Zavala County Sentinel (Crystal City, Tex.), Vol. 34, No. 38, Ed. 1 Friday, January 11, 1946 Page: 3 of 8
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Texas Borderlands Newspaper Collection and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
ZAVALA COUNTY SENTINEL, CRYSTAL CITY, TEXAS JANUARY 11, 1944
WATER USERS ABOVE
(Continued from page one)
ter, as was shown by the Bookout
Dam looked like a better bet to me,
so I filed an application for a permit
to build a dam at approximately the
sami' location as that of the Bookout
Dan.. This application in effect was
to permit me to build a dam to store
additional water in an area of the
river bed to which I already had a
permit to store water.
I had the legal and equitable own-
ership of the water impounding
rights in the area in which Mr. Book-
out has impounded water, before and
independent of the permit granted
to me to impound water in this area.
If I had not had the legal and equi-
table title to this section of the river,
and the situation had been that I
had no right to this section of the
river, I can honestly say that I would
not have tried to take this away
from Mr. Bookout by establishing a
legal right by making a prior filing.
About a month or so after my fil-
ing was made, Mr. Bookout made a
filing too for a permit to build a dam
and impound water in this same
area, and asked the Water Board to
give his filing priority over mine on
the theory that an article in the
statutes gave him such right. The
Water Board considered my appli-
cation and heard every protest, and
postponed a decision to a second
hearing, to give the protesters more
time to marshall the facts against
my application, and then granter me
the permit.
About the sum total of their pro-
test was that the water could not be
backed up into this area by the Ber-
muda Dam on account of the fill in
of silt, (which can be ditched in a
few days) and there would be no
way for me to trap water except
through the Boynton Dam, and that
they would not let me have any wa-
ter through the Boynton Dam, as
they had been letting Mr. Bookout
have. Of course, if the directbrs of
the Water District refuse to pass
water through the dam during flood
times to spite me, it means another
suit and a futile wastage of Water
District funds, for I am sure the Wa-
ter Board or Court will be more in-
interested in conservation of flood
waters that would otherwise be
wasted, than in upholding a protest
against the opening of this outlet
based on nothing but the fact that
they did not want me to have it for
storage and use, when no injury
could be shown by passing water to
me.
I am in receipt of a letter from a
prominent firm of lawyers in San
Antonio notifying me that they have
been employed by the Water District
to oppoe my permit. Why should the
Water District concern itself about
this matter, when it can not possibly
lose a drop of its impounded water?
It is only the users of water below
the Boynton Dam that can be af-
fected by my permit. Why not let
them fight this out with me, instead
of making it look like the Water Dis-
trict, the farmers, the citizens, and
the interest of the general public
will suffer ruinously if my permit
is allowed to stand?
Maybe this is what is the matter.
Just before the close of the hearing
before the Water Board, Mr. McNiel
raised the point, or made an objec-
tion, that water backed up against
the Boynton Dam would ruin the
dam. He seemed to have in mind
that it would melt down like a pile-
of sugar if water contacted it on two
sides instead of on one side. These
engineers on the State Board of Wa-
ter Engineers, men who do know the
effect of water on a massivt dirt
dam, evidently were not impressed
by such theory, for they went ahead
and gave me the permit, however,
putting on me the obligation to pro-
tect the Boynton Dam.
This obligation in my permit reads
as follows: “It is expressly provided
that, if the construction of this dam
causes material damage to the Za-
vala-Dimmit Counties Water Im-
provement District No. 1 dam, local-
ly known as the "Boynton Dam," by
the elevation of the stored water in
the proposed dam rising against the
lower or down stream side of the
Boynton Dam, then applicant shall
immediately repair any damage and
shall protect said Boynton Dam from
further impairment or damage."
I made inquiry of the Water
Board as to what they had in mind
about this provision and found that
they thought it possible that there
might be some erosion caused by
wave action of my impounded wa-
ter that might make it necessary for
me to protect the dam with rock rif-
raf. The chances of damage by wave
action is practically nil. as there is a
bend in the reservoir a hundred
yards below the dam, and the full
length of the reservoir is protected
against any wind, by a heavy bank
of trees.
If water on two sides of « dam is
more injurious to a dam than op one
side, these engineers of the Water
Board would have known it and
would have taken this into consider-
ation, without Mr. McNiel making
the suggestion. The pressure of the
weight of this massive clay silt dam
precludes anything but the minimum
amount of moisture penetrating into
the dirt of the dam. The pressure of
this weight would continue this mass
of dirt in a tight, compact condition
even if it was entirely submerged
for 100 yrs. I wonder what engineer
the Water District or Mr. Bookout
will get to try to prove that water
on the lower side of the dam will
rujn it. I am looking forward with
interest to finding this out.
If my water backing against the
lower side of the Boynton Dam will
ruin the dam, why does not the wa-
ter stored by Mr. Bookout and now
backed up against this dam ruin it?
The difference of damage to
the dam by water stored by
me is so little defferent from
the damage done by water stored
by Mr. Bookout that it should
not be worth an assessment
against the water users to fight
about. At any rate the Water Board
has put the obligation on me to pro-
tect the Boynton Dam from damage
by my water. I am able to do it and
1 will.
The only interest that 1 can sfco
that the water users above the Boyn-
ton Dem and the general public can
have in this matter is for them to get
on the side lines and see to w.iat
I extent the users of water below the
I Boynton Dam can maintain their
j grab of two miles of my reservoir,
I for as I have seid before, my permit
and my dam will not cost the Water
District one drop of water. It looks
to me that the representation that
my permit means ruin and disaster,
may have, at the least, a wee bit of
bunkum in it.
However, there is another matter
entirely separate and apart from the
permit to build my dam in which I
expect to ask for water through the
Boynton Dam. Here are the facts
in regard to it.
My predecessor in title to water
impounded by Bermuda Dam, the
Nueces Valley Irrigation Co., made
the first filing in 1903 to build a dam
and imponud flood waters of the
Nueces River. Under this filing they
had the prior right to impound the
natural flow of the river and flood
waters, big and small. Mr. Boynton
about 1914 wanted to build a dam
upstream where the Boynton Dam is
now located, and a dam across Es-
pantosa Slough to impound flood wa-
ters. The construction of such dams
of course interfered with the prior
rights of the Nueces Irrigation Co.
in that the construction of such dam
by Boynton would impound all the
natural flow of the river, which was
considerable at that time, and would
impound smaller flood waters which
might fill up the Bermuda reservoir,
but would be too small to fill the
Boynton reservoirs and the Bermuda
reservoir too.
The Nueces Valley Irrigation Co.,
and Boynton entered into a contract
wherein the Nueces Valley Irriga-
tion Co. agreed to let Boyton build
his dams conditioned that an 18 inch
opening be placed at 25 ft. above the
bottom of the Nueces River Dam and
an 18-inch opening at 5 feet in the
Espantosa Dam, so that water could
be passed to the Nueces Valley Ir-
rigation Co. “that it was entitled to
by law.”
Boynton and his immediate suc-
cessors did puss water to the Nueces
agreed as to how the elevations in
agree das to how the elevations in
the dams should be determined by
engineers to be selected. There is no
doubt we would have fully worked
out by agreement everything per-
taining to thic contract.
After several weeks, and after we
had agreed to let one engineer select-
ed by the Water District try to work
the matter out for us, I advised Mr
---r — “ ■■ IUHV1 IU1 V40, A UUViat'U 1V1I .
Valley Irrigation Company. Then Bookout and two other users of water
ensued a period of time in I below the dam that I had my doubts
which the Nueces Valley Irri-
gation Co. ceased farming opera-
tions with the property finally com-
ing into the ownership of the Sugar-
land Industries. This company did
not knoW about the existence of this
contract and made no demand on
the Zavala-Dimmit Co. Water Dis-
trict for water. This continued for a
I long period of time, but there was no
I limitation involved, for the Water
| District too knew nothing about the
i contract and did nothig to start limi-
I tation by refusing to deliver water
I under this contract.
When I look this contract up with
the directors of the Water District,
it was a surprise to them. After a
couple of meetinsg and a full dis-
cussion of the matter with their at-
torneys present, with an attitude of
friendliness, and with the thought in
the mind of all of us that it was more
profitable and sensible to adjust
matters than to litigate them, the Di-
rectors by resolution accepted my
contract and by written agreement
about my being able legally to let
them keep their pumps in my res-
ervoir, for it would make a situation
in which water impounded in my fil-
ing to irrigate acreage described in
the filing, would be used to irrigate
their land which was in another per-
mit. Well, from that time on the
picture changed The Water District
junked its agreement made with me,
and informed me that no water
would be passed to me, except to the
extent they were forced to do it
by the courts. Why? The only thing
that happened was my talk with Mr
Bookout.
As to this contract, it is a matter
that justifies the defense of the Wa-
ter District, if it cannot work out a
fair adjustment by compromise with
me. This is not like fighting my per-
mit to build a dam. when the in-
terest of the Water District is not in-
volved, but for reasonable minded
men to fight about this contract in
the Courts without trying for an ad-
justment seems silly to me. I made
Page 3
! the Ditrict a proposition, involving
j also the passing of water into my
reservoir for the credit of Mr. Book-
out to save him the inconvenience of
j putting a pump in the reservoir
a^ove the Boynton Dam and then
running the water to his lad by a
long ditch.
As to rnv proposition, made in writ-
ing and delivered to the directors of
the Water District, I received no re-
ply—no suggestion of a counter
propoition—No invitation to discuss
the matter. Why?
Maybe the directors of the Water
District think that if Mr. Bookout is
maintained in possession of his res-
ervoir that it will block my clajming
or being able to get water through
the Boynton Dam If so, it is absurd,
for water due me can be passed to
me even though Bookout owns the
reservoir. It is common practice, for
water to be passed across or through
on( district for the benefit of anoth-
er So fai in, 1 can see, my permit
and this contract are wholly mde-
pt ndent of each other. Neither de-
pi.als on t!i« outcome of the other,
and neithei can interfere with the
other
I thank you for reading this long
statement Rcgarless of whether or
not you want to join in tins fight
against me, 1 am hopeful that you
will concede that my claims are bas-
ed on a reasonable assumption that
11 have legal and equity rights in the
matter that justifies my contending
for them.
A "Look at the Books
n
OR
"A Finger in the Pie”?
Which is the UA W-CIO really after? fs seeking
economic power? Does it want to know things—or run things?
. These questions concern you as well as General Motors.
1
*
For years the facts about General Motors have been
made public.
In spite of this, the UAW-CIO demands a chance to
look at our books, with the hint that we could meet
Union demands “if the truth were really known.”
We have firmly declined to recognize this as a basis
for bargaining:
■ The Full Facts are Published
How much General Motors takes in each year—how much it pays
employes—how much it pays to stockholders—how much it pays in
taxes—how much net profit we make—and many other facts are
plainly stated in annual reports and quarterly reports.
4.
Something New has been Added
1 he obvious fact is that the l AW -CIO has gone beyond its rights
under the law—and is reaching not for information hut for new;
power— not for a look at past figures, but for the power
to sit in on forecasting am! planning the future.
A “look at the books” is a clever catch phrase intended as an
opening wedge whereby Unions hope to pry their way into the
whole field of management.
It leads surely to the day when Union bosses, under threat
of strike, will demand the right to tell what we can make, when
we can make it, where we can make it, and how much we must
charge you—all with an eye on what labor can take out of the
business, rather than on the value that foea into the product.
s.
These are broadcast to 425,000 stockholders from coast to coast-
sent to newspapers and libraries. Additional copies are free for
the asking.
All Figures are Thoroughly Checked
This Threatens All Business
If the Union can do this in the case of General Motors, it can
do it to every business in this land of ours.
Is this just imagination ? Union spokesmen have said, “1 nc !
Union has stated time after time that this issue is bigger than
just an ordinary wage argument, that it is bigger than the
Corporation and bigger than the Union.”
Every General Motors annual statement is audited by outside ^or I-*«bor Unions to use the monopolistic power of their vest mem-
auditors. Similar figures are filed with the Securities A Exchange
Commiaaion.
|
Does the UAW-CIO honestly believe that General Motors would
or could deceive these experts P
Basis off Collective Bargaining Is Defined
The Wagner Act lays down the rules for collective bargsining.
These cover such areas as rates of pay, hours of work, working
conditions.
No mention is made of earnings, prices, sales volume, taxes and
the like. These are recognized as the problems of management.
bermhip to extend the scope of wage negotiations to include more
than wages, hours and working conditions is the first step toward
handing the management of business over to the Union bosses.
We therefore reject the idea of a “look at the books” not because we
have anything to hide but because the idea itself hides a threat to GM,
to all business, and to you, the public.
Geheiml Motors
“ROM AMO SETTER THINGS TOR MORE MOMf”
........iL.
_
A
i; * *
: “
__1
i
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Matching Search Results
View eight places within this issue that match your search.Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Hardy, J. H. Zavala County Sentinel (Crystal City, Tex.), Vol. 34, No. 38, Ed. 1 Friday, January 11, 1946, newspaper, January 11, 1946; Crystal City, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1096249/m1/3/?q=%22~1%22~1: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; .