The Hanford Irrigation Crisis
With the receiver out of funds and water users refusing to pay excess charges, the future of the Hanford irrigation project hangs in a precarious legal balance.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The receiver of the Hanford Irrigation Co. is broke. The deficit at the end of this month is estimated to reach $1,300, and the operating expenses are about $2,000 a month with nothing in sight to pay the bills. Receiver E. F. Benson presented the situation to Judge Rudkin of the federal court, highlighting the need for receiver's certificates to pay operating expenses. Benson noted that while they collected about $6,000 from water users, it only covers three months of the seven-month season. Additionally, a $300,000 foreclosure suit is pending, with over 100 non-resident defendants. Water users, represented by Kennewick attorney M. M. Moulton, protested the excess water charges set by the receiver, arguing the costs should not be arbitrary, though Judge Rudkin ruled the court had no authority to intervene in the receiver's pricing.
“It is a condition and not a theory that confronts Receiver E. F. Benson.”
The struggle over the cost and availability of irrigation water in the desert regions of Eastern Washington has been a defining civic conflict for over a century. Today, this battle persists in the form of regional water rights disputes and the immense pressure on the Columbia Basin Project, proving that the foundation of our local economy has always been a precarious legal and financial tightrope.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.