Los Angeles herald. [volume] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1890-1893, 1891-10-20
CITY LEGISLATORS.
The Proceedings at Yester-
days Council Meeting.
Two of Mayor Hazards VetOes
Ignored.
A Suit Advised Against the City
Water Company.
Captain Gross Cannot Have the Macy
Street Bridge-rhe City Attorneys
Report on Water Company Mat
ters-Other Business.


The city council met IN regular session
yesterday morning.
The ordinances vetoed by Mayor Haz-
ard, excepting the Cross franchise, were
passed without his approval, viz, the
one relating to the opening of Seventh
street and the one granting power fran
chises to the Electric Light and the
Electric Road companies.
Bonds were approved and the mayor
requested to sign contracts for the fol-
lowing work: With Frick Bros. for the
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. sewer; with G. J.
Warden for the raising of the Buena
Vista bridge.
Bids for the putting in of steam heat
ing apparatus in the city hall were re-
ceived as follows, and referred to the
building committee: S. M. Perry COM
pany, SSSS757;; George H. Tay company,
$3.50; William Cronin, of San Francisco,
$4008 and $3067 respectively.
The finance committees report was
adopted.
The city attorney reported that he had
drawn the following contracts: With j.
L. Mansfield, contract to construct dam
across Hollenbeck arroyo: with j. E.
White, contract to construct section l OF
Hoilenbeck-arroyo sewer; with Frick
Bros, to construct section la of same
sewer; with f. &. Worden to raise
Buena Vista-street bridge. Approved.
La regard to the water company mat
ter, he presented the following state
ment:
Some time ago you requested me to
investigate whether or not the CITY
Water company or any other company
or person was illegally taking water
from the Los Angeles river. | will con-
fine my report to the City Water COM
psny and Crystal Springs Land and
Water company, as l believe that they
are the only companies or persons who
are taking water from the river under
such circumstances as raise questions as
to the right so to do Prior to July %,
1865, the city owned and operated a
Grade system of water works, which it
afterwards leased to different parties,
who assigned their interest to the pres
emit City Water company. The lease
from the city under which the water
company is claiming, was made in
July, 1868, with j. S. Griffin, P. Beau
dry and s. Lazard, in which lease the
city ia consideration OF $500, to be
paid each year, leased to them the city
water works for the term Of 80 years,
with the right to take from the river 10
inches of water, which amount could be
increased by obtaining the consent CT
tfle mayor and city council. This lease
contains many provisions as to laying
pipes, building reservoir and the right
of Che city to purchase the works at the
expiration of the lease, which it is not
necessary to discuss in this connection.
In pursuance of said lease the company
proceeded to operate the works, taking,
as | understood, more water from the
river than 10 inches, without previously
having obtained the consent of the
mayor and council of the city.
On November 5, 1886, corporation
known as the Crystal Spring Land and
Water company was Incorporated, the
stockholders and officers of which COM
pany were nearly, if not all, stockhold-
era and officeholders in the City Water
company, and on December IS, 1886,
the City Water company, in considera-
ton of 81, conveyed all rights it had
acquired by deed from G. j. Griffith
and G. V. Rowland to certain land and
water rights which is designated in the
deed as Crystal Spring." understand
that the water company claims that it
is not and has not for years been
taking water from the river, but obtains
IFS supply from the Crystal Springs
Water company. Whether or not the
water obtained from the so-called Crys-
tai spring is part of the water or water
supply of the Los Angeles river is a
question which will probably require a
thorough investigation to determine.
believe from what l have seen upon
the ground and from what | have
learned from an engineer who believe
is thoroughly posted in the matter, that
the water derived from the Crystal
&C = 4
supply of the river. During all the time
that the City Water company was taking
water from the river it was operating
m.nder the Lease, and consequently the
taking was not hostile or adverse to the
title OF the city, but in subservience to
the same, and it could obtain no title to
anv OF the water of the river by user.
Atar claim or user of the water by the
CRYSTAL Spring Water company has been
since its incorporation, November 10,
1886, and from the City Water com
paRy ON December 10, 1886, and five
gpasSs will not elapse until December 13,
1891, until which time title by adverse
user cannot ripen, if at all.
Section l of article IA of the constitu-
Gion provides that ''the use of all water
now appropriated, or that may hereaf-
ter be appropriated, for sale, rental or
distribution, is hereby declared to be a
public use, ETC." Our supreme court,
in the case OF Feltz vs. the City of Los
Angeles, decided that the city of Los
Angeles was the owner of all the water
OF the Los Angeles river, and from the
act Of 1850 Incorporating the city down
TO che present charter, the city has
been granted by the legislature the
title to all the water of the river from its
source or sources to the intersection
with the southern boundary Of the city,
with the right to develop all water flow
ing beneath the surface, etc., and from
the charter Of 1874 down to and includ-
ing the present charter the city has
been prohibited from selling or dis
uosing of any interest in the same tt
auv person or company, showing, as
think, that the water of the river has
been set apart or dedicated for publ,
uee with like effect as to the dedication
al a street or park for public use Th'
eupreme court has decided in the cas-,
~ Hoadley vs.. San Francisco tina
eswhere land is granted to the city TO
nubiic use that it cannot be conveyed
"a private persons and is effectuall,
vUithdrawn from commerce, and tn
80 aox,snc, M authority IN ronvav I'll