| OCR Text |
Show materially increasing the river-flow wibh good ,. clear water This , of course th ey were 1· the low water oSlng during season of the dry weather: f they when so much needed it. The Darn of 1881 In the minutes of 1880, a read:-- we hrl.lding "The of St. Joseph United Order Meeting held Dec. 27, a Dam where a Dam was put in 1876 was de clded It seems that we do not have upon a month previous by the Company. the minutes of the meeting held a month earlier- but the matter was discussed in the neet.Lng of Dec. 27 ' 1880. was decided No at th1s meetlng; but it was re-convened 2 days later· and ction .. IfBroter about ha vi.ng have S.. G. Ladd brought up the subject of Bro. Ladd t s idea of 'sluesway'." a been other than th a Dam; and spoke sluiceway could passage-way :or floods around a D with earlier Darns. it, of three men i scusse d to some ext.ert ; and a Th'1S rna tt er was d a conmuttee}.\vas appcd.nt.ed , perhaps for the purpose of getting' "act.Lon" in the matter. hardly not as over had been the a case . . Since there had already been much discussion, may we assume that work began at once on the new structure, because of the need of it for the this Dam, a $6,000.00 structure, It is said that Spring planting? was nearly finished, when a sizeable flood came down the Little Colorado, breaking the Woodruff Dam as it came to it; and then the Dam at St. Joseph. There seems to be little information at hand; but the cost at the wages of that time, it seems would indicate a Per structure. suhstantially built end at exposed insufficiently haps it the sluiceway; and of course it may have not been quite completed and At any rate, it seems to have been washed therefore not ready for a flood. Conference at Sunset, Nov. 26, 1881, Stake the At out b.efore it was used. the misfortune to lose their Dam "had that they Bishop Richards reported their that crop for the present year had been again; but, notwithstanding, and food for clothing were good." very light, their prospects Had they attempted to construct Of what, Dam was the Bishop speaking? and dry" Dam early in the Spring of another after the loss of the "high tethered and bufferred at the was dam near the 18S1? There is little mention, it seems, of the loss of the reasons may other as shown above, mouth of the Leroux Wash in 1880; and, small the of loss than site Dam; and be shown for abandonment of the 1880 since Dam of loss 1878. aside from this, there had been no other major The Dam of 1882 of the St. Joseph United Order Company the meetin have this Dam loss, or Dam losses, as the case may De. 5, l881---after a small River the by "taking the water out of been---was to consider the members of the Company of number a After the stream. Dam motioned that we have a had spoken on the matter, Major Samuel G. Ladd because of the nearness 2-ft. Dam; andthe new ditch-system necessitated with tut 1/3 of the 'fall' of the of the new Dam to the town , be surveyed This motion was carr eel the ditch used the previous year. a failure for that the c:op Nov. 26, !S82. the Bishop reported had suffloent money on hand for and year. They had raised some corn; r year". The water had the purchase of bread for anot.he t he vward 1882---the The objective of :'tappingll . • wheat. the new was 96, ditch-system May 11, with 14 quired; and 15, 1882. perhRpsotlrnall amount ve Spring b-ecause of the excessi families, li t t1e Lat,e in the en tuned .into reporteaRtrshlop of. Nov. gran was of work a re ett much trouble with tht nearly-evel they may ha ve had lots course. along and breaklng much ponding, sinking, ditch-systewith |
