the only way to secure a right to use water within the state. This ruling firmly cemented the role of the state in the administrative and regulatory arena of water management After the late 1920s, the State Engineer's Office was no longer called upon to design storage reservoirs and canals for other state agencies. Although the Office of the State Engineer participated in the planning and design of projects with the Bureau of Reclamation, it was not responsible for the final design nor for approving the structures involved. Only in the area of flood control did the design duties of the office expand. During the late 1920s, the office designed flood control structures for the Board of Land Commissioners; and after 1937, for the Utah State Soil Conservation Committee as well. The Office of the State Engineer ( along with the Utah Water Storage Commission) also worked with the Bureau of Reclamation and surrounding states to design the projects utilizing Colorado River Basin water. Necessary to these types of projects was the determination between the neighboring states and the federal government of the ownership and rights to the waters of the Colorado River. In 1921 Utah's governor appointed State Engineer R. C. Caldwell to represent Utah in the Colorado River Compact negotiations. ( The United States, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming ratified the compact in 1922. Arizona did not ratify the compact until 1944.) Summary: State Offices, Activities, and Policies After the first three decades of statehood, Utah's legislators and water management officials had concluded that the state should encourage water development, land reclamation, and related economic growth by seeking federal dollars for specific projects that would enhance the efficiency of water use throughout the state. At the same time, the use of state funds for private efforts was severely restricted. After 1921 the state concentrated its efforts towards expanding its role in the joint federal/ state/ private development process, refining the institutions with which water users could organize to solve their problems, and funding some private initiatives. Working with the federal government on jointly- planned projects was the preferred developmental role. But for a few years the state continued to fund private companies and individual farmers with loans from the reservoir land grant fund. State water management officials spent much of their time completing and administering projects and programs that had been implemented or started earlier. As described in Chapter 6, the state was unfortunately forced to continue work on the Piute Project until 1937, because of legal obligations, and also on the Hatchtown Project after repossessing project assets. The Utah Water Storage Commission and the Office of the State Engineer, however, did not let new water development lag during this time period. The Utah Water Storage Commission worked to increase Utah's share of federally sponsored and designed reclamation projects. To a significant degree, the Bureau of Reclamation projects of the period were the result of this continued effort to develop the state's water resources. The State Engineer's Office worked on 32The Utah Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law which specified that the Office of the State Engineer could grant water rights; further it held that the only way to receive a water right was through the office. Deseret v Hoopiania, 66 Utah 25,239 Pac. 479( 1925). Cited in State of Utah, " Fifteenth Biennial Report of the State Engineer to the Governor of the State of Utah for the Years 1925 and 1926," Public Documents. Also, State of Utah, Digest of Water Law, Volume 1 ( Salt Lake City, Utah: Office of the State Engineer, 1948), pp 59- 61. |