History of Water Resources Development in the Bear River Basin of Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming

              Utah State University
DigitalCommons@USU
All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies, School of
5-1-1973
A History of Water Resources Development in the
Bear River Basin of Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming
R. Scot Wrenn
Utah State University
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate
Studies, School of at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for
inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized
administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please
contact digitalcommons@usu.edu.
Recommended Citation
Wrenn, R. Scot, "A History of Water Resources Development in the Bear River Basin of Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming" (1973). All
Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 324.
htp://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/324
A '-lISTC'R"" 0'" WATET{ PESotJPCES Dto:VEIDPMENT IN THE
EEAF' RIVER at\"TN 0'" TJTAH, IDAHO, AND WYOl'ING
by
R. Scott Wrenn
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
of
MASTrn OF SC IENCE
in
History
UTAH STATE UN!VERSrrY
logan, Utah
1973
TABLE Oli' CONTENl'S
Page
LIST OF T A I)IES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • v
LIST 0"14' 7T~URES • • • • • • • vi
ABSTRACT • • • • • vii
Chapter
I. INTRODUO T ION • • • • • • • • • • • 1
II. ~EOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION TO
THE BEAR RIVF.R VALIEY · • • • • 6
Geologic Bistory of Bear Lake Basin • • 6
The 'lear River · • • • • • • 6
Land and Hater UtUization in
the Pear River ~asin • • • • • • 9
Demographic l4'eatures of
the Bear River Pasin • • • 15
III. SETTIEMENT Ol4' THE BEAR RIVER VALLEY AND
PIONEER IRPIGA'l'I'1N PATTERNS • • • • 21
Momon Settlement Patterns • • • • • • 21
tJemonstration of the Honnon Early
Settlement in the Bear River Basin • • 24
Mormon Land Tenure System and
Division of Water • • • • • • • 33
Continuing Settlement in
the Bear River Basin • • • • • 35
Later Settlement in
the Bear River Basin • • • • 39
IV. CHAllllID TIMES • • • • • • • • • • • h3
Large Scale 1tlater Pesources Deve10pnent
in the Rear River Valley • • • • • • 43
The Irrigation District Laws of Utah • • 44
Idaho Irrigation Legislation • • 50
~edera1 Irrigation Legislation • • • • 52
V. THE BEAR RIVER CANAL • • • • • • 62
The 0entile EConomic Challenge at
Corinne • • • • • • • • 62
Origins of the Bear River Canal • • • 63
TABIE Ot" CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Construction of the Rear River Canal • • • 66
The Utah-Idaho Sugar Company and
the Bear ~iver Canal • • • • • • • 68
Utah Power and Light and
the Bear River Canal • • • • 69
Political Aspects of the Bear River Canal • 70
VI. P"SAR RmF WIDER THE UTAH POVlER AND
LIGHT CO "PANY • • • • • • • • 75
Purchase of Hear River i-later Rights
by Utah Power and Light Company · • • • 75
Public Reaction to Utah Power and
Light in the Bear uiver Basin • • • 79
water Rights Problems • • • 81
Conflict Over Bear Lake • • • • • • 86
The Bear River Compact • • • • • 93
VII. Br;'..AR RIVER AND THE UNITED STATES
BUREAU O~ RECLAMATION • • • • • 96
Early Bureau Activities in
the Bear River Basin • • • 96
Newton Dam Project • • • • • • • 98
The Preston Bench Project • • • • • • • 100
~eclamation ~ureau Plans for
the uear River Pasin • • 101
Later Bureau of Reclamation Plans • • 103
atreau Plans in the Pear River
Compact Period • • • • • • • • 105
Oneida Division Plans Opposed • 107
Proposed AlternativeA to the
Oneida Division Plan • • • 112
VIII . CONCLUSION • • • • • • • 117
PIBLIOGPAPHICAL ESSAY • • • • • • 121
VITA • • • • • • • 128
LIST OF TABIES
Table Page
1. Arah1e land use • • • • • • • • • 10
2. wrp'er irrigation systems--Bear River Basin • 12
3. Cron distributi~n on irrigated acreage • • • 11
h. Exist ing hydroelectric plants • • • • • • 15
s. Pumped wells • • • • • • • • • • 16
LIST OF FIGURES
'!t'igure
1. General map of the Bear River-, Basin
2. Pattern of settlement in the Bear River Basin
Page
5
25
A::lSTRACT
A History of Hater qesourees DeveloPlTlent in the
Bear "tiver Basin of Utah, Idaho, and t,Tyoming
by
R. Scott t-1renn, Master of Science
Utah State University, 1913
Major Pro -res sor: Dr. Willi&li P'. lJe
Department: History
'T'his paper examines the historical process of water resources
development in the ~ar ~jver Basin and is based on the thesis that the
attitudes of Bear niver water users towards development reduce to a
concern ~ver the scarcity or , .. ater or the potential shortage of' water.
This concern has been a constant and primary focus of water resources
development in the Bear River 9asin even as water resources technology
became increasingly more sophisticated and the legal and political
consideration of water resource development became more complex. ~~m
the time of the original Y-ormon settlements in the Bear River ?asin,
water resource development in the basin has gone through several
periods, each marked bv the necessity for larger aggregations of capital
and increased technical skill. Each or these developments has been
met with rlistrust nntil the developer wa~ able to c':mvince the water
users of his concern for an adequate water supply for basin water
users.
(134 pages)
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCT ION
The Bear River Basin, or Bear River Valley, provides an ideal
opportunity to trace the evolution of one example of water resources
development in the semi-arid west from its beginnings to the present
day. Irrigation has been a prominent feature of settlement in most
of the semi-arid parts of the United States. Profitable a~riculture
can often be carried on in these regions only through the use of
irrl~ation, and the introduction ~f irrigation water to lands pre­viously
dry-farmed results in dramatic increases in production. Two
characteristics of semi-arid regions that make water resources devel­opment
such a critieal part of life in those areas are the scarcity
of water and the seasonal nature of its availability.
The P~ar River Rasin differs from other semi-arid regions in
that it was settled by a homogeneous group of pioneers, eolonizers
branching out from the Mormon center of Salt Lake CUy. This fact
gave early water resources development in the basin a distinctly
Mormon character quite different from the patterns to be seen in
other semi-arid regions. The first period is, then, the Mormon
period. Hormon infiuence shaped every aspect of water resources
development. Church leaders were also the leaders in civic affairs
and the Church acted as referee between disputants in the absence of
courts. The style and organization of irrigation systems followed
principles established in the Salt Lake Valley. Pioneer water
resources development in the Bear River Basin was carried out in
almost total isolation from the rest of the United States and the
federal government.
Characteristics of this period were cooperative development
under the direction of the Mormon church, a low level of capital
investment, a low level of irrigation technology, and the use of
tributaries of the Rear rather than the main stream for irrigation
diversions.
Federal surveys were made of the Bear River Basin in the l870s, and
the first major inroads into the prevailing Monnon &yst_ were made
as the Monnon system of land tenure was adapted to fit the require­ments
of the federal land laws. The transcontinental railroad
2
passed through the basin in this same period. The last Mormon settle­ments
in the basin were being made about this t~. These things
were the introduction to the transition period in the history of
Bear River water resources develoPlftent, a period that was to last from
about 1e80 to 1920.
A great many things happened in this period of forty years to
change the face of the Bear River Basin. It beeame important for the
first time that the Bear River Basin was part of three territories,
Utah, Idaho, and W,yoming. The alluvial bottom land had been appro­priated,
and the irrigation of new land required more sophisticated
construction techniques and the investment of larger amounts of eap­ita1.
New federal laws were passed to encourage the settlement
and reclamation of semi-arid lands, while state legislatures passed
laws re~ulating and formalizing the system of water rights and
aporopriations, and establishing regulations for the organization of
canal companies and irrigation distriets. Attempts were made to make
3
a business out of the construction of a canal systems in the basin,
and while they were generally financial failures they were a great
benefit to the basin. One of these precipitated the first Bear River
water crisis .as well. One result of the Bear River Canal was to bring
non-Mormon settlers into the basin in substantial numbers.
Characteristics of water resources development in this period were
higher levels of technical sophistication, the beginning of storage of
water for irrigation, the use of the main stream of the Bear for
irri~ation diversions, higher levels of capital investment, the
introduction of large corporations to the basin, and the formulation
of legal principles to guide development.
By the end of the second period the largest systems to be built
in the basin had been constructed and the systems in use were numerous
as at present. The third period in the history of Bear River water
resources development extends to the present and may be termed the
corporate period.
In 1912 the Utah Power and Light Company(~L) gained control of
the Bear Lake reservoir system and the hydroelectric rights of the
Utah-Idaho Sugar Company, givi~ them virtual control of the Bear River
below Bear Lake. Water crises due to droughts in 1919 and in 1934-
35 in which the company was involved pointed out the interstate
difficulties of water resources development in the basin. The
Dietrich and Kimball decrees, resulting from cases in which UP&L was
involved, adjudicated water rights on the Bear River below Bear Lake.
The apportionment of water released by the power company to end the
droughts of 1934-35 led to the idea of an interstate agency for
control of the Bear River.
4
Characteristic of this period of developaent was the use of
sophisticated techniques to aske a given aaount of water benefit aore
acreage. Other characteristics were the stabilization and entrenchaent
of established irrigation systeas and the abeence of new construction
in the basin.
Currently the Bear River Basin is entering another period of
transition. Multi-purpose developaent of the Bear River has been
proposed by the United States Bureau of Reclaaation, but strong
opposition to the plan aakes it increasingly aore likely that the
Bureau's proposed project will never be built. Interstate rivalry over
water between Idaho and Utah has reached a hi&h level of intensity.
The newest developaent in water resources developaent in the area
is the question of the pollution of Bear Lake. Ecological considerationf
seea likely to becoae extreaely iaportant in the deteraination of the
shape of future developaents in the basin.
The process of water resources developaent is an ongoing exaaple
of the creation and subsequent aodification of social institutions,
while at the saae tiae indicating that soae old attitudes towards
water have survived fro. the period of pioneer developaent psycholog­ically
strong, although set in a new theoretic and seaantic fraaework.
The history of water resources developaent in the Bear River Basin is
a study in historical process and developaent. The thesis of this paper
is that while the technology of water resources developaent has changed
radically in the Bear River Basin since pioneer days and the political
and legal aspects of water resource developaent have becoae far aore
complex, attitudes of Bear River Basin water users reduce to an abiding
concern over the scarcity of water or the potential of future shortages.
1
~
"'
.1
,j
I
\
\
";
1
,
"
1 BOX ELDER
: COtJN1Y
~ TremQ
~ ' j
I
~
'~
rt
II:WiO
BASfN
WEBER COUNTY
'Figure 1. General Map ot the Bear River Basin.
WYOMING
5
~ I.
!",
I'
".~
II
CHAPl'ER II
A GEOGRAPHIC INTRODUCTION TO THE BEAR RIVER VALLEY
Geologic History of Bear Lake Basin
The major water resources divisions of the Bear Lake Basin Rre the
main stTParn of the Rear Rivor, Bear Lake, and the rrumerous tributary
streams flowing into the Bear River. The million-year-old Bear Fiver
r~nge of mountains also has contributed to the geologic history of
Bear ~ivnr. The geologic evidence of water level marks in the hills
along the Bear River in vlyoming and Idaho indicate that Bear lake is
the lone survivor of a chain of lakes co-existing with ancient Lake
Bonneville. The Rear River Basin was involved in a series of ~eologic
movements that drained bays of rAke Bonneville, such as the Cache
Valley, through the action of flowing water which cut gorges between
the valleys to drain them while carrying down sedtments to fill the
lake basins. Bear Lake alone was saved through the intervention of a
low ridgp separating it from the Bear River.1
The Bear Piver
The near River has an interesting geologic history in its own
right too. The course of the river and the structure of the mountains
suggest that the Bear ° iver at one ti.me nowed into Idaho IS Snake River.
1 lTnited Statef: Deoart,ment.
Ralph F. 1tJoo11p.y, Water Powers
Supply Paper $11 (~lashington:
17-19.
of the Interior, U.S. r~olop.ic a l ~urvey,
of the Great Salt Lake Basin, Water
r~vernrnent Printing Orfice, l~op.
Later a su~den surge of activity lifted mountains that delected the
river into its pres ent route opening into the Great Salt Lake.2
7
"Mte Rear River Basin of recent geologic tiJlle includes 7,100 square
miles (4,544,000 acree) of land; these include 2,700 square miles ' in
Idaho, 2,910 in Utah, and 1,490 in W,Yoming. In its course through
these three states the Bear crosses etate boundaries five times. In
this respect the Bear, the largest river in the western hemisphere
that does not flow into an ocean, follows the pattern of most of the
major agricultural rivers ot the west. The river is shaped on the
lines of an elongated -0-, so that while it is about 500 miles long,
its mouth at the Bear River Bay of Great Salt Lake is only about 90
miles from its source in the Uinta mountains of northeastern Utah.3
Had the difficulties of interstate jurisdiction over water
been anticipated by drawing state boundaries along the lines of drain­age
basins, the transfer ot 500 square miles to any of the three states
sharing in the Bear River would have put the entire river in one state.h
'lbe Bear River nows north from ite source in northeast Utah into
the southwest corner of Wyoming, where the river turns west to re-enter
Utah. FrOM the point of re-entry into utah the river turns back upon
itself to enter WYoming a second ttme. The Bear then enters Idaho
near Montpelier, nows north to near Soda Springs, then turns abruptly
in a southwEH!Jterly direction to eventually re-enter utah and run to
its outlet into the Salt Lake.5
2 .!2!.a.
3~.
4 -Ibid.
5~.
8
The headwaters of the Bear are in the north slopes of the Uintas,
and the main stream is formed by the junction of several small streams
at the base of these mountains. More than fifty tributaries enter the
Bear, with most of these draining only a small area. With the excep-ti~
n of rour spring-fed creeks, the Swan, Soda, Whiskey, and Mink
Creeks, the water supply is almost wholly dependent upon precipitation.
The re sult is a jagged stream flow. Flooding i8 common alonp the Bear
in spring and shortages usual in the late summer and fall.6
Data collected by the United States Geological Survey shows that
waters originating in the state of Utah contribute 46 percent of the
total water making up the flow of the Bear River. The contribution of
waters rising in Idaho is about 36 percent of the total, while Wyoming
waters contribute about ltl percent of the flow of the Bear River.
Similar statistics compiled by the United States Bureau of Reclamation
and the Utah Water Board are 1n close agreement.7
Twenty miles into its course, at about the WYoming border, the Bear
enters the first of six valleys that make up most of the remainder of
its course. Narrow gorges separate the valleys and provide sites for
the hydroelectric power plants of the Utah Power and Light Company.8
6 Ibid.
7 United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation
(table obtained from the Logan office of the Bureau of Reclamation;
compiled as part of a preliminary survey, September 1968).
8 Tlnited States Department of the Interior, Hureau of Reclamation
"Pear River Project, Proposed Report of Regional Director" (Region Four,
Salt Lake City; July, 1962), p. 1.
9
The six valleys are the Upper Rear River Valley, Bear lake Valley,
Gem Valley, r~ntile Valley, Cache Va lley, and r.reat Salt Lake Valley.9
The south end of Bear Lake Valley contains Pear Lake, wh tch is
about twenty miles long and averD~ es about seven miles tn width. Mud
Lake, at the north end of gear Lake, is about three miles in diameter.
The Bear River does not naturally flow into the two lakes, but in 1902
connecti~ inlet and outlet canals were built. In 19lh the Lifton
pumping plant was constructed on the north side of Bear Lake to pump
into the outlet canal. The Rear Lake developments are operated by
Utah Power and Light to store water for electrical power production.
The company has complete ontrol of nomal upper J1ear River flows
reaching ~ear Lake. IO
Land and Water Utilization in the Bear River Basin
Only ahout 21 percent of the land area of the Bear River Basin has
been inventoried in the J1ureau of Reclamation classification system, as
arahle; that is, it has sufficient potential payment capacity to war-rant
consideration for irrigation development. All of the arahle land
and much of that classified as nonarable is now used for agriculture.11
The fol1owi~ Bureau of Reclamation table I shows the current land use
of acreage defined as arable if water were available.
9 Ibid.
10 Thiri.
1 Unj t ed ~ tates Department of the Interior, Pureau of ~eclamation,
"Fear R.iver Investigation, Status Report, June, 1910" (Pegion h, Salt
Lake City: 1910), p. 16.
10
Table 1. Arable Land Use12
(in acres)
state & County Irrigated Dry P'ara Orased Total
utah:
SUnnit 200 ------- 3,800 4,000
Rich 55,600 9,200 54,700 119,500
Cache 85,600 70,900 15,800 172,300
Box Elder 66.200 1£~:~~ 60.400 207,600 134,106 l~:W6
Idaho:
Bear Lake 92,000 48,100 6,700 146,800
Caribou 38,400 30,200 900 69,500
Bannock 1,200 2,600 2,200 6,000
Franklin 54,400 57,100 1,200 112,700
Oneida 24.100 ~~.200 C~1400 261~ 210,100 173,200 ,fioo &31,
Wyoming:
Uintah 36,800 ------- 22,500 . 59,300 Lincoln ~.$OO ~ *.Wo B ,300 ,700 131, 00
Total: 48~.OOO 22Y.OOO 2~01800 1.011.800
About half of the 483,000 irrigated acres in the Bear River Rasin
are watered from the Bear and about halt from its tributaries. About
400 irrigation syatems owned by organizations and individuals operate
in this area, the s8Jlle m1l1lber as sixty years ago. 'lbese systems
include three tbreau or Reclamation projects: the Preston Bench
project, the Hyrum Dam project, and the Newton Dam project. The larg­est
irri~ation system is that operated by the Utah-Idaho Sugar CompanT.
Their west Side and Hammond Canals, diverted from near the top ot Cutler
!aft, serve about 65,000 acres. Their canals receive natural now ot
12 .!E.!!!., p. 27.
11
Bear Piver and substantial amounts of Bear Lake water delivered under
contract from the Utah Power and Light Company. A fev smaller system!!
have also contracted with the power company for smaller amounts of
Bear Lake water.13 The Bureau of Reclamation has provided statistics
for the fifteen largest irrigation systems a8 listed on Tabl~ 2.
Several important crops are grown in the Bear River Valley, both
on irrigated and dry farms, but distributed largely on the basis of
altitude. In general the crops requiring the least cultivation are
grown at the highest elevations and those requiring the most at the
lowest. The data on Table 3 comes from the 1964 census of the valley.
Table). Crop Distribution
on Irrigated Acreage14
Crops
Alfalfa
Spring 'Wheat
Winter Wheat
Barley
Silage Corn
Sugar Beets
Potatoes
i'lild Hay
Others
Total
13 ~., p. 34.
14 ~., p. 30.
Pereent
Acres of the whole
98,981 20.5%
15,804 3.3%
12,633 2.6%
44,557 9.2%
9,327 1.9~
18,893 3.9%
3,006 .6%
89,289 18.6%
190.510 39.4%
483,000 100.0%
Table 2. Larger Irrigation Systems--Rear River Basin1,
Area Avg. Annual
Systems Water Source Irrigated Water ~PP1)
(acres) (acre-feet
Uintah County. wyoming
& Rich CountL Utah
Chapman Canal Co. Bear Rive~ b 14,395 12,800
Rich Countla Utah
BQ 'West Side Canal Co. Bear River 5,813 27,000
Crawford Thompson Canal Co. Bear "liver 5,635 19,700
Randolph Sage Creek Canal Co. Bear River 9,380 1),400
Randolph Woodruf'f Canal Co. Bear River 9,5,0 31,300
Bear Lake Countla Idaho
Black Otter & Peg Leg Co. Bear Rlnr 5,872 16,400
West ~ork Irrigation Co. Bear River 5,712 13,600
last Chance Canal Co.
caribou Countll Idaho
Bear RiverC 2h,OOO 95,000
Franklin Countll Idaho
Twin lakes canal Co. Mink CreekC 17.421 34.000
Preston Whitney Irrigation Co. Cub River 5,500 15,900
Franklin County, Idaho &
Cache Countil Utah
Cub River Irrigation Co. CUb & Bear iversd' 29,000 30,000
West Cache Irrigation Co. Bear Riverc e 14,860 38,000
,..,
I\)
Table 2. Continued
Area Avg. Anmlal
Systems ~ater Source Irrigated Water Supply
(acres) (ac~e-feet)
Cache C~unty, utah
Richmond Irrigation Co. Cherry, High, City, 4> Creeks, and wells 10,000 unk~~ '
South Cache Water Users Assn. Little Bear Riverg 6,110 14,000
Box Elder County, Utah
Utah-Idaho Sugar Co. 'B'ear RiverC 65,000 216,000
aStorage provided in offstream Neponset Reservoir.
blncludes 1,155 acres 1n Uintah County, and 1),420 acres in Rich County; water supply shown only tor
Rich Gounty and Uintah County i8 unkown.
cBear Lake water also supplied under contract.
dAbout 1),500 acres and 14,000 acre-feet pertain to li'rank1in County; 15,500 acres and 16,000 acre-teet
to Cache County.
8),)00 acres and 9,000 acre-teet of water pertain to Franklin County; 11,5)0 acres and 29,000 acre-teet
otfwater to Cache County.
Data not available.
gStorage provided in Hyrum Darn.
15 Ibid., p. )6.
fJ
\..01
About 9h percent of the hydroelectlc generating capacity in the
Bear River Basin is provided by the five Bear River plants of the Utah
Power and Light Company(~L). The company also operates three small
plants on tributaries. Five small municipal plants and one run by Utah
State University make up the remainder of the power plants. About
3hl,900,OOO kilowatt hours are generated annually. The Oneida, Paris
Creek, and Logan plants of the UP&L and the Hyrum City plant held
federal licenses that expired June 30, 1910, and the UP&L's Soda
plant holds a license good until July h, 1973. Applications have been
made for licenses for the Grace, Cove and Cutler pover plants.16 The
Bureau of Reclamation Table h shows existing Bear River power plants
and their capacities.
Until 1932 the UP&L Oompany _de year-round drafts on Bear Lake for
power as well as seasonal releases for irrigation. These drafts,
coupled with a prolonged drought, resulted in a lowering of the level
of the lake during the 1930's. Since then the company has changed its
policy with the purpose of refilling the lake. Large releases are nov
generally made only during the irrigation season. This reduced the
production of the UP&L power plante on the Bear River to the degree
that they are oov chiefly supplied trom f'u.el-electrtc plants. In 1950
Bear Lake reached full stage for the first time since 1923. Since then
the Lake has been maintained at generally high levels.17
Domestic and stock water 1n the Bear River Basin comes generally
from spring or veIl-fed municipal systems. Summer stock water comes
16 ~., p. 37.
17 ~., pp. 37-38.
Table u.
Plant Name
18 Existing Hydroelectric Power Plants
Static
Stream Owner Head
15
Installed
Capacity
(t'eet) (kilowatts )
Soda Bear River UP&La 79 14,000
Grace Bear River UP&L 526 uu,OOO
Cove Bear River UP&L 98 7,500
Oneida Bear River UP&L 143 30,000
Cutler Bear River UP&L 127 30,000
Swan Creek Swan Creek UP&L l20 300
Paris Creek Paris Creek UP&L 3u6 650
u,gan Logan River UP&L 21.3 2,000
logan (State) logan River Utah State U. 30 450
u,gan City I.ogan River logan City 99 1,uOO
Soda Springs I Soda Creek Soda Springs 50 120
Soda Springs II Soda Creek Soda Springs 20 50
Soda Springs III Soda Creek Soda Springs 84 400
Hyrum City Placksmith l4'ork Hyrum City 76 400
Total 131,270
a Utah Power aM Light Company
chiefly from irrigation canals. Most municipal systems depend upon
springs, although some fall back on wells during seasons of heavy use.
There are I'X) shortage::; of municipal water 1n the Bas1n.19
As Table 5 demonstrates, wells are used in large numbers through-out
the Bear River Basin and for a variety of purposes.
Demographic 'eatures of the Bear River Basin
Although the Bear River Basin includes parts of eleven counties 1n
three states, only seven counties in Idaho and Utah are currently
18 ~., p. 37.
19 1£1g., pp. 38-19.
16
Table 5. Pumped ,.118 20
Domestic &
Valley Irr. Livestock Municipal Industry !"loving a Total
Upper Bear Rt
Wyoming 32 51 5 0 0 88
Utah L 231 2 1 0 238
Idaho 8 6 0 0 0 14
Bear Lake:
Utah 21.! 323 2 1 0 350
Idaho 22 55 3 1 0 81
Gem & Gentile:
Idahob 19 92 2 l4 0 127
Cache:
Idaho I.! 8 0 I.! 2 275 329
Utah 20 0 17 8 1,526 1,571
lower Bear R:
Utah 105 1,126 17 0 1,253
Malad:
Idaho ...2§. 0 -1 -0 .lm. 357
Total: 338 l,881.! 53 32 2,101 I.!,L08
aUsed partly tor irrigation and partly tor domestic, stock watering
and industrial purposes.
blnc1udes Soda Springs area.
involved in the development of the BBar ~iver. The one furthest up.
stream is Rich County, Utah. Rich County is, with the exception ot
a phosphate processing plant at ~andolph, entirely oentered around an
agrarian economy. There are only tour incorporated towns in the entire
county. The Bear River Compact adjudicated the vater rights for Rich
County and cOMtruction of the vToodrurr Narrows reservoir has added
20 ~.t p. I.!O.
17
certainty to the water supply in this area. Bear le.ke, located partly
in Rich County and partly in Bear Lake County, Idaho, iA a prime
concern of many Rich citizens, who fear the effect of ruther lowering
of the level of Bear Lake.
The entire population of Rich County 18 rural; it is ingrown (only
five people in the county reported being born elsewhere); and it is
very agricultural; in 1970 28.1 percent of the population was clas-sified
rural non-farm. The census showed a total population of only
1,660 people in the c~unty.2l
~ear Lake County, Idaho, located next downstream from Rich County,
shares ~ar Lake with Rich County. It, too, is a primarily agricul­tural
region. Irrigation in the county is chiefly from the trihutaries
of Bear Lake and Bear qiver, and the main crops grown are alfalfa and
pasture grass.
The J970 population of Bear Lake County was 5,801,22 with nearly
all respondents being native to the county. Only 15 percent of the
populatbn was classified as rural farm 1n 1970; but 39.1 percent were
clas sified as rural non-farm, again indicating the need for many farm
21 United States Department of Colll'tlerce, Bureau of the Census,
Census of p0ft:lation: 1970; General Social and Economic Characteris­tics,
i:'inal port PC(l)-C46, Utah (Washington, n.C. s United States
Government Printing Office, 1972), J)a!sill..
22 United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Census of Population: 1970; General Social and Economic Characteris­tics,
li'inal Report, PC(l)-C14, Idaho (Wt.8hington, n.c.s United States
Ooverrunent Printing Office, 1972), paS81a.,"
families to bring in a second income.23 The largest town in this
county is Montpelier with a population or slightly over 3,000 people
in 1970.24
caribou County, Idaho, has a reported 1970 population of 6,534 25
18
and also showed the large8t increase in population of any or the Bear
River Counties. Caribou County is the largest user and water right
holder alon~ the Bear River in Idaho. About 35,000 acres are irrigated
in this county with t1n!> hydroelectric plants located at Grace and Cove. 26
This county shows a more varied economy than either Rich or Bear Lake
oounties. Here 24.4 percent of the population was considered rural
fann in 1970 and 30.7 percent as rural non-farm with many employed in
industrial and construction occupations. fhere were also substantial
numbers of non-native residents living in Oarlbou County.27
The next county i8 Franklin County, Idaho. In 1970 it had a
population ot 7,373,28 a loss of about 1,000 residents from the 1960
report. Preston, the c~unty seat, had a population of over 3,500.
Tl'ranklin reported 33.7 percent as rural farm add 21.4 percent as rural
non-farm.29 Dependence upon irrigation i8 high in the county and most
~~.
24 Ibid.
2'5 ~.
2~ United States Department of the Interior, Bureau ot Reclamation,
water Rights on Bear Lake and Bear River Below Bear Lake (Table obtained
frOm the Logan ottice, Bureau of Reclamation).
27 Bureau of Census, Census of Population: !2.ZQ, Idaho, eassis ..
2e~.
29~.
of the water for irrigation comes from tributaries of the Bear, sup­plemented
with some ~ear °iver water.30
Cache r.ounty, TTtah, is the tT10st pooulous and diversified county
along the near River. Its 1970 population was u? ,331, 31 and it
contains the largest city in the Qear ~iver area, Logan. The n 1ral
farm population was enumerated as 6.0 percent and the rUral non-farm
as 33.3 nercent of the total pooulation of the county. The rest of
the populati~n showed a greater diversity in types of empl~yment than
any other Bear River G~unty)2
19
Box ~der County had a population of 28,129 in 1970. The popula­tion
was 11.9 percent rural farm and n,.6 percent rural non-farn)) A
large part of the farming in the c~unty is dry farming, and the Bear
~ivp~ i8 the source of water for the 50,000 irrigated acres.
Oneida County, Idaho, is involved in the Rear Piver system although
the 1?.aar fUver does not pass t hrough that county. The Malad Piver, a
major trihutary of the Pear and the last to enter it, is the nrincipal
stream in ~neida County. 7h~ county had a 1970 population of 2, 86u3L
and a native population of 66.3 percent.35 The rural farn pooulati~n
was 19.6 nercent and the rural non-farm population totaled 80.2
percent)6
)0 Bureau of lteclamation, i-Jater Rights.
31 ~reau of Census, Census of POEulation: 1970, Utah, ~ssim.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid .
3L~ Pureau of Census, Census ":)f POEulation: 1970, Idaho, Eass1m.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.
As in Box Elder County, Oneida has a large amount of dry taming and
depends on the Malad River to provide water for the irrigation ot
scattered plots.
20
Should the Bureau of Rec1amati~n plan tor the development ot the
Bear Fiver be adopted, an ellb'tb county, l-eber in Utah, would be added
to the Bear River System. Weber County 11es in the Great Basin
ad,jacent to and south of Box Elder County where the Bear River empties
into the Great Salt Lake. It has a far larger population aM a much
di~ferent economio backgrouM than aDf of the counties currently
involved with the Bear River. 'lbe 1970 population of Weber County was
126,090.37 The rural farm population is only 2.5 percent and the rural
non-farm population 1s 10.0 percent although the agricultural income
is larger than that of the other counties.38 Weber County .. s interest
in obtaining water from the Bear differs from that of other counties
which plan to irrigate more acree of agricultural land. In Weber
part of the water is to be used, through an exchange with irrigatol'e'
on the Ogden and weber Rivers, to provide municipal water in larger
quantities to the city ot Ogden and cities 1n Davis County as far south
as Bount ifu1.
37 Bureau of Census, Census of Populations 1970, Utah, passim.
36 ~.
CRAPrER III
SE'M'IEMENT OF THE BEAR RIVER VAUEY
AND PIONEER IRRIGATION PATTERNS
Mormon Settlement Patterne
21
The Mormons dominated the settlement ot the Bear River Valley in
northern Utah and southeastern Idaho as well as in southwestern WYoming,
although the Basin also held the first and largest non-Mormon set-
1ement in Utah at Corinne and marked its northern boundary at Soda
Springs, Idaho, with a colony ot apostate Mormons who had left Utah
under military protection. The Mormons gave the area its distinctive
character and determined its chief economic and social inetitutions.
The cohesive nature of Mormon society showed itself in the remarkable
continuity at patterns of settlement and irrigation. Some practices
dating from the settlement of the Salt Lake Valley persisted througheut
the period ot Mormon expansion and were to be seen in the Bear River
Valley settlements.
The Momons planned to build an agrarian economy in the semi-arid
west, and few groups were ever so well suited to the task they had
chosen. In Brigham Young the Mormons had a leader of tremendoue in-f1uence
and foresight, and their faith in the creation of a western
Zion committed them to a torm of unselfish cooperation that made the
most ot their work. Mormon influence cue to dominate not only Utah
but contiguous areas as well. SettletMnt was directed through the
Church and followed a centralized plan and pattern developed in the
Salt lake Valley.
22
There were several distincU.ve features of Mormon settlement that
are worth noting for their persistence. First, Mormon settlement of
a region followed careful exploration or study of the area to determine
favorable town sites prior to settlement. In Nauvoo the Bear River
valley had been considered as an alternative to the Salt Lake Valley
as a home for the Mormons and was examined by the advance party of
Mormone arrivi~ in the Great Basin in 1847.1 This same pattern of
prior explorati~n is to be seen in the establishment of the settlements
in the Bear River Valley, where new settlements were built on the
foundations of and with the support of the older ones.
A second feature of Mormon colonization was the pattern of central
planning and collective labor. The effectiveness of this pattern in
dealing with the geography and conditions of settlement in Utah were
not lost on the Mormons and confirmed their belief that this system
was divinely inepired.2
Irrigati"n was a well known feature of Mormon settle1'll8nt, and
Mormon leaders, while still in Nauvoo, had studied irrigation techniques
in anticipation of the need for irrigati"n in the ~lt Lake Valley.)
Irripatton became a common denominator of Mormon settlement.
A fourth feature, developed at an early point in the Marmone' Utah
experience and relevant to later settlements as well, was the system of
I Thomas F. 0' Deal. The Mormons (Chicago: The University of' Chicago
Press, 1957), pp. 19~1.
2 IeonardJ. Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom (Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press, 1966), p. 45.
3 !2.!£., p. 41.
23
farm land distribution developed in 1848. Closely related in spirit to
the patterns of collective labor and irrigation, this system called for
a large irrigated field to be divided into five or ten-acre individual
parcels.4
Dame and ditches were constructed on a community basis. FAch man
was required to contribute labor in proportion to the amount of land
he was going to irrigate. Work was done under the purview of the
local ward bishop. This system of nonpecuniary and public ownership
was recognized when Utah was made a territory and placed under the
supervision of the county courts. In 1865, the system was bolstered by
an act of the legislature creating relatively autonomous irrigation
districts.5
It can be demonstrated that factors such as cooperative water
resources development gave strength and premanence to the Mormon
settlements due to the highly erricient manner in which they dealt with
the peculiarities or settlement in a semi-arid regi,n, but another
factor that must be thrown into the balance when attempting to determine
the reasons behind the success of the Mormons in Utah is the zeal and
dedication of the earlv Mormons towards the creation of a literal
representation of their concept of a godly society. This purposeful
faith, while perhaps verging on the fanatic on some occaeions, gave
the Mormon people a unity and a feeling of community rare in the history
of western settlement.
4 ~., pp. 51-52.
5 ~., p. 53.
Demonstration of the Mormon Early Settlement
Pittern in the Bear River Basin
One of the chief things that the Mormons looked for in a town
site was a place where it would be easy to conduct water to the farm
lands. Irrigation systems were among the first priorities in the
24
establishment of a colony and were sometimes built prior to settlement.
Cooperative development was the hallmark of Normon irrigation systems.
FieldS were laid out in common and the work of building the ditches and
laterals was also done in common.
The main thrust of Mormon colonization was ori~inally directed
toward southern Utah, but settlements were made at Ogden and Prigham
City as early as 1848 and 1851, respectively. Brigham City became the
first ,jumping-off point for the development of the Bear River VJlley.
Logan, founded at a slightly later date, became another center of
development for this area.
In general the pattern of settlement in the Bear River Valley was
one of movement to the north. Following an exploration of the site in
1850 ~illiam Davis led a group of settlers to Brigham City in Box Elder
County, Utah, on March 11, 1851, as part of Brigham Young's colonizing
efforts.6 The same year saw a second settlement in Box Elder County.
Willard City, first known as North Willow Creek, was first settled by
6 Andrew Jenson, EncYClr;edic History of the cmazch of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints (Salt ~ke City: Deseret News PUblishing Company,
1941), p. 86; Sons of the Utah Pioneers, Box Elder Lore of the Nine­!
J_e_~'l1!.tLC e'l~~_~ (Brif!ham City: Box Elder News and J ournal. 19~1},
pp. 42-43; Daughters of the utah PioneerS (Lydia Walker '1"orsgren),
History of Box ~lder ~ounty, no more available information (1937),
P. 251.
.'. .'
I
~i
BASIN
I
I'
~ I '
!C
a
25
WYOMING
4
"
TWIn Creek j
~
'LiNCOLN
1S70 1 r.
UINTA
COUNTY •
WEBER COUNTY
Figure 2. Pattern of Settlement in the Bear River Basin.
26
a group that arrived on March 31, 1851. 7 Later, demonstrating the
continuity to be found in the settlement of the Bear River Valley, men
f'rom 1,lillard were amonp.: those colonists called to settle in what is now
near lake r,ounty, Inaho.8
During the year lRS3 two new towns were started in Rox F.1der
County. ~erry was founded in the spring9 and Harper followed later
that year. lO
The first settlement in Cache Valley was Maughan's ~ort, now
known as Wellsville, established in 1856 by Peter Maughan, who had been
there the nrovious sUMmer.ll The settlers built irrigation ditches as
a part of their preparations 'tor the planting of tbe first crops in the
spring of 1857.12
The TTtah War brought a temporary halt to the spread of settlement
in northern Utah, but when the settlers returned to "''ellaville in le59
at the conclusion of t.he war, one of their first projects was the
digging 0 r a canal from the 1 ittle Bear Pi.ver to irrigate a tract of
1,uOO acres known as the ~st Field.13
7 Ibid., p. 269; Jenson, ~ncylopedic Hist0!l:, p. 953.
8 ~orsgren, Historz of Pox Elder, p. 272.
9 .!£li. , p. 273; . Jenson, Enc:lloEedic Historl, p. 651 •
10 ~orsgren, History of Box 3lder, p. 277; Jenson, EnczcloEedic
T_Ustory, p. 317.
11 Joel F..dward P.icks, The Deginnings of Settlement in Cache Valley
(Logan: The Faculty Association, Utah State Agricultural College,
1953), pp. 9-10.
12 Ibid., p. 10
13 Ibid., pp. 31-32.
Peter Maughan, in describing the assets of the Cache Valley in
the Deseret News in the sUlIIJI'Ier of 1859, pointed out that -the water
for irrigation and all kinds of machinery is abundant, in short, it is
the best watered valley I have ever seen in these mountains.14
The end of the Utah war also brought new settlement to the Cache
Valley. Providence, Mendon, and Logan were established in the spring
of 1859.15 Franklin became the first permanent settlement in what is
now Idaho in the summer of 1859.16 The Mormons had established an
earlier sp.ttlement at Lemhi, Idaho, in 1855, but the loss of their
stock to the Indians forced them to abandon the attempt. They had
quickly introduced irrigation to Idaho during their short tenure,
dirginp. a ditch from Potter Creek on the Lemhi River to water their
crops. The canal they built was still in use in 1963.17 Idaho's
27
first town was not placed in that state intentionally since the Mormon
settlers of the ~anklin community thought that the site was within
the Utah boundary.18 Smithfield, Utah, was founded in the autumn of
1859.19
Logan's first irrigation project was the Logan and Hyde Park Canal.
14 Ibid., p.17.
l~ .!£!!!., p.13.
16 Ibid.
17 State of Idaho, Idaho Almanac (~oise: Syms-York Comoany, 1963),
op. 327-328, 396.
18 Prancis Haines, The Story of ldaho (Boises 5yms-York Company,
19«2), o. 125.
19 Ricks, Peginnings of Settlement, p. 13.
28
It was completed May 18, 1860.20 Smithfield irrigated from the waters
of Summit Creek until the Logan-Richmond Canal was bui1t.21 Providence
tapped the waters of Spring Creek at first, but by 1864 they were
forced to import water from Blacksmith Fork which also supplied water
to Mi11vil1e.22 The settlers at Franklin carried on ambitious projects.
Their first canal brought down water from Spring Creek. lAter, High
Creek was tapped, and then the Sanderson Ditch was built to bring
water down from Ox Killer and South Canyons.23
~ther settlement in Cache Valley resulted in the founding of
Hyrum, Millville, Paradise, and Hyde Park in 1860.24 In the spring of
1860 the settlers at Hyrum du~ a canal nine miles long from the Little
Bear River. It·varied in depth from five to eight feet and was laid
out by Ira Allen, who had only a spirit level as a guide. It was
completed in 21 days and utilized the labor of 28 men and boys.25 The
town of Richmond constructed canals from Cherry and High creeks for
irrigation purposes.26
The logan-Richmond Canal was begun in 1865 and reached Hyde Park
by the end of the year. Three years later, E. R. Miles, Sr. and his
father extended the canal to Smithfield. In 1881 the city of Smithfield
20 Ibid. , p. 32.
21 1l?M..
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid. , pp. 32-33.
24 Ibid., p. 18.
2S Ibid.
26 lli1.
granted the Logan-Richmond Canal a right-of-way through Smithfield in
order to water the fields mrth of the town as well as those to the
south. In an enlarged rom, th is canal later became the logan
Northern Irrigation Company.27
29
Water power was utilized in the Cache Valley at an early date fbr
powering machinery. Esais Edwards built the first sawmill in 1859.
By October, 1860, Cache Valley boasted four sawmills. Also built in
1860 was a gristmill on the Little Bear River. Daniel and John Hill
put it up for the people 0 f Wellsville. Soon atter this mills were
also built in Richmond and togan.28
Thomas Tarbet, A. P. Raymond, and Thomas Hill built a shingle mill
at Smithfield in 1863. '1ne next year they added a gristMill to the
plant. James Mack purchased the plant in 1868 and converted it into
the first commercial mill in Cache County.29 A second mill, the
Farmer's Union Mill was built in 1888 as a cooperative project of the
people of Smithfield.30
The settlements in Cache Valley were firmly established and devel-oping
a diversified agricultural economy, as shown by the census of
1860. It found 510 families in the valley with a total population of
2,605 persons. Three hundred and twenty-eight men gave their occupation
as farmer, while 208 listed other occupations.31
T7 Ibid., pp. 47-48.
2'8 Ibid., p. 34.
29 Mr. and Mrs. leonard Olsen, 'l'he History of Smithfield (Salt Lake
City: Deseret News Press, 1927), p. 65.
30 ~.
31 Ricks, Beginnings of Settlement, p. 21.
30
Sett1p.ment moved a bit west with the establishment of Honeyville
around lP61. John and Lewis Boothe, the ~irst to settle there, failed
in an nttemrt. to use the water of Cold Spri.ng for irrigati.on since the
level o~ the spring WAS below that of the fie1ds. 32
Bear ;' iver Gity was found~d in 18f>6, but men f'rom BrighaJll City had
begun work on an irri~ation project prior to settlement.)) The Mormon
Chruch was thp- center "f life in the Bear River City community and it
was in priesthood meetings that important financial matters, such as
the butldinf of irripatian ditches, were discussed.1h
A da'" was built across the Malad ~iver at Bear River City in 1866.
Stephen l'T:right and Hilliam Pu1siphf!r surveyed the canal frorfl a point
Where streams from ~~lad, Samaria, and Portage red the river.15
By 1A6A the Malad qiver irri~ ation canal was completed to the main
fields of 'he ~ar River City settlers. The canal had been forced to
follow a wandering route in order to avoid making deep cuts or large
fills. ~ovels, plows, and tongue scrapers were used in building the
canal.)6 The water was distributed through a regular system of ditches
32 ~ars~ren, History of Box Elder, P. 278 •
33 Jenson, Encyclopedic History, p. 50.
)4 Lucinda p. Jensen, H1,tory of Pear River City (Brigham City:
Box t;;'Jder News Journal, 19fi7 , p. 130.
3S k'orsf'ren, History of Box ~nder, pp. 2H8-289.
36 Thin., pp. 57-58.
31
built through the combined ettorts of all the male settlers under the
leadership of the chief local elder, Niels Nielson. The ditches ranged
in length from one to one and one-half miles, with a uniform width of
three feet. 31
The orginal dam on the Malad River required such constant repair
that after two years, during which the dam had more than once given
way entirely, a new dam was built further upstream. The old dam was
sold to the Corinne Milling Company.38
Chrest Christensen built a water-driven molasses mill in Bear
River City. In 1872 a waterwheel was built to power a proposed saw­mill,
hut the work was left incomplete at this state of conStruction.39
As the Malad Valley was settled the stre&m8 supplying Bear River
City were diverted for use there and the Malad water became alkaline
so that the system became wholly unuseable.40
Eighteen sixty-two, the year in which Bear River City was founded,
was significant as well tor the area around Bear Lake. The passage ot
the Homestead Act by the U. S. Congress was the spur that led Brigham
Young to hurry the colonization of this part of Utah and Idaho.
Settlers were sent out frOM towns in the Cache Valley in 1863 to prevent
non-Mormons !"rom gaining possession of the laM around Bear lake.Itl
The first settlement in the Bear Lake Valley was at Paris, the
37 lE.!!!.
38 Ibid. , p. 63.
39 lli2.. , p. 62.
40 Ibid., pp. 2R8-289.
41
Russell R. Rich, Land of the $lex-Blue Water (Provo: Brigham
Young University Press, 1963), pp. 17-19.
current county seat of Bear Lake County, Idaho. 42 Ovid, Liberty,
r'1ontpelier, 'Rloomington, St. Charles, 1<'ish Haven, and Bennington
rounded out the settlements around Bear rAke. These communities all
oame into existence in 1864.43
32
~ontpelier, originally named Clover Creek, was renamed by Brigham
YounP, in honor of the capital of his n'ative state of Vermont.44 The
~ar Lake settlements were established before any government surveys
had he ~ n made in that area and so towns were begun without any cer-tainty
on the part of the settlers as to whether their town sites were
all located in Utah or all in Idaho or if they were divi.ded between the
two territories. '!be settlers wished to be a part of IJtah Territory
and althou~h Brigham Young announced his belief that the settlements
were located in Idaho, they hehaved as residents of Utah. The Idaho
Lerrislature created Oneida County, with Soda Springs as its seat, in
1?64, but the gear Lake settlers refused to recognize the Oneida County
officials or to pay taxes in Idaho. They continued to recognize Utah
as having: authority until the federal survey of 1.871-72 showed that
nearl;T ~O oercent 0 f the settlements and farm lands around l1ear le.ke
were in Ioaho.h5 The northern en-i of the valley than became a part
of Oneida r.ounty, which ha~ by then moved its seat to Malad City.
42 Ibid.
43 Ib.d ~., p. IJ2.
hIJ l<'ederal '.Triter IS Proj ect, Idaho J A Gu ide in \vord and r icture
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1950), P. lli8.
45 Dich, Land of ~y Flue Hater, pp. 130-131.
Accepting their 8ituation with some reluctance, the Mormons showed
their strength by electing representatives from the Bear Lake area
to the nint.h se8sion of the Idaho Territorial Legielature.46
While jurisdicti~nal questions were rai8ed only in the case of
the Eear Lake settlers, thesp, settlements a180 provided e,aaples of
)3
the manner in which the Mormons accommodated themselves to some serious
problems faced b~ almost all of the Mormon settlements due to the
conflict between the Mormon system of land tenure and federal legal
provi8ions for gaining title to land.
Mormon Land Tenure System and nivieion of Water
Securing land title proved t.roublesome in the Mormon cOl'lllllunttles.
Two primary obstacles were at the root of the problem. The first, and
less troublesome, consideration was that settlement had precedp.d any
government survey by a full nine yeare in the Bear lake area. The
second, and thornier, 'col'l8ideration was that posed by differences
between the Mormon system of land tenure and the tenure sY8tem envi­sioned
by the federal government. The Mormon system, while entirely
congruent with the cooperative irrigation 8ystems in use in this area,
was based on a plan in which settlers lived in towns and commuted to
their farm plots. Farming land was divided into ~ive-acre plots near
the settlement, then into ten-and twenty-acre plots further out from
town. ~eadows and hay fields were claimed haparzardly, with the local
Ohureh officials refereeing disputes. In the town8 a surveyor laid out
46 (bid.
a plot of ten-Acre blocks which were then subdivided into family­si~
ed lots. The lots were numbered and assigned to the householders
by lottery.h1
This system was at odds with the pro..,1eloM of federal land law,
and the Mormons responded by devising a scheme to make the necessary
34
adjustments in their system to satisfy the government and secure title
without a rfec"'~. ng actual land use. The federal homestead and pre-emption
laws envisioned a situation in which one man would claim a
plot of 160 acres and occupy tha~ land. In the Mormon system a number
of men would be using this amount of land as parceled out by the Church.
A man was therefore selected from this group to clatm the land and,
as a good ~ormon, was expected to deed to others the portion of his
claim used by them when he received goverment title. Only in a very
few instances did the title holder show a reluctance to share. Town-lots
were secured through a federal law that granted town site deeds
to towns ~stablished on public lands or for proposed towns to be built
on public lands. Incorporated cities applied for town site deeds
through the mayor as the city representatlTe, while 1lnl8corpora~d toas
had to be sponsored by the county judge in order to recei..,e this kind
48 of deed.
Following the government survey of 1871-72 in the Bear Lake Valley,
Church officials urged the Mormons to comply with go..,ernment regulations
in order to gain land title properly. Preemption and homesteading were
explained in priesthood meetings, but the failure of many Mormon
47 Ibid., pp. 89-92.
48- ~.
)S
SE"t tIers to make the requ ired improveme nts-part icularly, dwe 111 ngs­~
n the land caused persistent problems and resulted in a great many
eases being brought to Church councils and bishops tor settlement.h9
Less common in the early days were disputes over the allocation
of water; an unusual case occurred in ~ketown when one man appro-priated
more water than he could use and sold the excess to water-short
neighbors. The intervention of Apostles lfTancis M. Lyman and Marriner
W. Merill was finally required to satisfactorily resolve the issue.SO
Another type of Church intervention was called for in an 188)
Bear ~ke water dispute. The Ovid and Liberty wards were at odds over
the divisi~n ~f the waters of Mill Creek and Liberty Creek. The
bishops of the two wards went to the stake authorities to present their
sides in the ease. The stake president made the decision in the ease,
granting Ovid three-quarters of the stream now to one-quarter for
Liberty, and referred it to his c~uncil, ~ich unanimously sustained
his ruling. Both parties accepted the ruling as binding and the decree
was followed until it was superseded. Sl
Continuing Settlement in the Bear River Basin
In the Bear Lake Valley, as elsewhere along the Bear River, water
power was soon made productive. On May 1, l86S, the f1nJt grist mill
in Paris was put into operation and by the spring ot 1866 a gristmill
had been erected at ~. Charles. Two more mills were built in the
4~ Ibid.
50 ~., p. 93.
51 ~., pp • • 9)-96.
36
valley before the end of 1866.52 July of that year saw the first saw-mil]
in the Bear Lake settlements erected by Nathan David at St.
Charles. In short order two other sawmills were also at work in the
valley.S3
Bi ghteen sixty-four was a prime year for the development of new
settlements in the Bear River Basin, for, in addition to several sites
around Bear Lake, new towns sprang up in several places along the Bear
T,.?l' ver. Tt was in 186h, as a beginning, that John Jones Williams,
8enjamin ann t.lilliam Thomas, Louis Colt, and Henry Peck began farming in
the Malad Valley. 54 The first irrigation project in the valley began
in the same year. 55
At the same tUne, back in Box Elder County, Utah, John C. Dewey
from Call's Wort (Honeyville) was working to establish a new settlement
that became known later as Deweyville in his honor. Deweyville enjoyed
a boom at the turn of the century when it was briefly the shipping
center for the Bear River Valley and because of the building of the
Bothwell and Hammond canals. 56 Wbodrufr, in Rich County, was estab­lished
in 1865, while another small Box Elder hamlet, Beaver Ward, was
first settled in 1867 or IH68. Bear Creek was the source of water for
irrigation at Beaver Ward.57
52 1E.!£., p. 67.
53 Ibid., pp. 67-68.
5l.t HerH D. Beal and Me.rle ~.J . Wells, Historr of Idaho (New York:
Lewis Historical Publishing Company, Inc., 1959), vol. II, p. 120.
55 State of Idaho, Idaho Almanac, p. 397.
56 ~orsgren, History of Rox Elder, pp. 280-281.
57 Ibid., p. 282; Jenson, Encyclopedic HistorY, p. 54.
The first settlers of the Portage cOIIUIIUnity came trom Wellsville
in 1867. They built, in lB72, a twelve-mile canal from Symaria Lake
37
under the lead or Bishop O. C. Hoskins. The canal's greatest depth
was 22 feet and it was built entirely with hand tools.~B Plymouth was
established in 1869 on the north side of the Bear River. An unusual
feature at Plymouth was a reservoir built to run a sawmill.~9
By 1870 the first period of settlement in the Bear River BRsin
was near its end. Randolph and Meadowville were begun in Rich County
in lB10, and in lB1l a group of Preston settlers, led by William H.
Head, organized the Cub River and Worm Creek Canal Company. They built
a fifteen-mile-long canal at a cost of $30,000 which watered 15,000
acres of ground.60
Soda Springs, at the northern boundary or the Bear River Basin,
was the lrtst of the settlements made in the first period. Soda ~ing8
was the site of successive settlements. The town that persisted was
begun by Mormons in 1871, but several attempts had been made, beginning
with ~ne in 1863.
The first settlement at Soda Springs was begun by a group of
apostate Hormons, known as Morristes, who had accompanied a part of
Colonel p. E. Connors force from Utah to a site near Soda Springs where
58 ~., pp. 307-308.
59 !£!£., p. 308.
60 State of Idaho, Idaho Al.u1a~, p,. 391.
the soldiers were to establish a post tor the protection ot overland
travelers. The Morriette settlement, for the obvious reason, was
61
dubbed Morristown by Colonel Connor.
38
Morristown declined rapidly, but a new settlement, called the
-Upper Town- to distinguish it from Morristown (the -lower Town-), was
begun by settlers from the Salt Lake Valley on a site established by
WHliam L. Thurmond. Upper Town became known as Soda Springs.62
Only Thumond held out, however, and strong interest in Soda
Springs be~an to develop only in ltl70 when Brigham Young announced
that he was going to visit the town. local L.D.S. people from Paris
built him a home on the banks of Soda Creek in anticipation of his
visit. This visit by Young led directly to the planting ot a colony
the next year at Soda Sprlngs.63
The first Monnon settlere arrived in the spring of 1871. Except
tor Thumonr!'s cabin, his trading post, and the house built for Brigham
Young, all of the older buildings were gone and the Mormons were left
to build a pennanent town site at Soda Springs. 64
Soda f)pringe marked the far edge of Momon settlement in the Bear
River Basin geographically and chronologically. Other settlements were
yet to be founded in the Bear River Basin, but eeveral new factors were
61 Daughters of the Utah Pioneers (lula Bernard, ?aunda Bybee, and
lola Walker), Tosolba (Salt lBke City: Utah Printil\g Company, 1958),
pp. 5o-5L; Jenson, !hCyclopedic History, p. 806.
62 Bernard, Tosoiba, p. 87.
63 ~., pp. 89-92.
64 ~., p. 93; Jenson, Encyclopedic HistorY. p. 807.
39
being added to the Bear River's agricultural equation with the result
that the new settlements would diverge a great deal in nature from the
earlier ones.
Later Settlement in the Bear River Basin
By the time Momon settlement reached Soda Springs the Mormon
system of cooperative water resources development was reaching its
limits. As highly efficient as that systan had been in assuring the
success of the Bear River Basin settlelll8nts, it had certain inherent
topographical and engineering' weaknesses that made a new state of
water resources development a necessity to further growth in the basin.
A basic engineering feature of the cooperative developments was
that the source of water for irrigation was a tributary ot the Bear
rather than the main channel ot the river. '!be tributaries were more
convenient to the fann lands and were easier to divert and to control
with the relatively primitive tools and methods the settlers had at
hand. There were a severely limited number ot acres that could be
irrigated this way and the alluvial bottom lands were quickly taken up.
The difficulties involved in maintaining irrigation works was
another limit to the old system. Even when tapping only the trib­utaries,
f"looding and washed-out canals and laterals were common
problems.
Opening new lands in the future along the Bear River was to depend
for its success on using the Bear River itself as a source of water,
on building larger and stronger canals, and on conducting water onto
land above the level of the river. Developments of this sort required
techniques and capital beyond the means and experience ot the local
Lo
settlers, and private canal corporations were formed to build the more
sophisticated irrigati~n systems that were being ealled for.
The advent of the Union Paeifie Railroad was an outside influenee
that had an impact on the development of the Bear River regi~n. When
the railroad established Montpelier as its Bear Lake terminal in 1882,
the town quickly exceeded Paris, Bloomington, and St. Charles in popula­tion
to beeome the largest of the Boar Lake towns.65
The first permanent settlement of Co11ingston, Box Elder County,
Utah was in 1815, but it was during the period Itl89 to 1901, while the
Hammond Canal was being built, that the town prospered.66 Elwood was
founded in 1886. nry farming had begun in 1882 and new development
came in 189L-95 with the completion of the Bothwell Canal.67 Garland,
East Garland, and Riverside were founded or expanded between 1890 and
1893 while the Bear River Canal was built.68
lands were taken up in the late l890s in what became Bothwell,
Thatcher, and Penrose in antieipation of the Bear River Canal.69 The
settlements ealled the Iowa String, soutwest of Tremonton, were
settled by a group from New Sharon, Iowa, recruited in the 11idwest in
1898 by agents of the Bear River land and Canal Company. 70
65 Rich, Land of Sky Blue Water, p. 88.
66 ~orsgren, History of Fox Elder, p. 283.
61 Tbid., pp. 290-291; Jenson, Encyclopedic History, p. 22L.
68 Porsgren, Bistory or Box Elder, pp. 312-313; Jenson, Encyclopedic
History, p. 275.
69 Forsgren, History of Box Elder, p. 318.
70 Ibid., p. 319; Reuben D. Haw, "History of Tremonton, Utah" (1928,
written for Dr. Joel Fo . Ricks' undergraduate seminar in historieal
method), p. 13.
41
Tremonton, founded in 1903, was named by the German colony there
for their old home of Tremont, 1llino18. Tremonton became a conunerclal
center of the Rear River Valley because of an advantageous crossroads
10cation.71
The community of Howell was developed in 1910 as a project ot the
Promontory-Curlew Land Cornpal'\V'. The town vas named for the head ot the
organization, Congressman Joseph Howell. Here two canals irrigated
about 3,000 acres. 72
To this point there has been no discussion of either Corinne near
the outlet of Bear River into the Great Salt Lake or ot WYOming set-tlement
near the headwaters of the Bear. Corinne will be discussed
later in some detail in connection with the development ot the first
private canal corporations. The one town that the Bear passes through
in wyoming is the conununity of Evanston. !vanston is the outlet tor
the large ranches that are the main industry ot the region.
Major Powell of the United States Geological Survey reported in
the bureau's annual report for 1890-91 on the state of water resources
development in the Wyoming section ot the Bear River Valley. Near
Evanston he had fouM several canals of good size being used to divert
71 iPorsgren, History of Box !.'lder, p. 322J Jenson, Encyclopedic
Histo!1) p. BBS.
n ~orsgren,
HiStory, p. 34S.
History of Box Elder, p. 321; Jenson, EnczcloEedlc
42
water froa the Bear for use in the town and in adjacent bay fields.
North of EYanston soae ditches had been bQilt to irrigate other hay
lands. 7:3
Naaed for J. A. bans, surYeyor for the Unioa Pacific Railroad,
Evanston was founded in 1868 during the lIaild1D« of the tranacontinen-tal
road. The railroad continued to doalDate the econoaic deTelo}laent
of Evanston after the town was .ade a diT1aion terainal in 1871.74
The agricultural deTelo}laent of U1n\a Co.nty (er1ginally the
whole western quarter of Vyo.ing) was slow beeaue of the hazards to
agriculture of high altitudes and Sftort srowin« seasons. Instead, the
inhabitants continued to depend on ra1aina liT_took for a liTing, with
their chief asricultural pursuit be1D« the cultiTation of DatiTe hay
for winter feed. Later, with i.preTed craine aDd irrigation techniques,
it was poBsi_le to srow substantial quantities of wheat and oata in the
county. 75
73 United States Departaent of the Interior, United States Geolog­ical
Survey, J. V. Powell, director, Twelfth Annual aeSfR' 1890-91,
Part II--Irr1&ation (Washington. GoTermaeIlt Printing fice, 1891),
pp. 325-:326.
74 lUi_beth Arnold Stone, Uinta Couty, Ita Place 1D History
{La.raaie, Vyoaing. The La.raa1e Printing Co.pany, 1924}, pp. 85, 91.
75 !M!., pp. 20-21.
43
CHAPI'ER IV
Large Scale Water Pesouces Development
in the Bear River Valley
The Mormon tom of cooperative water resources development in the
Bear River Valley had about reached its l~its by 1880, and the period
of pioneer water resources development was drawing to a close. During
the next forty years the valley would see great changes and growth in
its irrigation systems.
In the last chapter SOMe limitations of the pioneer-community rom
01' water resourees development were discussed with an eye towards
indicating the need for development on a larger scale, using more
sophisticated constructi~n techniques and requiring larger outlays 01'
capital in order to irri~ate lands inaccessible bv pioneer techniques.
Another characteristic of this second phase of Bear River development
was the general interest in irrigation shown by state and federal
government as well as hy private investors. Irrigation congresses
spread information abut new techniques of irrigation. The problem of
watering arid lands began to draw more attention from engineers and
scientists than ever before.
Henceforth water resources development would become more complex
as experiments were made with new land laws, construction techniques,
and forms of financing irrigati~n projects. With all these innovations
water resources development in the Bear River Valley lost the unity of
44
its former development and the vexing problem of interstate (or inter­territorial)
admini~tration of water resouree~ first aro~e 1n the
valley. Other influences began to intrude into the old order; non­Mormons
were growing in numbers, many attracted by the new project~.
The pattern of water resources develoPMent began to take on more of
the typical pattern of western development as a whole as government
regulation superseded ecclesiastical authority in ~ettling water
disputes and apportioning land. New settlement was _de under the
provisions of the various federal land laws, including the Desert
Land Act of 1877, leading to a style of development lftOre like that
found eslewnere in the semi-arid lands and accelerating the decline
of the Mormon system of land tenure. Three federal laws, the Carey Act,
the Desert Land Act, and the Reclamation Act of 1902 were designed to
encourage the reclamation of land not suitable to cultivation without
irrigation. The territorial and state laws of both Utah and Idaho in
this period 1880-1920 were devoted to about the same main goalss
defining water rights and methods of apportionment, developin~ some
controls over the shape of future water developaent, and protecting the
rights of the water user through local control over waterworks.
The Irrigation District taws of Utah
One of the most important types of legislation to the individual
farmers were the irrigation di$trict laws. The first of a series of
irrigation district laws passed in Utah was enacted in 1865. The
45
importance of this act and of those which followed it was that they
gave local users administrative and financial control over the works
on which their irrigation livelihood depended.
The Utah Irrigation District Act of 1865 provided that a majority
of citizens in any county or part of a county could petition the county
court for the formation of an irrigation district if they could show
that there was unappropriated water available that could be used to
increase the agricultural value of land in that county or part of a
county represented by the petitioners. The county court was authorized
to create this type of district if it appeared there was enough water
available for the needs of all the fanners included. l
Officials of the irrigation distriot were elected at a mass
meetin~ of the citizens of the district. At the same time a vote was
taken to determine whether the tax which was to be levied should be
laid upon the lands to be benefited or upon all property in the
district.2 The elected officals were responsible for locating the
canal, for determining the lands to be benefited, for estimating the
costs of construction, and for detennining the value of the taxable
property. They reported to the county court. The court. conducted an
election among the citizens of the distruct to determine if they were
willing to be taxed in accord with that report. If two-thirds of the
votes were affirmative the county would take the responsibility for
1 utah Territorial Legislature, Acts, Resolutions and Memorials,
1864-65, pp. 58-63; see Oeorge Thomas, The Development of Institutions
Under Irrigation (New York: the Macmillan Company, 1920), for an
extended discussion of the irrigation laws to 1919.
2
~., 8ec.2, p. 58.
46
collecting the tax. If the measure did not pass, new officers could
be elected for the district and a new proposal developed without prej­udicing
the existence of the dietrict.)
If the levied taxes were found to be insufficient to finish the
porj ect, the trustees could ask for a further levy based on the new
estimates of cost. 'this type of request was wted on in the same
manner as were original levies and required a two-thirds majority to
pass. Water could be appropriated in another county as long as no
individual suffered. The right-of-way for the canal could be claimed
by the exercise of the rule of eminent domain, but this was the only
legal use allowed the districts. Completed canals and dams remained
under the control of the irrigation districts and upkeep was provided
through an annual levy for that purpose. Enlargements in the system
had to be approved by two-thirds of the patrons and the tax levied in
the usual manner. The distrkt was held liable for damages caused by
breaks in the system.4
The act originally applied only to new construction, but the next
year, 1866, the act was amended to allow older construction to take
advantage of many of its provisions.5
The organisation of districts began 800n after passage of the law.
In 1865 the area east of the Jordan River in Utah and Salt Lake Valleys
was organized tnto the Deaeret Irrigation and Canal Company. In 1867
3 Ibid. , see.3-6, pp. 58-59.
4 Ibid., 8ec.7-l0, pp. 59-62.
5
~., 1866-67, p. 1).
the area west of the Jordan River was organized as the west Jordan
Irrigation DLstrict. Cache County became a leader in organizing such
districts with twelve irrigation districts in the county.6
A series of amendments to the Irrigation District Law failed to
solve the basic problem of this type of organization; namely, the
difficulty of achieving equitable taxing in a district encompassing
larger amounts of non-irrigable land than irrigable. Demands to
extend systems were generally refused on the gounds that the members
of the district should not have to share the cost of extending canals
47
to areas that had not paid a share of the cost of the original
construction. This problem led to the repeal of the Irrigation District
Law in 1897. The State Supreme Court, in the case of Harris v. Tarbet,
ruled that a district could not set arbitrary limits on the extent of
its system. This decision precipitated the disorganization of the
remaining districts and the Rin to a stock company form of organiza­tion.
7
In 1897 two laws were passed dealing with irrigation and water
rights. 'lbe first act confinned and defined the maMer of appropriation
of water common in Utah as well as establishing rules for the use of
water and the construction of water works, including the right-of-way
across public, private, or corporate lands by any person or corporation
engaged in such work. B '!be second important law created the office of
the State ~gineer. The 8tate Engineer was required to keep a record
6 Thomas, Institutions Under Irrigation, pp. 121-122.
7 ~., pp. 122-12~.
8 laws of utah, 1897, Chapter ~2' , pp. 21-226.
48
of measurements for all streams, to approTe contiruction plans, to
direct state developments, and to inspect systems for safety.9 In
1901 a supplementary act increased the authority of the State Engineer
to give him general supervision of the state's waters.IO
In 1909 a new Irrigation District Law was passed by the Utah
Legislature. The initial steps in forming a district under this law
were taken by a majority of land owners in the proposed district, with
the further requirement that they owned a majority of the whole number
of acres to be irrigated. Several major departures from the former
style of irrigation districts were included in the new law. The county
court checked the petition and determined the boundaries of the dis- .
trict. Voting was conducted on the basis of one vote per acre and only
a simple majority was required to organize the district.ll
Provisions were made for the sale of water to non-members of the
district. Entrymen on public lands were not eligible for inclusion in
the district, but surplus water could be sold to them with the approval
of the land owners in the district. The district could also sell or
lease water to occupants of other lands, either in or out of the dis­trict,
although no water right was conferred on the user.12
Another important change in the new law was that it allowed dis­tricts
to sell bonds to finance new construction. The law required
several checks onthe bond-selling process. A proposal by the district's
9 Ibid., Chapter )e, pp. 16.60.
10 ~.J 1901, Chapter l25, pp. 141-146.
11 Ibid,. 1907, Chapter 14, pp. 144-168.
12 ~., sec.12, pp. 151-52.
49
directors to issue bonds had to be assented to by a two-thirds majority
of owners of agricultural lands in the d1s\rtct. The rate of interest
and the maximmn period for payment was fixed by law. They were
required to be sold at public sale at a price not less than 95 cents
on the dollar. The bonds were a lien on the agricultural lands of the
district. Taxes were levied yearly to pay interest and principal as
they came due, as well as the operating expenses of the district.13
An unusual cheek on the bond-selling process was the requirement that
the county court pass on the legality of the proceedings before a~
bonds were lssued.14
In 1911 the Irrigation District Law was changed again. The iMPetus
behind the change was the desirability of making it possible for set­tlers
on state land projects to organize themselves into irrigation
districts. The governor was given the right to petiti"n the c')unty
board of commissioners to form a district. The county comaissioners
would then proceed as required in the 1909 act except that the acre-foot
became the votillS unit rather than the acre. This change was made
because some parts of reclamation projects were already being partially
served with water when the election was held, and it was felt that the
larger water holders deserved more weight in the deoision-making process.
Bonds were issued by the district as in the act or 1909, except that
they were for payment of obligations to the federal government. In the
contract with the federal government the district assumed a collective
13 ~., sec. 15, pp. 153-155.
14 ~., sec. 51, p. 166.
,0
obligation rather than the former individual obligation common to
earlier acts. The Reclamation Service maintained control of the works
until a certain part of the payments had been made. l '
The year 1919 also saw major changes in Utah's water laws. A new
~ater Rights Law gave the State Engineer the authority to ~e the pre­liminary
investigation and determination of water rights. It declared
that water running in well-known aoo defined channels was public prop­erty
subject to beneficial use, and further decreed that new appro­priations
of water could be made only through application to the state
Engineer's office. Priority of appropriation was retained as the rule
by which claims to the use of water would be governed, and the water
right was defined, as in the past, as the personal property of the
water user.16 Changes in the Irrigation District Law in that same year
gave the Btate Engineer and the district board of directors the right
to determine the allotment of water in the district. In addition,
Feclamation Act project entrymen were made eligible for the first time
to form and belong to irrigation districts.17
Idaho Irrigation Legislation
The history of irrigation legislation in Idaho begun with an 1881
territorial law regulating the appropriation of water on a prior clatm
basis. Further water rights legislation in 1887 added a clause that
1, ~., 1917, Chapter 33, pp. 77-101.
16 Ibid., 1919, Chapter 67, pp. 177-203.
17 ~'J Chapter 68, pp. 2OU-2u1.
recognized the right to appropriate flowing water, with priority in
time specified as the determining factor in deciding the priority of
water rights.18
51
Unlike the Utah state constitution, Idaho's constitution contained
several specific references to water rights and appropriation of water.
Among the provisions was an affirmation of the principle that users had
the right to divert unused water from any natural stream for beneficial
purposes. '!'he state did reserve for itself the right to regulate and
limit the use of water for power purposes. In eases where water
supplies were insufficient to meet the demand, the Idaho constitution
established the order of priority for use. First priority went to the
domestic uses of water, second priority to the agricultural uses of
water, and third priority to manufacturing.19
Beginning about 1880 corporations were established in Idaho to
build lal"ge irrigation works. These companies did not own the land
they irrip'ated but, after building the ditches, charged the settlers
for the use of water and collected an additional yearly fee for canal
repair work. Dissatisfaction with the private canal companies led to
agitation for some type of legal relief for the settler. The result
was the Idaho Irrigation District Law of 1895.
This act, although thirty years later than the first similar Utah
legislation, was in general like the 1865 Utah law. The Idaho act
allowed the owners of land irrigated from the same source to organize
themselves into irrigation districts, and gave them the power to elect
15 state of Idaho, Idaho Almanac (Boise: Syms-York Company, 1963),
p. 397.
19 Ibid.
52
officials, to carry on business affairs for the district, to construct
facilities to water their land, and to distribute and govern the use
of water in the district. A board of directors, selected from among
the district's land owners, was Riven the authority to represent the
district in its affairs. Also incorporated into this act was Idaho's
acceptame of the Carey Act.20
Another piece of irrigation legislation passed in 1895 was the act
establishing the office of the State Engineer. The State Engineer
supervised water development in Idaho until 1919, when the office was
replaced by the state Department of Reclamation headed by the state
Reclamation Engineer.2l
A second Idaho Irrigation District Law in 1903 replaced the former
law. Features of the new law were the requiraftents that plans be
approved by the State E~ineer and that a yearly status report on the
condition of the waterworks trom each district be tiled with the State
Engineer's office.22
An act of 1911 made it possible for an irrigation district to
undertake a Carey Act project.2)
Federal Irrigation Legislation
The most important new Federal legislation for Bear River Basin
settlers was the Desert Land Act of 1877, designed to encouraged the
20 Idaho Session Laws, 1895, p. 18).
21 'State of Idaho, Idaho 'Almanac, p. 397.
2Z Idaho Session Laws, 1903, pp. 150-186.
23 Idaho Session Laws, 1911, Chapter
53
reclamation of ~emi-arid lands. It was felt that larger amounts of
land than were available to an individual under the Homestead or
Preemption acts were required to make reclaMation of the desert lands
attractive, so the Desert Land Act provided for the sale of a full
section to a settler who would irrigate it within three years arter
filing. The law was so vague as to lend itself to misuse and fraud
by speculators interested in holding the land. By 1891 the law had
fallen into such disrepute in the government that major modifications
were made. The 1891 act, which revised methods of obtaining land from
the governnent, stipulated that for desert lands improvements amounting
to $3.00 an acre should be made on the land, a dollar a year, and that
while there had to be water enough for the entire tract, one-eighth
must be put under cultivation. Other proVisions of the act limited
entries to the citizens of the state in which the land was located and
allowed the settlers to associate together in a project for watering
their entries. This act did not solve all the problems involved in
desert land entry because a settler, even in concert with several other
entrymen, orten could not finance the construction of the large projects
necessary to reclaim the desert lands.24
In Utah's Box Elder, Cache, and Rich counties over 600 original
Desert Land Act entries have been made in total. The total acreage
entered amounted to 129,859.36 acres, of which 51,540.26 acres were
eventually patented.25
24 United States Statutes at Large, XIX, p. 317.
2~ United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Man­agement
(figures compiled from the township plats kept at the Salt
Lake City office of the Bureau of land Management).
54
Two other pieces of federal irrigation law from the middle period
of Rear River development, the Carey Act and the ~eclamatlon Act ot
1902, deserve mention, although neither Carey nor Reclamation acts
projects were built in the basin. In failing to utilize the provisions
of the Reclamation Act, the Bear River Basin differed widely from most
irrir,ated regions of the west.
The Carey Act26 was a federal plan to encourage the western states
to reclaim their semi-arid lands tor irrigation. The enumerated states
were allowed to segregate and develop tracts of public land to which
they would receive title when the land was reclaimed. Orig,inally the
act allowed the states as much land as they could irrigate, but the
offer was later amended to set a limit of 1,000,000 acres per state.
Idaho and WYOming received large supplemental grants although no
western state ever reclaimed even its first milli~n acres. The Carey
Act allowed each of the states involved to choose their own manner of
developiOP projects, and most chose to do it either through irrigation
districts or through contracts with private developers, as both Idaho
and Utah did.
The Reclamation Act of 190221 authorized the Department of the
Interior to survey and build irrigation works in the sixteen semi-arid
states and territories. Public lands irrigated by any 'Reclamation Act
project were limited to homestead entries of not more than 160 acres,
with the proviso that the commutation privileges of the homestead laws
were not allowed. The price paid for land in projects was expected to
26 United States Statutes at Large. XlVIII, p. 422.
27 ~., XXXII, p. 388.
return the cost of the project to the reclamation fund established by
the act. The one requirement of entrymen on project lands, beyond
those required under the homestead lawa, was that they irrigate half
the irrigable area of their entries for agricultural purposes. When
most of the land in a project had been fully paid for, the ownership
55
of the works was to be transferred to the users, although the United
states would maintain ownership and control of works required for flood
control.
In the Bear River Valley the dominant form of water resources
development was the mutual stock company, in which the fanners using an
irrigati~n system were the owners as well. Payment for stock in the
company often took the form of work on the system. This system, while
it has roots in the old cooperative system, differs from it in its
ability to secure greater capital outlay tor construction and by its
acceptance of standard business ~e~ With the major exception
of the Bear River Canal system in Box Elder County, which is privately
owned by non-resident interests, the mutual stock company is the form 0 :
orp,anization still used in the Bear River Valley.
An inRtructive example of the new style of water resources devel­opment
in the Bear Fiver Valley is found in the history of the West
Cache Canal in northern Cache County. The area served by the Hest Cach
Canal is known locally as the Big Range and includes the towns ot
Trenton, Cornish, and Amalga. The area was first used as a herd ground
for cattle from the older communities. Ranchers began to establish
themselves permanently in the area after 1870. The first attempt
at irrigation came 1n 1872 when the South Field Ditch was dug as one
of five canals irrigating land around 'We5ton, Idaho. This canal
extended one and a half miles into Utah and irrigated about 170 acres
of the Rig nange.2A
An attempt to capitalize on the Desert Land Act resulted in the
fonnation of' the Weston South "'ield Irrigating Company in 1880. This
,6
company's water appropriation included nearly the whole flow of Weston
Creek, although farmers had been using its water for irrigation since
186, without ever registering that use under Idaho law. In the course
of 1880-81 t.he J e~th of the canal was extended four miles and the canal
carried water for a while tn 1881. In 1882 a law suit affirmed the
prior water rights of users listed by the Weston Creek watermaster
beginning tn 1867. The 1085 of this lawsuit ruined the promoters'
hopes of securing irrigation water for Trenton tram weston Oreek,
although 880 acres were patented under the Desert Land Act.29
Future deve10pnent seemed to depend on the Bear River as the source
of water. Pioneer methods were insufficient for this type of develop­ment,
especially since more than 40 percent of the population was non­Mormon
in 1891. In 'ebruary of 1894 Charles G. Wood, a schoolteacher,
called a meeting in Trenton to consider means of obtaining irrigation
water. Surveys were made along these lines, but negative reports
delayed the decision to build a canal from the Bear until 1898. In
March of that year, a company was organized to build and manage the
28 A. <1. Simmonds, "Water for the Big Range-, (Utah H1ator1cal
Qu.rterly. Su .. er. 1971). p. 226.
29 ~ •• pp. 226-227.
canal. It was incorporated with 10,000 shares at a par value of ten
dollars. Incorporation of the West Cache Irrigation Company was
completed by September, 1~98.)0
Although severly hampered by slovdoWhS in cOrultruction and by
financial difficulties, the canal was pushed forward. By May, 1902
water was turned into West Cache as far as Battle Creek, and by March
5, 1905, the water was turned into the main canal. Completed, it was
51
the largest system built entirely by individuals and the second largest
system of any type built to that date in Utah. Only the Bear River
Canal, partially constructed by the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company, was
larger. The west Cache irrigated one-firth of the irrigated land in
Cache Valley at that time, an especially remarkable feat considering
that the population of the area was less than one thousand people.)l
Financial difficulties contimled to plague the canal company af'ter
the completion of the system, so that by 1910 the Idaho section of the
canal was sold to Oneida county for taxes in arrears. Continual assess-ments
on the company's stock had caused many to sell or mortgage their
stock. By 1910 a majority of the capital stock had come under the
control of some twenty-five people who reincorporated the cornpal11 as
the Trenton Irrigation Company. This company had a short life, however,
due to the famers' resentment towards this monopoly and the expense of
renting water, which caused many to undertake dry-fam agriculture.
Faced with ruin, the company's directors did not oppose the rorrnation
of the Cache Valley Irrigation District in 1912. The district voted a
rorty-thousand-dollar bond to buyout the Trenton Irrigation Company.
30 JI U2.., p. 229.
31 Ibid., p. 2)2.
58
By 1923 the district had put the canal back under the control of the
users. The canal once again became a stock company under its original
name of West Cache Irrigation Company. This incorporation was for
thirty years. In 1953 the company was again reincorporated, this time
for ninety-nine years. 32
The West Cache Canal has a total length of 58.2 miles and irrigates
14,832 acres of land, about one-tenth the total now irrigated in Cache
Valley)3
The extension of many older canal systems was initiated in this
sarne general period as well. '!he mutual stock company was as well
adapted to this purpose as to new construotion. Often times both new
and extended canal constl"UCtion were found in close proximity. In
1881, the city of Smithfield granted the Logan-Richmond Canal a right­of~
y through Smithfield to permit the irrigation of the north fields
as well as those already served to the south. This canal, in enlarged
form, became the Logan Northern Irrigation Company.34 A second Smith­field
Canal, was begun in 1882. Known as the Logan, Hyde Park, and
,~ithfield Canal, it was built over a period or three years, and made
p~ssible the irrigation of more acreage.35 Smithfield got a third
irrigation company in 1888 when the Summit and Birch Creek irrigation
project was incorporated.36 On Harch 5, 1889, the city of Smithfield
32 Ibid., pp. 2)3-2)6.
33 Ibid., p. 237.
34 Mr. and Mrs. leonard OI.erh The History of Smithfield (Salt Lake:
Deseret News Press, 1927), pp. 47=48.
35 ,Ibid., p. 48.
36 -Ibid.
59
decided in the city council meeting to borrow one thousand dollars at
ten percent interest for nine months to purchase water stock in the
Logan, Hyde Park, and Smithfield Irrigation Companr.37 Another example
of city investment in irrigation works was logan. The city's part
ownership o~ the canal system enabled it to sell irrigation water in
town at a fixed rate.
The West Cache Canal was one o~ several large systerns built through
private means in the Bear qiver Valley during this period. The largest
was the Last Chance Canal Company. The wt Chance Company filed for
400 cubic feet per second of Bear River water to be d1'verted from a
site three miles below Alexander point, near Alexander, Idaho. The
filing was made on March 0, 1597, by John Trappet, D. D. Sullivan, and
George Stoddard. The company was inoorporated on February 4, 1899,
and the original water rights filed for by Trappet and his colleagues
were trans ferred tID tI*e oOlllP&'llJ' in October of 1901 for the token tee of
~l.OO. About 33,000 acres are irrigated by this canal, which first
carried water in 1902.3A
A slightly older canal system is that known as the Gentile Valley
Irrigation Company. The first filings of this cooperative company were
made in le90 and the original canal finished by 1896. It has been
enlarged three times since then. In 1903 a group headed by J. B.
Thatcher was allowed to draw water through the Gentile Valley Canal to
irrigate lands f'Ilrther out. The Thatcher Irrigation Company paid $1,500
31 ~., p. 79.
38 Idaho Water Resources Board, -Report 'Caribou County Water
Resources'" (March 1, 1968), pp. 4-5.
60
tor the right-of-way arxJ agreed to pro-rate the cost of its canal and
the necessary enlargement of the Gentile Valley Canal with ,the Gentile
Valley Irrigation Company.39
Some or the other canal companies in the Soda Springs area rernain-ing
from this period are the North Extension Canal Company, Limited,
the Bancroft Canal Company, Limited, and the Famere Land and Irrigation
Company of Alexander, Idaho. The North Extension Canal Company was
incorporated on March 11, 1904, to provide water tor irrisation and to
power mills. The Bancroft Canal Company is the successor company of the
'M!st Branch Canal Company, which held its first meeting on July 5, 1902.
The two canpanies merged in January ot 1917. The "'armers Land Irriga-tion
Company had its start in 1911. In 1966 this companr raised its
dam with funds obtained through Farmers Home Administration and the
Caribou County ASCS Office as well as through the usual type of levies
on the tarmers in the company. Vater trom this project irrigates larxJ
in the Soda Springs, Ivans, and Central areas.40
In ar.cordance with the irrigation district law, the Montpelier
Irrigation Company was incorporated in April, 1898, by John Cozzens,
W. W. Clark, ~. L. Burgoyne, Christian Hogensen, F. M. Winters, W1ll1am
T. Perkins, and Tbou.s llanks. The capital irmtstment was $10,000
divided into $1.00 shares. This company controlled most of the now on
Montpelier Creek. The users of an older ditch connected to the Bear
River incorporated themselves as the Preston~ntpelier Irrigation
Company.hl
39 I. ~., p. ~.
hO ~., pp. 5- 6 •
hl Rich, Laad of ~ky, Bln. Water, p. 23.
61
In 1910 Bear Lake County, Idaho, had 65,000 acres of irrigated
land, while Oneida County (which then illClucled-:the aNa. presently: in
Caribou and Franklin Counties) had a total irrigated acreage or 125,000
acres. Rear lAke County then had 2,0 miles of canal built and Oneida
had 615 miles of canal in operatlon.42
42 State of Idaho, Commission of ImMigration, Labor, and Statistics,
MSixth Biennial Report, 1909-10," (Boise: information not available,
1910), p. 26).
62
CHAPTER V
THE BEAF RIVER CANAL
The Gentile Economic Challenge at Corinne
Corinne, Utah, near Brigham City in Box Elder County, was the
center of the promotional activities for the Bear River Canal, the only
system in the Bear River Basin built with non-resident capital. This
connection between Corinne and the Bear River Canal can hardly be
considered coincidental, for Corinne was a city with an entrepreneur­ial
tradition. Once known as the Gentile capital of Utah, Corinne was
as typical of Utah cities as the Bear River Canal was of Utah irrigation
systems. Condemned by Rrigham Young for its blatant immorality, Corinne
was a railroad town established in 1869 as a depot on the transcontinen­tal
railroad, which had bypassed Salt Lake City. Originally Corinne
was the depot for ties floated down the Bear River from forests located
in southeastern Idaho, but its iMportance grew with the completion of
the line, for all railroad traffic to and from Salt Lake had to be
transhipped through Corinne. Corinne became a major crossroads town
with wagon and boat connections to Utah, the southern Idaho towns and
the Montana mines. Encouraged by this advantage over Salt Lake City
and the anti~ormon tendency of federal officials in Utah Territory,
businessmen and promoters flocked to Corinne, which seemd on the verge
of challenging Salt Lake's position as Utah's first city. Corinne's
brief but heady boom was brought short in 1872 by the construction of
the Utah Northern Railroad, which bypassed Corinne to bring direct
63
rail service to Salt Lake City. Quickly reduced in population to a few
hA~dy souls, Corinne seemed tobe turning into just another quiet
farming viJlage with an unusual past except that a few men, led by
Alexander Toponce, preserved the town's enterpreneurial spirit and
remained in C~rinne to carry on. l
Origins of the Bear River Canal
The first survey for the project that developed into the Bear ~iver
Canal was made in 1868, but the promoters realized that the project
involved a type of construction too large to be handled with local
resources. A petition was sent to congrese asking for aSSistance, but
with little discussion the request vae denied.2 Their request did,
however, foreshadow future thinking on vater resources development, for
by lP76 the Comm1ssi~ner of the Genera) Land Office reported that he
helieved the ruture development of the Platte, Weber, Bear, Jordan,
and Humboldt Rivers would require larger aggregations of capital than
private sources could supply.3
Real orogress towards the c~nstruction of a Bear River Canal began
when Alexander Toponce and a few of his cronies organized the Corinne
Mill, Canal, and Stock Company. The Union Pacific and the Central
Pacific Pailroads held large land grants in the Bear River Valley, all
1 Alexander Toponce, Reminiscences of Alexander Topo~~ (Salt Lake
City: Century Printing Company, 1923), PassiJll. Toponce carne to
Cori nne in 1869.
2 George Thomas, The Development of Institutions Under Irrigation.
(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1920), p. 204.
3 Paul ~". Gates, History of Public Land Law Develop!!ent. (Washington:
United States Printing Office, 1968), p. 638.
64
of which came into the possession ~f the Central Pacific as part of an
agreement in which the Central Pacific bought the line to Ogden.
Toponce's company purchased all of these lands, amounting to 45,000
acres, in lH83.4 In addition to these railroad lands the assets of the
Corinne Mill, Canal, and Stock CompanY included another 45,000 acres of
land, some sheep, Toponce's ~rist mill and his ranch at Garland. John
W. Kerr was president, Toponce was vice-president and manager, and J.
K. 'owler was secretary and treasurer of the company.S
Under Kerr's leadership the promoters of the Corinne Mill, Canal,
and Stock Company made land surveys with the idea of turning the Bear
Qiver tnto an irrigation canal which was to power an electrical plant
as well. The company's resources were not sufficient for the project
and so outside financing was sought. John Bothwell became interested
in the scheme, and deciding that the plan would work, he proposed that
the irri~ation system and the land be put together and sold RS a unit.6
nothwell was promised a half interest on the procee~s of the sale
of the lands if he could finance and construct the pro~osed system.
Until he was able to get contracts from valley landowners agreeing to
purchase water at ~lO.JO per acre, he was unable to interest investors
in backtnt7 the pro-ject.7 l..Jith local help he obtained contract:=; from
the majority of these landowners and he was able to make an ap,reement
4 Thomas, Institutions Under Irrigation. pp. 205-206.
5 roponce, Reminiscences, p. 222.
6 rhomas, Institutions Under Irrigation, pp. 205-206.
7 Sons of the Utah Pioneers, Box Elder Lore of the Nineteenth
C,entury (Brigham City, Utah: Box Elder Newe Journal, 1951), p. 138.
65
with the J arvis-Conkl in Mortgage aM Trust Elompany of New York and
Kansas City to underwrite and finance the new porject. ~or a three-sevenths
interest in the company, Jarvis and Conklin agreed to purchase
~2, OOO,(X)'J in h::>nds as work pro ~ressed on the canal. '1be purchase price
was to be 75 cents on the dollar. The bonds were due 1n twnty years
at 7 perecent interest per year, payable semi-annually. The bonds were
to be secured by a mortgage on the company's assets. Jarvis and Conklin
further protected themselves by adding a provision to the agreement
excusing them frOM buying bonds during a possible financial depression.8
On September 25, 1889, the Bear lake aM River Water Works and
Irrigation Company was incorporated to take the Jaris-Oonklin contract.
Capit al stock was fixed at $2,100,000 of which Bothwell received
$2,099,000. The stock was purely promotional and was paid for only by
a transfer of certain water filings and right-of-ways.9 In addition
to ~othwell, the directors and officers of the company included James
C. Armstrong, president of the Commercial Bank of OgdenJ James H. Bacon,
president of the Bank of Salt Lake; John T. Caine, delegate to Congress;
Charles C. Richards, president of the Utah Loan and Trust Company of
Ogden; L. B. Adams, cashier of the Utah National Bank of OgPen; and F.
E. Roche, manager of the land department of the Corinne Mill, Canal,
~nd Stock Company.lO Ponds in t he amount of $2,000,000 and underwritten
8 Thomas, Institutions Under Irrigation, pp. 206-207.
9 Ibid., p. 207.
of the
niverslty of ashington
by Jarvis-Conklin were purchased by Quaker societies in Glasgow,
Scotland; Newcastle, Ireland; and Birmingham, England.ll
Construction of the Bear River Canal
66
The two men responsible tor the engineering of the project were
Samuel "'ortier, tirst professor of engineering at Utah Agricultural
College (now utah State University), and Elwood Mead, later director
of the United States Irrigation Service. Fortier was the active
engineer and Mead the consulting engineer on the project. The original
plan for the project called for the construction of a diversion dam in
the Rear River to provide water for two canals. One canal was to run
north and west to supply water for the Bear River Valley in Box Elder
County; and the second proposed canal was to run south as far as Ogden.
This second canal was later partially built by the Hammond brothers.12
lAte in 1889 Bothwell made a contract with William Garland of
Kansas City to build the first twelve miles ot canal. As many as 7,000
men were employed during the tall of 1889, but construction money soon
ran out because Ebthwell, Jarvis, and Coti<lin had used part of the
proceeds of the bonds to buy land and they were unable to make the
final payment of $89,550 to Garland. In 1893 they were still unable
to pay and went bankrupt. Garland had filed a mechanic's lien and
be~an to press suit. l )
The core of the problem was that all the public lands in the valley
11 Ibid.
12 Thomas, Institutions Under Irr~ationJ p. 209.
13 Arrington, Beet ~garJ pp. 43-44.
67
had been filed upon within thirty days after construction began,
(although Elwood Mead claimed that not one in fifty original entrymen
held the land three years later),lh and that these men refused to buy
water rights and simply held on to the land which was made more valuable
by the availability of water. water was turned into the canal in 1892,
but only lh,000 acres of water rights were sold in two years. A reor-ganization
of the company in 1~94, as the Bear River Irrigation and
Ogden Water 1,obl'ks Company with W. H. Rowe as president and manager, was
a last-ditch attempt to get some return on the investment made in the
canal. The bondholder~ advanced $125,000 to construct more canal mile­age
and an agreement was made with the Corinne MHl, Canal, and <1tock
Company to try to sell land and water at t30 an acre.15
The new company was little more successful than its predecessor at
obtaining contract users or the water aM in 1894, when the company was
unable to pay Garland's claim, the canal wae split into three parts.
The sectton covered by Garland's lien was sold to David Evans and John
E. Dooley of Salt Lake, who fonned the Bear River Water Company. The
lands of the Corinne Mill, Canal, and Stock Company were 1n the posses­sion
of the Hammond Brothers and organized as the Bear River Land
Company. The third section of the canal, known as the Roweville Canal,
was owned by the Bear River Irrigation Company and the Quaker bond­holders.
16
1h Elwood Mead, Irrigation Institutions (New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1903), p. 20.
15 Arrington, Beet Sugar, p. 44.
16 Ibid., pp. 45-47.
68
The Utah-Idaho Sugar CompanY and the Bear River Canal
Experiments in raising sugar beets in the Bear River Valley had
proved highly successful and in 1901 the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company au-thorized
Thomas R. Cutler to pick up an option on all capital stock of
the Bear River Water Company. The sugar company sold water to the
bondholders who sold it in turn to the farmers who had purchased water
rights from the old Bothwell company. land was sold to farmers on long­term
contracts and the valle v showed signs of prosperity.11
One o~ the first major acti~ns of the sugar company was the comple-ti~
n of the delayed east side canal to Collinston and the letting of a
contract in 1903 to the Hammon~ brothers for the construction of the
canal to a point north of Brigham City. The Hammonds, backed up by
landowners who had agreed to buy enough water to make the canal exten-sion
profitable, began constructi~n with great conttdence. But
construction difficulties, climaxed by the failure of the flume at
Beaver nBm Hollow and the accidental death of Datus E. Hammond while
attempting to repair the damage, resulted in the canal's going into
receivership.18 In 1919 the system was purchased by the Utah-Idaho
Sugar Comoany, but operated separately as the Hammond Canal Company.
The constructi~n of the east side canal opened another 8,500 acres to
irrigation.19
A second major undertaking of the sugar company in 1901 was the
17 [bid., Pp. 45-L7.
18 Sons of the TJtah Pioneers, Box Elder lore, p. 141.
Dauf1hters of the Utah Pioneers, Lydia l'lalker "'orsgren, 4istorz
of Box SIder County, (no more available information, 1937), Pp. 329-330.
69
constructi~n of a pumping stati~n to take vater out of the West Side
canal to water 10,000 acres near ~ielding and the construction of a
2,700 horsepower plant to provide eleetrieal power for the pumps. This
plant also provided electricity for Garland, Utah; for the Garland
p1ant of the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company, and for the Utah Power and Light
Company plant in Ogden.20
A third major action was the construetion of a rail line connecting
the Garland a~a with the Union Pacific line at Corinne.21 A processing
plant was built at Garland and sugar beets became the eeonomic mainstay
of the Bear River Valley.
Utah Power and Light and the Bear River Canal
Utah-Idaho 9ugar had rights to the Bear River for power produetion
as well as for irrigation. A contract was made with the Utah Light and
Power Company (now Utah Power and Light) to supply surplus power from
the Wheelon plant to Ogden. The line was later extended to Cache
Junction and Tremonton. In 1912 the hydroelectric property of the
sugar company, including water rights, dams, waterways, operating
plant, and transmission and distribution lines, was purchased by the
Utah Power and Light Company for $1,750,000. As part of the agreement
the power company agreed to provide 900 second-feet of water to the
Bear River Canal, providing a secure water right to the canal's users.22
The Dear River Canal System of the Utah-Idaho ~gar Company eonsists
20 Arrington, Beet Sugar, p. 47.
21 Ibid.
22 ~., p. 52.
70
of more than 140 miles of canals and irrigates 54,000 acres of land.23
The takeover of the system by the sugar company prevented the total
failure of the plan, but the difficulties faced by the original
promoters were significant to an understanding of later Bear River
development. The building of the Bear River Canal marked the beginning
of interstate rivalry between Idaho and Utah over the disposition of
Bear River Water.
Political ASpects of the Bear River Canal
The years Its88 and IR89 were sparse in rainfall and the records of
the Collinston gauging station showed that the level there woula provide
insufficient water to fill the proposed Bear River Canal. This set of
a.ffairs caused Major John Wesley Powell, head ot the United States
Geological Survey, to reflect on the question ot who had first claim to
the waters in times of such scarcity. In the Eleventh Annual Report ot
the U. S. Geological Survey Powell speculated on the possibility of
users beinp, deprived of water by richer canal companies or .speculators
at the headwaters of the Bear and telt this example was a strong ar­gument
for his hydrographic studies.24 The flow at the Collinston
gauging station reached a low of 300 second-teet in the middle of July,
1889. The appropriation notices of the Bothwell co_paDT caused great
distress among users already faced With-a ... eee water: shortage,
especially in Idaho. Users' fears were partly based on the knowledge
23 Ibid., p. 53.
24 United States Geological Survey, J. W. Powell, director, Eleventh
Annual Report. l!,89-90 (Washington: G.P.O., 1891), pp. 67-68.
71
that the canal company had carefully complied with the water rights laws
while many of their claims were based on possession and eustom.25
Governor George L. Shoup of Idaho, with the members of the Idaho
Constttutbnal Convention, called on the Secretary of the Interior,
John Noble, to put an end to the Bothwell scheme. Noble assured them
that Bothwell would not be allowed to monopolize the land and ordered
Powell to investigate the matter. Many water users in Cache and Box
Elder Counties also feared that Bothwell's plans would endanger their
water supplies, although some enthusiasm for the acheae was shown in
Salt Lake business circles.26
Powell's investigation of the Bear River situation for the Irriga-tion
Survey provided much of the material embodied in his report to the
House Committee on Irrigation in 1889. Major Powell reported that
before the greater part of the waters of Utah could be utilized it
would be necessary to control the irrigation works in Idaho and Wyoming.
He also noted the conflict between the Utahns in favor of the Bear River
Canal and the Idahoans who opposed it and expressed his belief that the
conflict was a bitter one.27
The increased value of irrigated land, as Powell saw it, would make
it easy to raise capital for the construction of irrigation works. The
problem. w~s the need to protect the small user and the investor. He
teared the fanner would become the servant of the irrigation company.
25 Ibid., p. 70.
26 Thomas G. Alexander, ftJohn Wesley Powell, the Irrigation Survey,
and the lnaguration of the Second Phase of Irrigation Development in
Utah" (Utah Historical Quarterly, spring, 1969), pp. 2Ob-205.
27 Powell, Eleventh Annual Report.
12
Litip,ation was then adjusting the rights of the farmer and the corpora­tion.
Compounding the problem, which he felt was a state and territo­rial
one, were the difficulties arising from the lack of a law by which
all waters could be relegated to specific lands. Irrigators were ruined
when someone else tapped their water supply higher up. Powell warned
that the government was leavin~ itself open to the claims of purchasers
under the Desert land Act who had their water cut off above. He also
recognized that all streams of any magnitude ran through at least two
states, complicating disputes such as that over the Bear River. The
values involved when one state relied on water caught in another state
were enonnous.28
Speaking to a similar point, Alexander proposes that much of the
opposition to the Bothwell scheme was a carryover from the cooperative
period. In the past the tatter Day Saints Chureh had regulated water
use for the general good and the people feared the intrusion of a large
corporation interested only in its own welfare.29
On somewhat different grounds, Powell felt that the promoters worked
a~ainst the ulttmate good of the farmers by g01~ ahead with projects
before the Irrigation Survey could complete comprehensive plans for the
development of the various river basins. This point of view was
disputed by promoters who argued that the survey was impractical and
was not aiding in the development of the country.30
The second part of the Twelfth Annual Report, deall~ with irriga­tion
and prepared by F. H. Newell, showed that Bothwell W88 not the
28 ~., 'pp. 2,2-2,4.
29 Alexander,~John Wesley Powell~, p. 20,.
30 Powell, Eleventh Annual Report.
7)
only one with intentions on the Bear River Basin. Bear Lake was sep-arated
trom a marsh to the north by a long low ridge of sand rising
above the normal water level. In 1889 the Bear Lake and River Canal
Company was raising this bank. Their announced purpose was to increase
the s t orage capacity of the lake, but Newell wae sure that it was a
preliminary step towards an attempt to claim title to the lake as a
storage reservoir.)l At the same time in the northern part of Gentile
Valley, near Soda Springs, an association of irrigators had begun work
on the construction of a ditch on both sides of the Bear River to
irrigate a broad lava plain or bench. Most of the irrigati~n water was
being taken from lateral creeks, but one ditch was taking water directly
from the Bear.32 Discussing the Bothwell Canal, Newell felt that the
farmers in the higher lying areas were wasting large amounts of water
and urged that such use be discouraged so that lower lands and older
water rights could be developed.3)
The financial failure of the Bothwell Canal was typical of that
type of enterpriee. By 1902 it was difficult for private irrigation
companies to raise capital, although many-continued to play important
roles in western development. Coupled with this situation was a decline
in opposition to federally developed projects. In the west generally,
31 United States Geological Survey, J. W. Powell, director, Twelfth
Annual Re~rtl 1890-91, Part II-Irrigation (waehingtons G.P.O. 1891),
pp. 328-3 •
)2 Ibid.
33 Ibid., p. 333.
private irrigation projects had fallen into serious financial and tech­nical
difficulties so that by 1902 neraly 90 percent of these companies
were bankrupt or near it. 'h
3h Gates, Public Land law, p. 651.
CHA PI''ER V I
FEAR RIVER UND"R THE J'T'AH POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
Purchase of Bear River Water Rights
by Utah Power ana Light eompagr
15
The purchase of the financially defunet Bothwell eanal in 1901 by
the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company set into motion 8 chain of events that led
to the virtual control of the Bear River below Rear Lake by the Utah
Power and tight Company (UP~L). One of the most valuable asr,ets gained
by the sugar company in thp transaction that brought them the Bothwell
property was the right to the waters of Bear River for power production.
Contraets were made with the Utah Light and Power Company (predecessor
to the Utah Power and Light Company) in 1903 to transfer power from the
Wheelon daJn power plant over a 44,OOO-volt transmission line to Utah
Light and Power's pioneer plant east of Ogden. In 1909 lines were run
to Caehe Junetion in Cache County, and in 1910 to Tremonton in Box
F:lder Cou nty. 1
The Wheelon dam was a part of the original Bothwell plan, although
it was named in honor of J. C. Wheelon, the sugar compaqy's engineer on
1 Leonard Arrington, Feet of the Utah-
~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~ Idaho Sugar Companyl 1891- eattle: ington
Press, 1966), p. 52.
76
the Bear ~ iver, after the company had taken over the canal. between
1904 and 1912 the capacity of the Wheelon plant was increased to 9,500
horsepower.2
In December, 1912 the Utah Power and Light Company purchased the
hydroelectric properties of the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company for 1.75
million dollars in cash. The agreement gave the Utah Power and Light
Company all the water rights, dams, and waterways, the operating plant,
the transmission lines, the distributing lines and all other equipment
previously owned by the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company (U-I). The U-1 Sugar
Company had succeeded to Bothwell's appropriation of the entire flow of
Bear Rivp-r and the water in Bear lake, and this claim was passed along
to the UP&L Company in their articles of conveyance.3
J. C. Wheelon was responsible for a clause in the agreement that
assured water to users of the Bear River canal by guaranteeing that
between May 1 and October 31 of each year, U~L would provide 900
second-feet of water at the inlet of the canal. One hundred and fifty
second-feet were guaranteed perpetually for the period between November
1 and April 30 or each year.4
Another purchase by the Utah Power and Light Company in 1912, that
of the Telluride Power Company, assured UP&L's clamp on Bear River and
Bear Lake. The Telluride Company had been organized in 1900 to take
over the hydroelectric properties of a Colorado mining company and to
2 {Tnited States Department of the Interior, U.S. r'eological Survey,
Ralph R. WOolley, Water Powers of the Great Salt Lake Basin, Water
Supply Paper 517 (Washington, Government Printing Oftice, 1924), p. 3.
3 Joseph 14'. Smith, President of the TJ-I ~ugar Co. and E. B. Cricht­low,
Vice-?resident ot U~L Co., Conveyance .and Agreement, December 30,
1912, (Utah Public Service Commission, Salt Lake City, Utah), p. 1.
4 Ibid., p. 1.
77
demonstrate the practicality of long-distance transmission of electric­ity.
Among plants it owned in Utah and Idaho were stations at Logan,
Utah, and Grace, Idaho. The company was beset with internal management
conflicts in 1912, but decided to go ahead with their work on a Bear
Lake project that included in the plans for utilizing the lake as a
storage reservoir, a proposal for using the stored water to operate an
electrical plant at the Oneida Narrows above Preston, Idaho.S
Three days after the announcement of the Telluride Power Company's
proposal for the development of Bear Lake, a second announcement was
released stating that controlling interest in the Telluride Power
Company had been purchased by J. R. Nutt and associates for the James
Campbell interests of St. Louis.6 About a month later it was explained
that James Campbell and J. R. Nutt had taken over the company in a
reor~anization of the board of directors brought about by the opposition
of stockholders in St. Louis and the West to the former management of
the company. 7
The reorganization of the board of directors was apparently not
sufficient to resore the company's financial standing and in November,
1912, the ~elluride company's property was sold at auction. Included
in this auction were all the holdings of the company. in Colorado, Utah,
and Idaho as well as in other western states. Mr. W. E. Wheeler of
the bank of Telluride, Colorado, bought the property for $6,460,000 in
the name of Neal A. Withers of the Utah Power and Light Company. This
S The Logan Republican, Logan, Utah, June 22, 1912, p. 1.
6 Ibid., July 25, 1912, p. 1.
1 Ibid., August 15, 1912, p. 1.
18
purchase was thought to be the last step in preparing the way for a
52 million-dollar merger of Colorado, Utah, and Idaho power companies.~
It had been the 'T'e11uride Company that had begun work on the inlet
and outlet canals on Bear Lake in 1902, but the work was completed in
1914 by the Utah Power and Light Gompany atter their takeover of the
Telluride properties.
A brief look at the corporate history of the Utah Power and Light
Company shows it to have been a dynamic and agressive organization.
Utah Power and Light Company was one of three companies organized in
1912 by Electric Bond and Share Company, a Maine corporation, for the
purpose of acquiring and developing electrical properties in Utah and
southern Idaho. The Utah Securities Corporation, a holding company,
was another of the companies organized by Electric Bond and Share, and
until 1925, when it was dissolved, this company controlled tW~L. The
third company was the Utah Power Company, and its principal function
was to acquire operating e1eotrical properties and convey them to U~L.
In 1946 the Securities and Exchange Commission, acting under the provi­sions
of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1931, separated UF&L
from the Utah Power Company and the EJ.ectric Power and Light Company,
the latter the successor company of the Utah Securities Corporation.
Since that time, ~L ownership and management have become primarily
western.
Shortly after its formation in 1912, UP&L acquired the electric
properties of 32 predecessor companies, nine of which were in the Cache
Valley. In addition to acquiring operating plants, UP&L showed an
interest in construction. Their first major effort in the Bear River
8 ibid., November 21, 1912, p. 8.
19
Basin was the completion of the inlet and outlet canals that made Bear
Lake a useful reservoir for generating and irrigating purposes.9
Public Reaction to Utah Power and
tight in the Bear River Basin
~ollowing a pattern that had begun with building of the Bear River
Canal, the people of the Bear River Basin greeted the advent of the Utah
Power and Light Company as a major force on the Bear River with mixed
emotions. The business community of northern Utah seemed to be
favorably impressed by the Utah Power and Light development of Bear
Lake. In August, 1911, the Commercial Booster's Club of Logan took a
trip to the major Bear Lake towns. The chlef event of the first day was
a visit to the Lifton pumping plant built by ~L at the north end of
Bear Lake. The newapaper report of the visit stated that the plant
benefitted not only the operating company but all the communities of the
lower Bear River Basin. Especially impressive to the boosters was the
three-million-dollar expense that the power company had incurred to
assure a constant supply of water to the company's generating plants
along Eear River and the promise that this development had for supplying
large amounts of electricity at reasonable rates while assuring lr­rl~
ators a steady flow during the irrigation season as well. lO
The operation of the Lifton plant was explained to the visiting
boosters in the following manner. During the Bear River's flood season
a larv.e amount of water was brought into Bear Lake through the qainbow
inlet canal and impounded. This water was then realeased during the
9 Joel Ricks, ed., The History of a Valley (Cache Valley Centennial
Commission, Logan, Utah; Salt Lake: The Deseret News Publishing
Company, 1956), p. 266.
10 The Journal, Logan, Utah, August 9, 1917, p. 6.
80
year through a channel running into the Litton pumping station, and as
the natural stream flow decreased during the year, this water kept the
I
stream flow up to normal. In the case, however, that in~urficient flood
w~ter couln be caught for use during the season, five centrifugal pumps,
capable of carrying 1,500 second-feet of water, would be used to pump
sufficient water from the lake's natural reserves. The power to operate
these pu~ps was provided by the UP~L plant at crrace, Idaho. Tn 1917,
while th~ system was ready for use, it had yet to be put to an opera­tiona)
test.ll
The second day of the Booster's Club trip included a visit to
UP&L's plants in Gentile Valley. This experience was described as
hi~hly educational and as having made the tour members appreciative of
the magnitude of the plants of the UP&L which controlled the supply of
electrical power in southern Idaho and Utah.12
The question of water rights on the Idaho section of the Bear River
had lonf. been controversial, and the appearance of large non-resident
companies such as Bothwell's and the Utah Power aM Light Company added
to the anxiety of farmers on that part of the river. The carryover from
the old c00perative tradition of water resources development encouraged
suspicion of these co>r.panies, for it was feared that their large water
rights and their interest in making a profit would endanger the live-lih,
od of the smaller users, especially during times of drou ~ht. The
years lR~9-90, when Rothwell was making his filings, were marked by
drought, and this added to the intensity with which his project was
11 -Ibid.
12
Ibid., August 11, 1917, p. 5.
81
protested by Idaho f~rmers through their state government. Up to 1919
Utah Power and Light e~eaped a serious drought, but droughts in the
summer of that year forced the company to respond to the need of non­contract
users for water.
TW&L met the challenge by pumping enough water out of Fear Lake to
meet the needs of all water users. It was reported that the natural
flow in the Bear River near Paris, Idaho, was only 35 second-feet early
in July, 1917. This amount of water was so small that had this been the
total available, not only would all crops 1n the lower section of the
Bear River Basin have failed, but the UP&L would have been forced to
close its Bear River generating plants as well, leaving most of northern
Utah and southern Idaho without power. The release of stored Bear Lake
water in the amount of 1,010 second-feet had saved the situation for
the time, but continued drought made the use of the pumps at the Lifton
plant seem tmminent in the next few weeks in the absence of drought­breaking
rains. The Lifton plant had been constructed for the protec- '
tion of the power company and its customers, but it was proving inciden­tally
to be the salvation of the Bear River farmers. Their fellow
farmers on the Weber and Snake rivers, faced with the same problem,
were having to cope with severe crop damage. l )
Water Rights Problems
Utah Power and Light had demonstrated its concern for the welfare
of the farmers in the lower Bear River Basin, but the basic question of
determining the water rights of the various users of the Bear River 1n
13 Ibid., July 7, 1919, p.6.
82
Idaho reII'Iained. The TJnited States Department of A~riculture had inves­tigated
the water ri~hts problems of Bear River as early as lR99,11
but it was not nntil the adjudicAtion or water rights in the so-called
~etrich Decree of 1920 that the priority and validity or water rights
claims in the Idaho section or the Bear Ri.er were systematically deter-mined.
Numerous problems placed stumbling blocks in the way or sorting out
the hundreds of claims on the Idaho section or the Bear River. The most
important of these was that no single court was in a position to adju­dicate
claims to Bear River water in all three of the states through
which the stream passed. ~uther complications derived trom the dif-ferences
among the laws of the various states in regard to water rights
and irrigation. A problem in the early years, before Utah Power
installed its works at ~ear Lake, was the lack of storage facilities on
the ~ar ~iver. At flood level there was surficient water to fulfill
all claims, but during the irrigati~n seaeon when the water was needed,
the supoly was dwindling, makinp scarcity an important factor in
distributing water among the claimants. An especially tedious problem
was the lac~ of centrally located records of water appropriations for
either Utah or Idaho; the only way to get a complete list of appro-priators
on the Bear River was to examine the records of every county
involved.
The Department of Agriculture report, after reviewing the water
rights problems or the Bear River, suggested that there was a real
1h Clarence'!'. Johnson and Joseph A. Breckons, Water Rights Problems
of Bear River, United States Department of Agriculture, Bul letin No. 70
(Washington! Goverment Printing Office, 1899).
83
need for jmmediate adjudication of Bear River rights by either the
courts or the state or nati~nal legislatures based on a compilation of
records of priority nf appropriation and a uniform standard of water
measurement. Rven it the necessary records could be compiled and a
standard system of measurement adopted, the suthors doubted that the
people of the three states woul d agree on a uniform system of supervi­sion.
15
Immediate action was not taken at the time, but the acession of
the Utah Power and Light Company to a position trom which they virtually
controlled the entire flow of the Bear River caused several Idaho
irrigators to question the ~L's water rights in court. The final out­come
of a complicated set of legal proceedings was a case in equity held
before Judge Frank S. Dietrich in the D