Daily Los Angeles herald., 1882-05-28
Petition Of Irrigators.

Petition Of Irrigators.
The following petition will be circu-
lated for signatures the coming week,
and it is hoped that its great Importance
to the city will induce prompt action by
the Council
TO the Honorable Council Of the City
Of Los angeles.
Your petitioners respectfully represent
as follows:
Your petitioners are owners and cul-
tivators of land in the city of Los An
geles.
The late diversion of the water of
the Canal and Reservoir ditch by the
people on the Feliz Rancho has not
only caused great inconvenience,
and in many cases great in
jury, to the irrigators of the city, but
necessarily gives rise to the gravest ap-
prehensons for the future.
As your petitioners understand, the
decisions of the Supreme Court in the
case of Feliz VS.. the City of Los Ange-
les, and in the case of Ems VS.. the City
filled June II, 1881, has established
the paramount right Of the city to the
use of the waters of the Los Angeles
river; but in an article published in the
HERALD OF the 26th inst, over the sig
nature of the agent of Mr.. Thomas Bell,
the owner Of the portion of the Feliz
Rancho known as the Baldwin Rancho, it
is claimed that under the decision of tho
former Court in the case of the City of
Los Angeles VS.. Baldwin ct al, (53 CAL
469), Mr.. Bell is entitled to eight cubic
feet of water per second, and, as the
ditch does not carry that much, that he
is therefore entitled to turn off all the
water in the ditch when he pieases.
By reference to the case referred to-
however, it will be found that there is
nothing in it to support this extrava-
CANT claim.
If MIR. Bell has any right at all, it
cannot bo for more water than he is en-
titled to as riparian proprietor, and as
he owns only about 400 acres of irriga-
BILE land, and the city about 1000, he
cannot in any view of the case be enti-
tied to more than small pro-
portion of the water. Even,
therefore, if his right is to be con.
sidered established, he has no right to
more than his proportion; nor has he
any right to take that in an unreasona-
BILE manner to the injury of the city irri-
gators.
1t is essential, therefore, even under
this view of the case, that legal proceed
ings should be instituted to determine
the nature and extent of the rights of
the respective parties, and to determine
the times and places and manner in
which their rights are to be exercised,
30 rs not to interfere with each other.
+, But your petitioners are advised that
the case referred to does not establish
any right in Mr.. Bell or his grantors
paramount to that of the city irrigators;
but that all that was decided was that
the city was estopped by the judgmen,
in the former suit of the City VS.. Bald
win ct al. so long land so long only) as
the conditions existing at the time the
former suit was brought continued un
changed.
By reference to the record in the
former suit it will be seen that the Court
expressly found that, at that time, the
city of Los Angeles had "a surplus O.
water in its ditchcs after irrigating tn,
lands within the city of Los Angeles;
and the effect of the last decision, there
fore, was simply to the effect that tn,
owners of the Feliz rancho, as riparian
proprietors, had right to use the wa
ters of the river so long as there was
surplus over and above what was need
ed by the city irrigators. 1t is there
fore clear that the paramount right o
the city to use the waters of the river t,
the extent necessary for the irrigators o
the city was not adjudicated in tina
case; and that under the later decisions
of Feliz VS.. the City and Ems VS.. tn
City, if the proper legal proceeding ar,
instituted, and the case fairly presented
the decision of the Court will be in favo
of the city.
Your petitioners therefore pray tina
your honorable body will at once ini
tiate the proper proceedings to protec
the rights of irrigators and of the city