Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-09-05
mr.. Potts On the situation.

EDITORS HERALp-In no communica.
tion of mine in the late sewer campaign
did l say one word against an outfall
sewer to the ocean. In fact I have al
ways contended, and do now contend,
that we must sooner or later have an out
fall sewer to the ocean but as the City
Councils and City Engineers plans were
to carry only part of the sewage to the
ocean in the rainy season, and to conduct
a part of it to the river in the rainy
season, and use all of it in the summer
for irrigation, I could see no use in
building the long sewer to the ocean
now to get to the Rose lands and the
Gun Clubs lands. As said then, and
still say now, if a part of the sewage is
to be turned into the Los Angeles river
in the winter time, why not conduct it
all to the dry sandy lands down the
river for irrigating in the summer, and
turn it all into the river in the winter.
have good legal authority fer the
opinion that Los Angeles city has q
legal right to the river from it's source
until it enters into the ocean, and that
we, as a city, have right to use it for
our sewage. However this may be, do
not think it would be right for us to do
80, for reasons that do not think proper
to discuss in this article. If the storm.
water drains had been left out OF the
Eaton plans, with intercepting sewers of
reasonable size in their place, and the
balance of the cost of these large storm
sewers had been put into intercepting
sewers where they were needed on the
eastern and western hills and in East
Los Angeles, the bonds would have been
carried, and We would now have been
making preparations to- 60 to work on
our sewers. But this is now In the past,
and with the strong opposition that has
been developed against it in Santa Mon
ica, as well as in our own city, it is
doubted now whether it could be car
ried.
Under the present state of affairs it is
my opinion that the best thing to do is to
build all internal intercepting sewers
needed, concentrate all sewers in the
direction Of the sandy lands down the
river, get the right Of way to the ocean
now at some point where there is the
least objection to emptying it into the
ocean (no matter if it is the longest route),
let parties have the sewage on the route
for an indefinite period-say az long as
they can use it without bringing the city
into litigation-and when they can use It
no longer on account of endangering the
lives Of their neighbors, let the city take
it up and move on to another section
towards the ocean. In this way
we can do ourselves the most good
for the least money and leave those
who come after us untrammeled, with
the privilege OF using the sewage for
irrigating or moving on to the ocean
with it, as they think best. on route
that we can now secure for them, CT
ourselves as the case may be, at very
little cost. In this case it would be well
to try the West system, and II it should
prove to be what its friends claim for it
we would not have to build the sewer to
the ocean but could use the sewage for
all time to come for irrigation. But we
should get the right of way by all means
to the ocean, no matter which way we
start out, a. people would be content to
use the sewage for much longer period,
Il they knew the city could move on with
It to other parties when it wished to
do 50, than they would II they were tied