WATER
Despite a climate so closely resembling that of Athens, Rome and the
Riviera that geographers have labeled it "Mediterranean," the myth persists
that Los Angeles is located in the heart of a naturally arid wasteland. A 1977
op-ed headline in the Times labeled Los Angeles "the largest city ever built in
a desert." If so, it is the wettest desert the world has ever known, with an
annual rainfall of 15 inches and a mean temperature of 62 degrees.
Just when the residents first referred to sun-kissed Southern California as
a desert is uncertain, but that view was already widespread in the 1880s. Lack
of rainfall during the agricultural growing season, a product of the dry
summers found in a Mediterranean climate, was a quirk of nature unfamiliar to
Anglos moving into the region from the East. They now needed to irrigate to
make crops and orchards grow, and their dependence upon river water rather than
rainfall enforced the belief that they had migrated to a desert.
Otis and his Times contributed to that view during the struggle in the
1880s over ownership of water in the state's rivers. In support of a bill to
permit land owners who held no river frontage to withdraw water from a stream,
the Times reprinted, approvingly, an editorial from San Francisco's Alta
California predicting that failure to pass such legislation would return
Southern California to the desert it had been before irrigation, making it once
more the land of the horned toad and lizard. That view was reflected in
letters written to the Times by Angelenos themselves, such as the one below by
"Anti Riparian."
A) THE CITY'S RIGHT TO RIVER WATER
The water that concerned most residents of Los Angeles County in the 1880s
was that which flowed in and beneath the Los Angeles River. Under Spanish law
the pueblo owned the river water, a principle that was upheld early in the 19th
century when Mission San Fernando diverted water for agricultural purposes.
While the mission was allowed that privilege, it was with the understanding
that river water belonged to the pueblo and if the pueblo needed more the
mission would have to close its diversion channels. Twenty years later, just
before mission secularization, Mexican law also recognized the pueblo's sole
claim to the water.
The pueblo's title to the entire flow was also challenged under American
law. In the 1870s proprietors of the Los Feliz rancho, located upstream from
the city in the vicinity of what became Griffith Park, diverted water from a
ditch the Canal and Reservoir Company had built to supply the city with water.
The city sued. Native Angeleno Ygnacio Sepulveda, then judge of the
Seventeenth Judicial District and subsequently one of the first two Superior
Court judges in the county, ruled against the city {City of Los Angeles v. Leon
Baldwin, 1874} and awarded the ranchers the amount of water they claimed they
had taken for irrigation since 1853. A second suit against Baldwin later in
the decade drew the same verdict although this time the city appealed to the
state Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court's ruling in 1879.
With their water rights in jeopardy, thereby threatening an agricultural
base that covered nearly 7000 acres in the city, officials ignored the courts
and, a few months after the Supreme Court ruling in the Baldwin case, closed
the ditches watering the farms of several small owners between the Los Feliz
ranch and the city. Anastacio Feliz, Henry Elms and several others filed suit
to force reopening of their ditches, expecting the superior court would follow
the Baldwin precedent. It did, but on appeal the Supreme Court found that
Feliz, Elms and the others had always used river water by permission from the
city and not as riparian owners. Therefore the city retained its right to
river water and was justified in blocking private ditches.
That did not affect the Baldwin decision, however, and residents feared
that the river would not be able to meet the city's agricultural and domestic
demands as long as the Los Feliz interests continued to divert their rightful
amount. Correspondents offered suggestions to the Times regarding the course
of action to be taken. "Regador," an anonymous writer whose pen name suggested
a connection to the city council, wrote a series of letters condemning the
Baldwin decisions and urging the council to act aggressively. The unnamed
author of the letter in the Herald was Jackson A. Graves, a prominent attorney
who represented the owners of the Los Feliz ranch. "Regador's" criticism of
Judge Sepulveda was seconded by "Country Jake," whose letter brought a sharp
rebuttal from "A Chinaman." Col. John F. Godfrey, referred to by the letter
writers, was city attorney from 1877-1880 and continued to act as special
counsel for the city in water litigation after he left office. Ironically,
Erskine Ross, one of the attorneys whose failure to file a timely appeal with
the Supreme Court may have cost the city a victory in the first Baldwin case,
was elected to the California Supreme Court in 1880 and voted for the city in
the Feliz-Elms decision. In 1884 the city bought back the Los Feliz ranch
water rights from its then owner, Griffith W. Griffith, for $50,000, thus
regaining an exclusive right to the river's flow.
{Times, May 25, 1882, p. 3}
THE WATER QUESTION.
The City's Right to the Water Should be Summarily Settled.
Editor Times:--The people of Los Angeles are getting out
of patience with the recurrence every year of the lawless
meddling of the Feliz ranch owners or renters with the waters
of the river; and a correspondent in our evening contemporary
pertinently inquires if it is to never cease.
Our people may as well make up their minds first as last
that they can never enjoy their right to the control of the
waters of the river, in peace and quietness, till the absurd
and mischievous decision of our former District Court in the
suit between the city and the owners of the Feliz ranch is
formally set aside, or else, as Col. Godfrey, special counsel
for the city in these water troubles, has all along advised
the City Council, till the right of way of the Canal and
Reservoir ditch is formally and legally condemned.
If one or the other of these alternatives is inevitable
before the city can enjoy unvexed the full benefit of the
admirable and beneficent decision of the Supreme Court in the
Elms water suits, why should not the Council show itself
equal to the occasion and set about securing one or the
other, or, better still, both, without delay and not rest
till the water rights of the city are fully and finally
vindicated? Till this is done we shall have chronic water
troubles. Under color of the decision of the subordinate
court giving the Feliz ranch people the preposterous amount
of eight cubic feet per second--or ten times as much as they
were entitled to according to the findings of the Court
itself--they will continue to ignore the city's rights till
they are compelled to desist by the strong arm of the law.
There is a sure way, Col. Godfrey says, in which they may be
invoked. Let the Council set legal machinery in motion at
once to secure that result.
REGADOR.
{Times, May 27, 1882, p. 3}
The Water Question Again.
"Regador" Presents Some Forcible Facts for Consideration.
Editor Times: A correspondent in this morning's Herald,
in not very gentlemanly language, criticizes my communication
in yesterday's Times on the present status of the water
question. But he therein, unintentionally, doubtless,
incidentally fortifies the position I took and employs my
urgent argument--that the city authorities should take
immediate legal steps to fully and finally vindicate its
rights in this matter. I will endeavor, and without
resorting to personal abuse either, to make this clear to the
comprehension of your readers and to the agent of the owner
of the Feliz rancho, and the rest of mankind.
Notwithstanding the fact that this city has, under
Spanish, Mexican and American rule, claimed and maintained,
without dispute, till lately, for more than one hundred
years, had control of all the waters of Los Angeles river;
and notwithstanding the late decision of the Supreme Court,
confirming to the city the control, the correspondent
aforesaid avows that the Feliz ranch people intend to use the
full amount of their eight cubic feet per second, whenever
the necessities of the ranch require it. This would only
confirm what I said--that we should have chronic water
troubles till the city has fully vindicated its right, under
the late decision of the Supreme Court, to the control of the
waters of the river.
Let us inquire a little into this preposterous claim of
eight cubic feet of water per second, for four hundred acres
of land, and see if it is likely to stand if contested, or if
it ought to stand.
In the suit of Los Angeles vs. Baldwin, the District
Court "found" in substance (Finding xi.) that the city had
about eleven thousand acres of irrigable land and the Feliz
rancho about four hundred acres, and (Finding xvi.) that the
flow of water in the river at the point where defendants
diverted it, was about twenty-two cubic feet per second etc.;
and then, (Finding xvii.) that the defendants were entitled
to eight cubic feet of water per second! Now if we put the
luminous reasoning of the Court in mathematical form, and
suppose further that it had "found" that the city had eleven
hundred acres of irrigable land and the Feliz rancho four
hundred acres, then it would have stood, according to the
rule of three, thus: 1100:400: 22:8--giving thereby to the
four hundred acres of the Feliz rancho, eight feet of water.
But unfortunately the Court "found" that the city had about
eleven thousand acres, instead of eleven hundred
acres--which, sad to say, knocks the bottom entirely out of
the Court's reasoning, on the "riparian" lay-out. And
certainly there is no other theory on which the rancho can
base its unconscionable claims to eight cubic feet of water,
day and night! It may be averred that a former Supreme Court
confirmed the above "adjudication of water rights," to which
it may be replied that a later and more intelligent Supreme
Court awarded to the city of Los Angeles the absolute control
of the waters of the Los Angeles river. From which it must
follow, first or last, that all who use those waters for
irrigation, including the Feliz ranch owners, the successors
of Vignes and Wolfskill and others who dug the first ditches,
and Mr. Nadeau who has just constructed the last must come to
the Zanjero's office and buy the same, on a common footing,
as all but a few lawless persons are now doing, and ever have
done from time immemorial.
To show the logical result of reasoning from the
postulates of the District Court in the case of Los Angeles
vs. Baldwin; by proportion as before, we have the following,
viz: 11,000 acres are to 400 acres, as 22 cubic feet are to
8-10 of one cubic foot! which last amount of water, according
to the Inexorable logic of the District Court, confirmed by
our former Supreme Court, is all that the Feliz ranch is
entitled to.
I beg that the agent for the owner of the Feliz ranch
will put the above in his pipe and smoke it, with the
compliments of
REGADOR.
Los Angeles, May 26, 1882.
{Times, May 31, 1882, p. 2}
MORE ABOUT CITY WATER.
"Regador" Seems to have the Under Hold in the Argument.
Editor Times:-- The agent of the Feliz ranch, evidently
seeing the hopelessness of fighting the "Rule of Three," as
laid down by our now defunct District Court, gives away his
case and concedes that the water was not apportioned to the
Baldwins according to their irrigable area--(one would say
not! If every four hundred acres along the whole course of
the Los Angeles river were to be awarded eight cubic feet of
water per second, the Colorado would hardly furnish water
enough) but the ranch had formerly needed and used that much.
Now I have no idea that the gentleman would
intentionally misrepresent the facts of the case. But he is
merely off--he is mistaken--he lies under a mistake. There
are plenty of people here who know that the Feliz ranch
owners never irrigated two hundred acres of land; in fact in
their first suit they only claimed that they irrigated 150
acres. This claim of more than that is an afterthought.
Indeed this whole pretense of claiming the right to use the
water of the river or any part of it independent of the city
is a new-fangled notion that was never thought of till very
lately. And as to the amount--eight cubic feet per
second--it is so preposterous that the only charitable view
we can take of it is that it was a mistake--an egregious
mistake to be sure, but still a mistake, from whatever point
we look at it. From the stand point of the reasoning of the
Court, it was a palpable and obvious mistake, as I showed the
other day. If we study it from another and practical
standpoint it is equally so.
Experience has demonstrated that one head of water will
irrigate ten acres of land in twenty-four hours. According
to their own first very liberal estimate of 150 acres, they
were only entitled to fifteen heads, equal to one whole head
fifteen days, or half a head thirty days in each month,
instead of sixty full heads of twenty-four hours each per
month! Why, if coupled with this astounding award the Court
had ordained, in order to guarantee to the ranch the full
amount of eight feet perpetually, that it should build a dam
at the lower end of its irrigable land, the owners would have
howled louder than any of us who live below the dam, at
having their land judicially dammed in this way and turned
into a cienega, and their protests would have come thick and
fast that they would not stand it to have such an amount of
water forced upon them by a dam site. The owners would have
had a chance then, in the word of their agent, to "have
received the full force of the decision in favor of the
Baldwins" with a vengeance.
As to my name, it is of no consequence: the facts and
the logic are the only things that signify in this as in most
discussions.
REGADOR.
Los Angeles, May 29, 1882.
{Times, June 14, 1882, p. 3}
THAT WATER QUESTION AGAIN.
A "Country Jake" Rises to Inquire a Thing or Two.
Editor Times: Some of us country people, irrigators in
the southern part of the city, who have suffered much wrong
and vexation from the wanton acts of the Felis ranch people,
have watched with keen interest the discussion of the
question of the city's water rights in the daily papers, and
especially in the Times and Express. And although we are
only plain country folk, there is one feature of the case
that has struck us very forcibly, which we have talked over
among ourselves, which I would like to point out in your
columns. If Judge Sepulveda made the glaring mistake
attributed to him of awarding eight cubic feet of water to
400 acres of land--which is treble and quadruple the amount
of water the owners could possibly use on that quantity of
land, and ten times as much as they were entitled to
according to his own reasoning in the case, and if he is the
just Judge that we suppose he claims to be, why should he not
himself, of his own motion, take steps to right the great
wrong on the entire inhabitants of this city that he has
committed, and have that decision set aside? He would by
such an act do more to show his fitness for the position he
now holds as well as for the high office he aspires to, than
by any other act he could perform. So long as that
unfortunate decision stands, so long will the irrigators of
this city be subjected to endless vexation and loss by the
wastefulness of the Felis ranch renters, who perpetrate the
same each year under color of Judge Sepulveda's decision. We
may be simple-minded folk, but we can't help thinking he
would raise himself immensely in the estimation of all lovers
of the right, and of the just, if he would resolutely set
about remedying a great and glaring wrong, which he, and he
alone, is responsible for.
COUNTRY JAKE.
{Times, June 18, 1882, p. 3}
STATUS OF THE WATER QUESTION.
"A Chinaman" Doesn't Agree with "Country Jake."
Editor Times: Much is being said and written regarding
the decision of the Judge of the late Seventeenth District
Court, in the case of Baldwin et al vs. Los Angeles City. As
many of the remarks made are wide of the facts, and the
suggestions of your "Country Jake" correspondent today evince
such a lamentable ignorance of the matter, I make no apology
in presenting the matter as it stands of record.
On the 20th of July, 1874, an injunction suit was
commenced by the Mayor and Common Council of the city of Los
Angeles against Leon McL. Baldwin, and others, to enjoin them
from diverting the waters of the river running in the Canal
and Reservoir Company's ditch, and obstructing the flow
thereof. Messrs. Thom, Ross and A. W. Hutton represented the
city. The case went to judgment, and the Court decided, upon
the proof presented, that the defendants had not taken any
more than the fair proportion of water they were entitled to
as riparian proprietors. From this judgment an appeal was
taken to the Supreme Court, where the case was dismissed
because the transcript on appeal was not filed within the
statutory time. In this way the plaintiff, the city, lost
its right of appeal, and the judgment of the lower court
became a finality.
On the 28th of March, 1877, F. A. MacDougall, then Mayor
of Los Angeles city, filed a complaint to quiet title against
Leon McL. Baldwin and others, claiming the full, free, and
extensive use of all the water in the Los Angeles river, its
springs, sources and ditches, with the right to regulate and
control the use and distribution of the water. The city's
representative this time was Col J. F. Godfrey. Upon the
showing made in this case (which is said to have been the
first suit the world knew of to quiet title to water) the
court held that the matter was res adjudicata, the judgment
in the first suit covering the same subject matter having
grown into a final decree, which gave the defendants the
right to appropriate and use upon the Los Feliz ranch the
amount of water they had theretofore used; namely, two
irrigating heads. Upon the testimony introduced it stood
uncontroverted that the two heads were necessary for the Los
Feliz people; they were using it and had used it. And
perhaps it may be well to say here, for "Country Jake's"
benefit, that it is a commonly indulged presumption that
judgments of courts are based upon the proof submitted.
The appellate court was resorted to, to test the
validity of this second judgment, and in delivering its
opinion says there was no evidence to sustain the claim set
up by the city that it was the owner of the corpus of the
water in the Los Angeles river. In the former action the
defendants were declared upper riparian proprietors on the
river, and entitled to the quantity of water they diverted.
At the time of the commencement of the second suit according
to the testimony, the diversion of the waters of the river
was being conducted by both parties under the same conditions
that existed when the first suit was brought, and while these
conditions remained unchanged the judgment rendered in the
former action operates as a bar. In other words, the city
twice disputed the right of Baldwin to use two heads of
water, the matter was referred to all the courts and the
final decision of the highest tribunal of the state, is that
Baldwin and his grantees may use the two heads of water they
have heretofore appropriated.
If the city had shown at the proper stage of the case
that two heads of water was more than was requisite or proper
to use on the Feliz ranch, the court was bound to have
decided accordingly.
In view of the fact that the defendants claim ripened
into title on the 3rd of April, 1879, by the decision of our
Supreme Court, I apprehend that no one but a "Country Jake"
would have the hardihood to suggest the ridiculous
proposition that the presiding Judge of the late District
Court, who tried the case, should of his own motion set aside
the judgment of the Supreme Court, because I maintain that,
in affirming the judgment of the District Court, the Supreme
Court adopted it. And in this connection I would commend to
the attention of "Country Jake" the fact that however
desirous a Judge may be to set aside a final judgment, it is
happily and properly placed outside his province so to do.
A CHINAMAN.
Los Angeles, June 14, 1882.
B) RIPARIAN RIGHTS V. APPROPRIATION
While Hispanic law had recognized that river water belonged to those who
held possession of the river bank {riparian rights}, the practice in the
western United States was that those who first appropriated the water,
regardless of their location, had a prior right {"First in time, first in
right."} These two views clashed in California, leading to one of the state
Supreme Court's most controversial decisions, Lux v. Haggin. In early 1886 the
high court ruled, 4-3, for riparian rights in that case, which concerned the
diversion of Kern River water. The court reasoned that under English common
law, which California had adopted in 1850, riparian rights were guaranteed.
Erskine Ross, the former lawyer for the city of Los Angeles, wrote the dissent.
The powerful Miller-Lux land partnership, which held a vast acreage along fifty
miles of the Kern, was deemed the rightful owner of the flow rather than a
canal company, owned by developers James Haggin and Col. William B. Carr, that
appropriated water from the stream to irrigate land away from the river.
The decision posed a threat to large areas of California with no riparian
water rights, especially in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California.
While the city of Los Angeles, both as a riparian owner and as a holder of
pueblo rights, could continue to furnish irrigation water to agriculturalists
within the city, other parts of the county had neither claim to water. Those
who opposed the decision referred to themselves as Anti-riparians, or "Antis."
"Anti Riparian," with a classic "We made the desert bloom" argument, voiced
that concern in this letter written two months after the court's decision.
"The Supreme Court's august son in law" was Abbot Kinney, prominent Southern
Californian businessman and orchardist who was married to the daughter of state
Supreme Court Justice James Thornton, a member of the four-man majority in Lux
v. Haggin.
{Times, June 20, 1886, p. 2}
If Not, Why Not?
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: Will you, or some one
else, be so kind as to rise up on end and inform a puzzled
public why, under the recent declaration of our great
Riparian Supreme Court any one, particularly a land owner at
the lower extremity of a stream, where it might, could or
would have run, may not now, without let or hindrance,
proceed to demolish and remove all dams and obstructions
placed therein by the Antis? Is there any bar at all between
our beautiful homes, our orange groves and vineyards, and
ruin and destruction, save our own strong right arms and
faithful Winchesters? Why may not Pasadena again be
relegated to her primeval condition as a first-class pasture
ranch for the festive jack rabbit and the baa-ing sheep?
What is to prevent Los Angeles from once more becoming the
favorite breeding place of the frisky squirrel, and the
plaintive ground-owl? Why may not some one return to its
native canyon the waters that now fructify and make glad the
fruitful orchards and groves of the Supreme Court's august
son in law? True the ghost of old ma Davis might thereafter
at midnight haunt the scene of desolation, but what of that?
"It's English, you know," this decision, and we ought not to
complain. What shall prevent the impoverished descendants
of some of the old Conquistadores from returning the waters
of the Santa Ana to their original bed, wherewith to quench
the thirst of a few miserable bovines and broncos, and
burros. Riverside and Anaheim, and Orange and Santa Ana,
would perish from the face of the earth, but it would be in
accordance with law--as at present defined by a majority of
our Supreme Court. Dust and desert they were a few short
years since, and to dust and desert they may return.
Probably to some similar decision of the high old Supreme
Courts of Egypt and Assyria is due the ruin and oblivion that
to-day shroud the history, and mark the sites of Karnak and
Thebes and mighty Babylon. They have utterly perished, but
the Nile and Euphrates flow onward in undiminished volume to
the sea forever.
ANTI RIPARIAN.
Los Angeles, June 16, 1886.
At the end of August, 1886, the Republican State Convention met in Los
Angeles to nominate candidates, including Supreme Court justices, for the
forthcoming statewide elections. Party leaders seemed committed to legislative
action designed to lessen the impact of Lux v. Haggin. Since the decision had
apparently little adverse effect on the water rights that accompanied Hispanic
land grants, Southern Californians with such holdings were reluctant to tinker
with the court's decision. They even suggested that Northern California
Republican leaders such as Haggin's associate William Carr may have had an
ulterior motive when they sought to legislatively alter the decision. Times
editor Otis urged that his party act with restraint. After quoting the
principle portions of the court's ruling in Lux v. Haggin as reported in the
headnotes accompanying printed copies of that decision, "A Southern
Californian" was more blunt.
{Times, Aug. 25, 1886, p. 2}
The Water Question.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: The attention of the
delegates to the Republican State Convention is respectfully
called to the following points relative to the water
question. The case of Lux vs. Haggin decides--
First--"A private corporation cannot divert the waters
of a water-course and thereby deprive the riparian
proprietors of all use of the same without compensation made
or tendered, to such proprietors.
Second--"The owners of land by or through which a
water-course naturally and usually flows have a right of
property in the waters of the stream.
Third--"This property may be taken for a public use,
just compensation being first made or paid into court.
Fourth--"Water to supply 'farming neighborhoods,' is a
public use, and it is for the Legislature to determine
whether, in the exercise of the power of eminent domain, it
is necessary or expedient to provide further legal machinery
for the appropriation (on due compensation) of private rights
to the flow of running streams and the distribution of water
to public uses.
Fifth--"One private person cannot take his property from
another, either for the use of the taker or for an alleged
public use, without any compensation paid or tendered.
Const. Art. 1, sec. 14.
Sixth--"Riparian owners may reasonably use water of the
stream for purposes of irrigation."
Wherein is this decision unfair or unjust? Again,
Justice Ross, in his dissenting opinion, (fourth, West Coast
Reporter, 273,) lays down an important principle, which
appears to have been lost sight of by all parties to this
controversy, viz., "The doctrine of appropriation as
contradistinguished to that of riparian rights," was not
intended to, and indeed could not, affect the rights of those
persons holding under grants from the Spanish or Mexican
governments--first, because the doctrine is expressly limited
to the waters upon what is known as the public lands; and,
secondly, because the rights of such grantees are protected
by the treaty with Mexico and the good faith of the
Government. It is the rights of such riparian proprietors as
those that are unaffected by the doctrine of appropriation,
and those are the riparian rights that are excepted from the
operation of the provisions of the civil code in relation to
"Water rights," by section 1422 of that code, which reads:
"The rights of riparian proprietors are not affected by the
provisions of this title." And Chief Justice Morrison and
Justice Myrick concurred in the dissenting opinion of Justice
Ross.
The scope of this principle, upon which the entire court
are a unit (except as to the limitation expressed by Justice
Ross) will be appreciated in all that portion of Southern
California covered by Spanish or Mexican land grants; and
delegates and their constituents who may not be informed as
to what was really decided in the case of Lux vs. Haggin, or
who have been misled by the glaring misrepresentation of that
decision by the "appropriators" or their organs, will at once
perceive that all communities carved out of Spanish or
Mexican grants have "vested" rights of which neither the
Legislature not the courts can deprive them "without just
compensation," and that their rights rest on the "riparian
doctrine."
Again: The present laws relating to appropriation,
while they may be amended to limit the quantity which may be
hereafter appropriated,--by any one person--and perhaps in
other respects, are sufficient for the purpose.
Rights heretofore acquired under existing laws, cannot
be divested by any amendment to the Constitution, or any acts
of the Legislature.
Any attempt to do so will simply subject the people to a
series of suits to determine the force and effect, the
validity or invalidity of such amendments or acts, and in the
mean time titles to land and water are clouded and the timid
Eastern capitalist who is pouring into "Southern California"
will refuse to invest until these questions are settled. No
man desires to "buy into a lawsuit." Where, then, is our
"Boom?" In this connection, we desire information on the
question, "Is it a fact that Carr and his friends are
attempting to secure the delegates from the northern portions
of the State, to vote for a resolution indorsing the
appropriators, with a view to securing such legislation as
will involve us in litigation, and enable them to point with
pride to the 'Northern Citrus Belt,' where irrigation and
water litigation are unknown?" We do not believe this can be
accomplished, if the delegates understand the situation.
Many are in favor of the State controlling all the water.
This seems to be impracticable. The water would have to be
purchased by the State, and a new army of officers, to "run
the machine," would make life a burden to the poor
irrigators. The only relief that appears to be possible, is
to pass laws to secure the equitable distribution of the
water--among the owners of the rights to its use--by men
elected or appointed by themselves in the various districts
where irrigation is practiced.
A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAN.
Los Angeles, Aug. 24.
The platform that the Republicans adopted supported neither riparians nor
appropriators, and neither Carr-Haggin nor Miller-Lux found comfort in it. By
1887, however, the legislature, under pressure from the animosity created by
the court's Lux v. Haggin decision, was ready to reform California water law in
the interest of irrigators without riparian rights. In response to the
suggestion that the state simply eliminate riparian rights, "Farmer" briefly
traced the history of riparianism in California and offered a compromise.
{Times, Feb. 5, 1887, p. 6}
The Water Question.
REPEAL OF ARTICLE 1422, CIVIL CODE, OBJECTED TO--THE OLD AND
NEW CONDITION OF THE WATER QUESTION--HOW TO SETTLE
RIPARIANISM.
El Monte, Feb. 1.--[To the Editor of The Times.] It is
reported that the Senate Committee on Irrigation have agreed
to recommend the repeal of section 1422, Civil Code, which
recognizes riparian ownership.
Will this be good, or will it open a Pandora's box of
evils?
In olden times the Mexican government granted the
60,000,000 (speaking approximately) of our acres to about
2000 rancheros, giving to each, say, from 30,000 to 55,000
acres. Every grant bordered on a stream, which, or its use,
belonged to the land. Without the water the grants would
have been valueless. These grants supported some 3,000,000
of cattle, whose daily consumption was many millions of
gallons.
There was not a well in the whole State. These streams
also supplied the house and a diminutive irrigation.
Agriculture outside of the mission, it may be said, was
unknown; and the Americans, in 1848-49, considered it
impossible.
Now, all these things are right opposite. The
rancheros, their lands and their cattle have been replaced by
over 75,000 farmers, located generally away from the rivers;
and the water, which is of little or no use in the beds of
the streams, as of old, is vital to the farmer. Yet, doesn't
it follow that riparianism can be made of no effect by the
repeal of this section, and will it not open the way to much
and prolonged litigation, which will curse the State for
years, as in the case of the ranches? Would it not be better
to let this section rest and to adopt the suggestion of our
most accomplished State engineer, William Ham Hall, to wit,
to treat it as a police question, allowing the riparian
owners limited use of the waters. This will prevent
litigation, give peace and general use and will harm no one.
The writer, though a riparian owner, deems it for the best
interests of all that the millions of gallons of surplus
water running to waste in the river beyond what he uses
should go to the people.
There is water for all if it be properly saved and
properly distributed under such regulation as the State
Engineer has recommended.
FARMER.
Adoption in 1887 of the Wright Act, written and introduced by assemblyman
Christopher C. Wright of Stanislaus County, provided a process by which farmers
without riparian rights could form an irrigation district and legally obtain
river water. Erskine Ross, by this time a federal judge in Southern
California, declared the act unconstitutional in one of the earliest test
cases. On appeal, the U. S. Supreme Court upheld the law.
As water historian William Kahrl has noted, the Wright act in its early
form "was ineffectual at ensuring the fiscal integrity of the districts,"
resulting in the failure of many of those organized immediately after adoption
of the act. This short, anonymous letter printed in the Times a few weeks
after passage of the Wright Act suggests a reason.
{Times, April 12, 1887, p. 6}
Law and Land.
Anaheim, April 9.--[To the Editor of The Times.] Land-
owners are needs much interested in all that concerns
irrigation, and have tried to master the Wright law. They
have got as far as section 6, and, not finding anything about
irrigation, have come to a dead stop and given up the study
of the remaining forty-eight sections. Is Mr. Wright a
lawyer? It is painfully distressing to see a community where
the wisest and best chosen to legislate can pass such legal
verbiage as law. Poor landowners, and poorer zanjeros, if
they shall keep all that stuff in their heads in order to
keep the water running in their ditches.
C) WATER DELIVERY SYSTEMS
From the earliest days of settlement residents of the pueblo had diverted
river water into ditches to supply both their domestic and agricultural needs.
Zanjas, as the ditches were called, meandered through the community and were
the responsibility of the town council. The zanjero, essentially a water
commissioner, was in charge of the system.
After American acquisition of Los Angeles the water system remained
organizationally unchanged but expanded to meet an increased demand as more
acres came under cultivation. At its peak in the mid-1880s city water
irrigated approximately 10,000 acres, carried through the city by nine separate
zanjas. By 1887, with residential lots replacing groves and vineyards, the
area under irrigation had decreased and the city began to abandon the zanjas.
Ditch No. 5 was the first to go, in 1888. By 1904 all were gone.
While the zanjas were intended to supply domestic water, the contaminated
nature of ditch water encouraged residents to obtain their drinking water
elsewhere. Those who could afford it bought drinking water from door-to-door
peddlers who sold it in jugs or, later, from a water wagon. Efforts to pipe
water began in the 1850s. After several failed attempts the franchise to
deliver domestic water went to what became the Los Angeles City Water Company
in 1868 in the form of a thirty year lease. The company, whose major
stockholders included Prudent Beaudry, was to obtain most of its water from
Crystal Springs on the Los Feliz ranch but was also permitted to draw a small
amount from the river.
Complaints about the service provided by the Los Angeles City Water Company
became a frequent topic of letter writers. "Citizen" and "Pluvius" typified
those concerns.
{Times, July 11, 1883, p. 4}
The Water Company Rapped.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: I see by the report of
the Common Council proceedings Saturday night that sundry
hydrants were ordered put up, and that the water company
should be requested to send in its bills for the same. Is it
not a fact that by the terms of the water company's franchise
that corporation is obliged to put up hydrants without cost
to the city? And is it possible that the Council does not
know that fact? Again, does it not behoove the Council to
take note of the fact pointed out by the Zanjero, that the
water company is constantly and greatly increasing the amount
of water that it takes from the river, and to ask where is
going to be the limit of its appropriations, and if it can
always go on appropriating the people's water without money
and without price, although it does not sell it back to the
people without money and without price by a long ways?
CITIZEN.
{Times, May 21, 1889, p. 5}
Water! Water!
East Los Angeles, May 20.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
The householders of Primrose avenue, East Los Angeles, would
thank The Times if it would remind the City Water Company
that the supply of water furnished them by that corporation
is wholly inadequate to their wants. Their trees, shrubs,
grass and flowers are dying, not to mention the ever-
recurring inconvenience to indispensable household and
hygienic demands for want of water. An abundant supply of
water is an essential condition of the contract between the
citizens, when they promised to pay the water rates and the
company when it assumed to furnish that supply. The company
collects its water rates with commendable promptness and
zeal, but it supplies the precious fluid only at such times
and in such quantities as its seeming "public-be-damned"
sentiments dictate. During last summer the City Council,
heeding the reiterated complaints of the people of the
vicinity named, who, through all the hot, dry months,
suffered little less than a water famine, required the water
company to lay down a larger supply pipe on Griffin avenue,
which would have met the difficulty of the situation, but the
rich corporation found means of getting this order rescinded,
and the people and taxpayers were left, as usual, in the
lurch. The dry season is now again upon us, and finds the
people referred to in the condition it left them last
year--often for days without any water at all, and never with
a supply adequate to their wants. Will the City Council
compel the water company to put down a four-inch main on
Primrose avenue? In case of fire, there is not a house at
the present moment in that avenue which could supply a hose
stream sufficient to extinguish a good-sized match.
PLUVIUS.
There was a particular flurry of letters to the Times critical of the water
companies in the summer of 1885. At that point the state Supreme Court had
just ruled in McCrary v. Beaudry that the water companies had an obligation to
supply water to consumers and could not suspend service without reasonable
cause. Of primary concern to most complainants was the quality of the water
supplied by the companies. But when city health officer Dr. John S. Baker
suggested that a committee of doctors test the purity of the water, two
citizens objected. John Dunigan's directory listing was simply "capitalist."
{Times, July 15, 1885, p. 4}
The City's Water.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: Noticing in your paper
that "Health Officer Baker is moving to have a committee of
the best physicians to analyze the water used by our citizens
for domestic purposes," I beg leave to express the wish that
he will do nothing of the kind, for I question if there is
the chemical knowledge with our "best physicians" to perform
the task, although they may be nearly all professors in our
local medical college. The test should be made by a chemist
known to be a skillful analysist, who makes the business a
specialty. The Water Company can easily buy off a white-
washing report.
It is rumored that such an analysis was made, but it was
decidedly against the healthfulness of the water, that
interested parties paid a large sum to have it suppressed.
The writer drinks nothing but water. During a long life
and experience in various cities, he is decidedly of the
opinion that the water furnished this city is the most
loathsome and unhealthy of any water before offered the
citizens of any community. The fact that it is so impure and
filthy doubtless is a reason used by the directors of the
Water Company to justify their consciences for charging such
exorbitant prices for their detestable compound.
Surely no temperance community could flourish when to be
a teetotaler one is compelled to use such a loathsome
decoction.
Don't let any local chemists white-wash this article,
but let there be a fair analysis made by a chemist who
understands the business and cannot be under the influence of
the water ring of this city. If funds are needed for the
purpose, I will contribute my share towards the expense.
A VICTIM.
{Times, July 29, 1885, p. 2}
The City Domestic Water.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: A short time ago the
Health Officer requested the Council to appoint a commission
of the best physicians to analyze the city water. Dr. Baker
now requests that the special commission be empowered to send
a demijohn from each water system to the State Chemist for
analysis. What tomfoolery is that! Has the inspector
discovered that no one has been inside of a chemical
laboratory but the State official? If this official must be
appealed to, why appoint the commission? At the next meeting
the Health Officer likely will advise the Council to ask the
water company to fill the jugs, if they are to carry samples
to be tested.
Now let us look at the facts as they really appear to
those who are acquainted with the city supply, and see if it
is only necessary to analyze to know of its fitness for
domestic use.
For several miles a ditch is made on the base of the
foothills, along one side of Los Angeles River, to the
reservoir, where all the slush in this open ditch carries an
accumulation of dead matter, animal and vegetable, the juice
of which forms a compound sediment of most detestable stuff.
Draw from any of the water-pipes a tub of water and let it
stand for forty-eight hours, and you have, at the bottom, a
slimy paste mixed with torn fish and other flesh sufficient
to disgust a horse.
If this is the case at this season of year, what will it
be when showers take place and the sides of the foothills are
well washed down? Will the analysis tell of the catalogue of
dead things we drink the liquid of? No sir, it is a ruse to
throw the responsibility of a knock-kneed corporation on the
State Chemist.
The reservoir, which is no better than a filthy pond, it
is said, supplies the people of East Los Angeles when there
is water in it.
Human excrement and an abundance of foul stuff can be
found ready to be washed in with the first shower of rain.
On one side is a very shallow ditch, but it can't turn the
water of a smart shower for ten minutes. All the wash from
the side of the hill must go in the water.
It is asked in all candor, is it necessary to get a
State official to analyze such water? Is there a man or
woman that does not know the condition of the water who uses
it? There is not such another pollution for a city like this
between the oceans. As it now seems it can be rated but
little better than sewer water.
J. DUNIGAN.
322 Downey ave., East Los Angeles.
When the Los Angeles City Water Company decided that it would be
unprofitable to supply water to homes in the hill region immediately west of
the business district, Prudent Beaudry sold his stock in the company and
obtained a franchise covering that area. Along with his brother, Victor, and
J. Wesley Potts, Beaudry was deeply involved in developing the hill lands and
realized that without water his project would be severely handicapped. The
Beaudrys formed what became the Citizens' Water Company, but their customers
were as unhappy with the service and charges as were those supplied by the
older company. As the decade neared its end, residents saw little improvement
and began to consider municipal ownership of the system. The company, as noted
in its reply, felt the criticism should be directed toward the city council
rather than the company.
{Times, July 3, 1888, p. 6}
A Loud Call For More Water.
Los Angeles, June 29.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
The residents on the hills are anxiously wishing for a good
water system that would be adequate to supply all ordinary
demands. The system as now conducted is of very little use,
but, of course, it is better than none. In case of fire, it
is almost useless. Parties are not inclined to build while
the present management continues. The small and rotten pipes
through which the scanty supply is furnished should at once
be removed and larger and better ones put in their place.
The present system is a fraud on consumers that are paying an
exorbitant price for the little they receive. About one-half
of the water escapes from the defective pipes, as any one can
see that passes over the streets in this locality. Are we to
wait and suffer at the sweet will of such a dilatory company?
We say if they are not able to equip their water system in a
proper manner, so as to furnish a sufficient supply to meet
our demands, let them hoist the white flag, as they should
have done ere this, and let some other company, or the city,
take hold of it that knows how, and is able to rectify its
defects.
Hoping that our able advocate, The Times, will aid us in
this matter by giving publicity to this card, we remain
yours, etc.,
MANY CITIZENS.
{Times, Feb. 10, 1889, p. 5}
Excessive Water Rates.
Los Angeles, Feb. 4.--[To the Editor of The Times.] I
was glad to see the other day the letter from a correspondent
relative to the outrageous rates charged for water. It is
time each consumer puts to himself and to each other the
question: How much longer are we going to submit to this
imposition?
The charges are altogether out of all proportion to the
prime cost of supply.
Once a year the Council fixes the rates to be charged by
the water companies, but it treats the action as only a
farce, and continue to make and enforce their unreasonable
demands. If the Council has the power to fix the rates for
the year, why, then, in common justice, enforce them. If
there is any uncertainty in the matter, let a test case be
taken in court. Not only are the charges burdensome, but
consumers have to put up with the arbitrary conduct on the
part of the collectors. There are only four of us in family,
yet I have to pay to the Citizens' Water Company $2.50 per
month. The tenants of a six-room cottage, nearly next door,
also pay the same amount. The inevitable has come in the
shape of reduced rents, and it has also to come in reduced
charges for water, or by the City Fathers taking the supply
into their own hands. Yours respectfully,
CITIZEN.
{Times, July 27, 1889, p. 3}
Equity in Water Charges.
Los Angeles, July 26.--[To the Editor of The Times.] In
Oakland and San Francisco there are 18 different ratings for
dwellings up to 4000 square feet of floor surface, occupied
by a single family; larger houses no especial rating.
Then for each water closet and bathtub there is a
separate charge. All of this is claimed to be consolidated
into one charge in the Los Angeles ordinance, and there is
but one charge whether a tenement has one room or 20 rooms,
no bathtubs or 10 bath tubs, no water closets or 10 water
closets.
The rate of the largest tenement in Los Angeles is made
the same as the smallest tenement.
Dwellings are not mentioned.
Suppose the City Council said the milk bill, or meat
bill, or bread bill, or gas bill, of every family in the city
must be the same, without regard to the amount of milk, or
meat, or bread, or gas used, could such an ordinance be
enforced?
It is as equitable to have only one charge for water
used in each tenement in the city, without reference to its
size or amount of water used. Respectfully,
CITIZENS' WATER COMPANY.
Until 1887 the Beaudry system drew water from a spring located near College
and Alameda streets. Once known as Abila springs, it was the source of water
used by the first franchise holder to supply domestic water in the 1850s and
lay in a marshy area not far from the river. The quality of that water
disturbed "Old Settler," author of several letters on sewage and water. Along
with his criticism of Beaudry's product, "Old Settler" suggested a theme that
several other writers would support later in the decade: the importation of
water from mountainous regions beyond the river basin.
{Times, July 18, 1885, p. 2}
The Water Question.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: I am glad to see that
you are allowing the people a chance to speak out on the
water question, in your paper. For years I have considered
the infamous water furnished to the inhabitants of this city
as the greatest evil with which we have to contend in Los
Angeles. In its vital importance to us it dwarfs the Chinese
question, the "bug" question, the temperance question, the
want of manufactures, and all others of which we talk, for in
the language of the Revised Version of the New Testament,
"What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and
lose his own life?" Heretofore I have never attempted to
write anything on this subject, because I thought it would be
no use. The city seemed so completely under the control of
the two crushing water Juggernauts of Los Angeles, that it
appeared idle to attempt any reform; and I, like thousands of
others, have been victimized for years by a system which is
fraud and robbery combined, and have been, during all that
time, paying more for a vile stuff called water, but which is
not water, than it has cost me for bread, and have opened not
my mouth. But since the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of McCrary vs. Beaudry, and the stand taken by several
writers in your paper, I begin to see a gleam of hope.
In the first place, while in my opinion, the water
supplied by Beaudry is far cleaner and more wholesome than
the City Water, neither one is or ever will be fit for human
beings to drink. Especially so in this century when we know
how to convey water in pipes from mountains, over elevations,
across depressions and finally forcing it, by the power of
gravity only, to the level of its source. There is no excuse
other than avarice or ignorance for a wide-awake city like
this having bad water, in this age of the world. I can well
believe the accounts of the filth and animalculae contained
in our drinking water, and of the insufficiency of the
supply. But this is not the root of the trouble. The river
water is nothing but seepage alkali water, and in my opinion,
the Beaudry water is simply surface water which has seeped
through from the river to the low point at which it appears
at the so-called "springs." Date street, between Beaudry's
"spring" and the river, near George E. Long's residence is
said to lie some six feet higher than said "spring," the
source of the Beaudry water supply, and wells can be obtained
by boring only a very few feet in that locality. That such
water must necessarily, as well as the river water, (from
which it probably comes) seep through into the Beaudry water,
admits of no doubt. Therefore, in reality, the two waters
are one. The Beaudry may be a little better in that it is
strained though a half mile or so of surface ground, but that
it will eventually be rendered totally unfit for use by the
drainage from the dense population centering around the
railroad depot, I have no manner of doubt, in addition to its
intrinsic badness.
Alkali is a salt, according to the best authorities, an
excess of which in drinking water, in addition to other
deleterious effects on the human system, tends to abnormally
solidify the bones; to ossify the structural and valvular
machinery of the heart; to clog up, harden and render weak
the circulation of blood through the veins and arteries,
through its deposit in the system of particles of solid and
foreign matter; to thin down and render weak the interior
surfaces of the coatings of the veins and arteries; to eat
into and break down the tissues of the brain; to produce
kidney affections, heart disease and a dozen other diseases.
The "Los Angeles River" is a slough which rises in a plain
out of an alkali marsh. It has neither head nor mouth. It
run through alkali its whole length. Its water is death. If
its water be boiled in a tea-kettle it will leave a crust
deposit that will ring like a piece of metal when dropped on
the floor. That it is responsible for the great number of
deaths from "heart disease," so-called, here, I am fully
convinced. I have no confidence in analyses. The money-
loving owners of "water stock," can always "fix" them.
Either the water or the chemists will be "doctored," and like
the bank commissioners' report on a fraudulent and failing
bank, everything will "show up" lovely. But the fact remains
that water will dissolve alkali, and hold it in solution and
alkali in excess is opposed to human life.
The mountains are near us, and there is no doubt that by
going a not unreasonable distance, pure mountain water could
be brought into this city that would, with good sewerage,
make it what Nature intended it should be, a healthy city,
and which I do not believe it now is.
OLD SETTLER.
{Times, Feb. 6, 1886, p. 2}
Effect of the Sewer on the Beaudry Supply Reservoir.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: Several months ago I
wrote some articles to your paper in which I referred to the
badness of the drinking water supplied to the city of Los
Angeles, both by the Los Angeles City Water Company, and the
Beaudry system. In speaking of my views you editorially
remarked that they were probably too extreme to have much
influence. One of the most extreme of my claims then was
that "the Beaudry water" is but the contaminated surface
seepage from the river; and to the extent that it percolates
through the soil but a few feet below the vaults and drains
of the nearby population living on Date street, and in the
vicinity of the new depot, is worse even than the alkaline
waters of the river, which carry so much disease-breeding
organic matter, in addition to their intrinsic chemical
unfitness for human use. Besides the editorial left-hander,
a carping critic arose who knew all about the matter. He
showed that the "Beaudry water" came welling straight up,
pure and undefiled, from sub-mundane granite depths
profound--that it was an independent "spring." Since then
this "spring" has received a black eye from the physicians.
But the worst blow comes from Mr. V. Beaudry himself. In
plain English he "lets the cat out of the bag." In Mr.
Beaudry's letter to the City Council, published in the Times
of January 27th, that gentleman, the owner of said water
works, says:
"The city authorities some time ago placed the Alameda
sewer at such a depth as to seriously diminish the amount of
water flowing into my supply reservoir."
How is that for a "spring?" It is the first time I ever
heard of a "spring" being cut off by a sewer, no matter how
deep the latter might be. Does not this show conclusively
the filthy, drainage character of the Beaudry water? Mr.
Editor, even if it does hurt some rich men's pockets, the
truth should be known in regard to the kind of water we are
drinking. Especially so, as we can procure good water. It
may be admitted that human life is of little importance in
comparison with money, and that the sale of town lots merits
more attention than the public health, yet even in a
financial point of view it is a very narrow and unwise policy
which covers up the truth in regard to such a vital matter
simply to benefit a few rich and purse proud men to the
injury of the mass, and to the discredit of the fair fame of
our city as a healthful place of residence. The simple truth
is, the water this city is getting is not fit for use. There
is pure, good mountain water accessible, and it should be
brought into the city, even if water barons do suffer.
OLD SETTLER.
Private water barons were not the only ones at fault. John Murray's
complaint about the Nichols ditch on Ingraham street, one block north of
Seventh, was aimed at the city's irrigation system, as was the complaint from
"A Sufferer."
{Times, Sept. 16, 1887, p. 12}
An Offensive Ditch.
Los Angeles, Sept. 14.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
The Nichols ditch, on Ingraham street, is a source of great
annoyance to the residents on that thoroughfare. Property
there is greatly damaged and much sickness exists owing to
the slime, mud and decaying vegetation. Prominent physicians
say that the cause of typhoid and malaria fevers in that
neighborhood can be directly traced to the filthy condition
of the ditch herein referred to.
Residents on the south side of Ingraham street cannot
approach their residences except by going through an alley,
or a detour of several blocks. They also suffer from the
overflow, and one party last winter had their premises
flooded, foundations of house undermined by the water from
the ditch. This party will institute suit against the city
should the trouble occur again. It was voted some time ago
to pipe the ditch in question on Orange street as soon as the
property-owners graded. This street was at once graded and
paid for, but no sooner completed than Councilman Jones or
the City Engineer decide that the ditch must remain on
Ingraham street and be inclosed in iron-pressure pipe. Bids
were advertised for, and at the last meeting of the Council
but one was received. The chances for doing the work just at
present are said to be very poor.
The question arises, of what use is this ditch and who
does it accommodate? The City Water Company, also the
Citizens' Water Company, have their mains laid on Seventh,
Ventura and Orange streets, and certainly can supply all the
water needed. If so, why should the city of Los Angeles or
the property owners on Ingraham street pay out $6000 for
piping a ditch which is unnecessary and also a great
nuisance?
The Mayor of Los Angeles, the Board of Health and the
Council have been appealed to quite a number of times to give
some relief, but the ditch still holds the fort, covered with
green slime and polluting the air for blocks around. A
petition, stating all these facts, and signed by thirteen
property owners, was presented to the honorable Council at
their last meeting, and was referred without reading.
The residents on Ingraham street will not tolerate the
nuisance many days longer. They have arisen and will appeal
to the courts, and the city authorities will be compelled to
act in the matter or defend themselves in suits for damages
for overflow and for the sickness occurring through the
filthy condition of the ditch referred to.
JOHN T. MURRAY
{Times, June 13, 1886, p. 2}
Please Explain.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: Why is it that our
irrigating system is managed so loosely of late? Why is it
that, when a person buys a head of water and pays the
required sum for it, he gets perhaps only one-half or two-
thirds of that head? Does it not look a little as if
everything was a trifle one-sided. A person, in any kind of
transaction, is supposed to get somewhere near his money's
worth. Why should it be any different in regard to water.
The plea that there is not enough water has no grounds, for
surely everyone can see that there is plenty of it going to
waste down the river. The complaint arises from every side,
that the water supply in the ditches is not near as good as
last season, and that there are altogether too frequent short
runs of water. Will some one interested please rise and
explain the "why and wherefore."
A SUFFERER.
D) FORESHADOWING THE OWENS VALLEY AQUEDUCT
In criticizing the quality of water being distributed by local companies
for domestic use, "Old Settler" had urged the city to look beyond the river for
an uncontaminated supply. He was joined by other writers, particularly "Homo"
and "Farmer," whose argument was essentially the one the city used nearly two
decades later to justify what Morrow Mayo called "the rape of Owens Valley."
While the intent of "B. D.'s" letter was to protect the water rights of Los
Angeles, in light of the litigation and violence that would mark the Owens
Valley aqueduct project in the 20th century the position "B. D." took is more
akin to that of Inyo County ranchers than to that of the city.
{Times, May 22, 1886, p. 2}
Riparian Rights.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: Seeing an account of
the decision of the Supreme court of the State with regard to
riparian rights, adverse to litigation, I was led into a
train of reflection thereon. With all respect for the
decision and for the majesty of law, I would repeat the
observation made by some commentator, that law is but common
sense refined, and having that, the common class of people
may be permitted to judge of right and wrong. Any area of
country would certainly be entitled to the amount of rain
falling upon it in preference to all others, even though
there be a surplus. Water naturally seeks a level of the
lowest place. Rivers and their tributaries are the channels
or drains by which an outlet is afforded for this surplus
that comes from higher places. Now, if this water can be
directed to useful purposes, seeking other channels, though
artificial, it is not surplus, and needs no drainage, natural
or artificial. The right to its use, then, depends upon
where it is needed. If it be to convert a desert into a
garden, that is surely better than that it should run into
the sea. Rivers, etc., may be considered as natural drains
for waste or superfluous water, and if there is use for the
water, then they are no longer useless and are not
superfluous. The question, then, should be, which of the two
systems would be more beneficial to the greatest number?
And it seems to me that the diverting or irrigation plan
would be conceded to be that one. With due deference for the
opinion supporting the decision of the Supreme Court, I
submit the foregoing to the consideration of the sovereigns
of the land, the people.
HOMO.
{Times, Feb. 4, 1887, p. 4}
Gov. Burnett.
THE WATERSHED AND WATER SOURCES OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY--
THEY SHOULD BE PRESERVED FOR THE PEOPLE.
El Monte, Feb. 2.--[To the Editor of The Times.] Over
30 years ago Gov. Peter Burnett, in answer to a young man
asking where he should settle, said: "Go to Los Angeles
county. It is the paradise of this coast; its climate is
unrivaled; its soil is inexhaustible; it will support
millions, and it is only a question of time when it will do
it."
The fulfillment of the above is possible under a
suitable irrigation law, not otherwise.
Our plains are said to contain about 2,000,000 acres.
It may be asked, where is the water to come from with
which to irrigate? The answer is simple: We have a
magnificent mountain range for a watershed, designed to give
us water. The average rainfall on the plain is 15 inches, in
the mountains 30 inches, and on the summit about 70 inches;
or averaging mountain and plain over 40 inches
annually--about the average rainfall of the New England
states.
It is asserted that all the wars between Persia and
Russia originate with the interference of the latter with the
mountains and their streams which supply the plains of
Persia. It is evident that the waters of the mountains are
considered to belong to the people of the plains, and should
it not be so in Los Angeles county?
The mountain canyons and their streams and the sources
of our rivers are being rapidly taken up by individuals.
Unless the rapacity of parties, who are constantly taking up
these waters, be controlled by speedy legislation in the
interest of the public, the consequent evils are very likely
to become so exaggerated and aggravated as to be beyond
disentanglement.
FARMER.
{Times, Nov. 1, 1887, p.4}
A Water Question.
The Times has received the following letter:
Los Angeles, Oct. 29.--[To the Editor of The Times.] Do
the press and people of Southern California understand the
full import of the move being made by the Spring Valley Water
Company. This company furnishes the city of San Francisco
with water brought from the hills above San Mateo. The
supply of water is not sufficient for the increased demands
of a large and growing city. How to get more water is the
question the county is just trying to answer.
We have in this State a law allowing the riparian owners
(those on the banks of the river) the use of the water that
flows in the rivers of California.
The first settlers here who irrigated lands are
acknowledged to possess certain quasi-rights acquired by such
use; but new people on new lands away from the river banks
are not permitted to divert the water and appropriate it.
This seems a just law, and one that can be adhered to.
It was announced some months ago in the San Francisco
papers that the Spring Valley Company had effected a loan of
some $13,000,000 to enlarge their water works by placing a
dam at the mouth of San Matio Canyon, and thereby making a
reservoir of eight miles in length, storing the water, which
would be drawn off at will. This subject has not been
mentioned of late, although water can be stored to good
advantage in canyons, and in the near future such will be
done in many parts of the state by a new system soon to be
introduced in this county. The Spring Valley Company now
appears on the scene in a new role. They are in Alameda
county taking possession of the largest stream of that county
at Niles, some thirty miles south of Oakland. This stream
they propose to carry to San Francisco, conducting the water
through iron pipes of large dimensions across the bay. The
papers of Oakland and the farmers mildly protest. The
settlers are poor, most of them; at least they are not able
to successfully carry on litigation with one of wealthiest
corporations of California, who are able, if need be, to
purchase courts and Legislature. Can it not be readily seen
the confusion ensuing in Los Angeles county if the water laws
are tampered with? It is a matter for grave consideration,
and of sufficient importance to call a mass-meeting of
citizens to protest against the establishment of this
precedent, and if need be help with money to prevent such
calamity to the State. The law should be maintained at any
cost. If this diversion of water can be accomplished it
would be just and sufficient cause for a division of the
State, so that Southern California may establish and maintain
her own laws suited to the requirements of this section. If
Northern California can afford to set aside the law, Southern
California cannot afford to have the Spring Valley Company or
any other corporation interfere with the laws that regulate
water. Here at least water is king, and his loyal subjects
are legion; let them look to their laurels before it is too
late.
Endless litigation will follow open violation of water
laws. The water question, under best interpretation of the
law, is a disturbed one; but let us see that there be no
needless trouble brought about by the power of money in the
hands of an incorporation.
B. D.
E) LET THE BUYER BEWARE
While most letters concerning water published by the Times dealt with its
effect on the city of Los Angeles, other residents in the county were equally
dependent upon an adequate water supply, primarily for agricultural purposes.
"An Old Settler" penned a warning to potential buyers of agricultural land and
at the same time passed judgment on the ethics of boom decade real estate
practices.
{Times, Nov. 13, 1887, p. 7}
Lying in Business Won't Pay.
Los Angeles, Nov. 11.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
There are thousands of the best people from the Atlantic and
Western States now arriving on the coast with the intention
of establishing homes here. They bring, in the aggregate, a
large amount of capital, ready for investment. They know but
little of the climatic conditions of this country, as they
effect horticulture and agriculture. They cannot tell the
worst alkali lands from those which will produce fine crops.
They have not the faintest conception of the quantity of
water necessary in this country to produce profitable crops
of fruit or alfalfa. An inch of water is an unknown quantity
to them. The average real-estate dealer knows very well now
to take advantage of these people on the water question. If
the property to be sold has almost no water on it, the seller
tells the newcomer that for every acre bought he has a share
of the water. This makes him feel good. He is on an equal
footing with every other purchaser. He is a stockholder. He
pays a large sum for the land with water. But he don't get
the water, and without the water in such quantities as will
produce crops, his land is but little more than a desert.
The usual amount of water sold with land in this county
ranges from one inch to five acres, to one inch to ten acres.
There are some large tracts of land in Southern California,
now being put on the market, which do not have today more
than one inch of water to every fifty acres of land. These
lands are being sold to unsuspecting new comers under the
belief that the indefinite amount of water belonging to each
acre is, or will be ample for farming purposes. These
innocent victims will soon find out that they have been
swindled.
Moral--Let every purchaser of fruit or agricultural land
require a title to a definite quantity of water to each acre,
and never accept less than one inch to every ten acres.
Water by the inch is valuable, but an indefinite amount of
water is worth nothing.
An Old Settler.