Los Angeles herald., 1891-10-22
CONCERNING THE SEWER.

We have taken great interest'in the
negotiations that have been going on for
some months between the city council
and Mr.. d. Freeman with regard to a
right of way for the sewer over this
gentleman's land. We had hoped, in
the interests OF the city, that the coun-
Gil would have made him proposition
that he could have accepted. But in
this we have been disappointed. Mr..
Freeman contends that he should not
be charged any greater price for sewage
water than the council now charge for
pure water. No one will dispute the
fairness OF this. Nor is it fair to him
to insist that he shall give the city
several miles of right of way, and be
charged as much Tor sewage water as
owners OF land lying two miles south of
him, and who give nothing, offer to pay
for it, when the city engineer admits
that it would cost the city $4,000 more
to run the. sewer to these landowners
than it would cost TO run it over the In
glewood route. Ii Mr.. Freeman, by
granting right of way, saves for the
city $75, 1000, he is certainly entitled to
some of the benefits OF this saving.
We think that some Of the statements
on this subject that have emanated from
the city hall are incorrect and misleading
to the public. Mr.. Freeman has shown
very conclusively that the area now
irrigated by the entire waters OF the Los
Angeles river is but Il, 900 acres, and he
has shown that 10, goo acres of this have
the first right to the water. Mr.. Dock
weiler's claim that the sewage alone
will be sufficient to irrigate 5000 acres
is absurd. The total revenue now de-
rived by the city for the use of all
the water at its disposal is trile over
$11, 900. 1t is to be taken for granted
that the city is getting all the revenue
possible out of its water, and when the
city hall officials declare that
they can get $4,000 per annum
out OF their sewage, they are holding
out to the public promises that can
never be realized. If they believe that
they can realize this large revenue, at
an additional outlay of $75, 900, by going
to the lands south OF Mr.. Freeman, that
is evidently the place to take the sewer,
as one years revenue will nearly pay for
the entire extra cost.
There is one thing certain, the people
will never vote in favor of sending the
sewage where it is not wanted, and over
a route that can only be obtained, if at
all, after expensive and tedious litiga-
ton. The city OF Pasadena has been for
several years engaged in just such litiga-
ton as will follow the attempt to force
right of way over the lands of unwilling
owners. The case Of that city VS.. Slim
son is referred to by Mr.. Dockweiler as
sustaining his views on some points in
the controversy with Mr.. Freeman, but
if he and the members OF the council
will but read the judgment in full it
will give them matter for serious con-
sideration.
Mr.. Dockweiler claims that the city
has right to make a contract for the
sale of the sewage. This may be SO;
but he knows very well that the sewage
must be largely diluted with water
before it can be used for irrigating
purposes, and, as this water must come
from the present supply of the city, it is
evident that the clause in the charter
limiting the power of the council in the
60 10 Of xuo tar v,o,.ek <xo,,o...