Los Angeles herald., 1891-04-01
MIR. Potts on the Reservoir Question.

EDITORS HERALD: Everybody knows
who tries to know, that the city of Los
Angeles has not the shadow of title to
reservoir No. 4, except to overflow GER
tain amount of land for reservoir, and
that if it should abandon its right for
that purpose for any cause, either on ac-
count OF its being nuisance or of the
danger that it is to those below it, that
the people who own the lands around
would have a perfect title to all the
lands now covered by the water. 1t is
also we'll known to many people here
that there was once break in the dam
through the tunnel, and the water
flooded large amount OF property that
is now all covered with fine residences.
And it is also known that the city never
intends to flood the lands, that those
parties who own the adjoining lands
want the city to quit claim, and that it
would not be allowed to raise the dam
so as TO food said lands if it so desired.
Ii another break should occur in the
dam. especially in the middle of it, so
that the water would all go down in
body, instead of It's taking six hours, as
was the case in the other break, the
damage and loss OF life would be so
enormous that it would never be rebuilt,
as there would in such case be in juno
tions filed that would be sustained by
the courts.
IN view OF the possible damage that
would occur, in view of all these facts, it
seems strange to me that anyone who
understands all this as we'll as Mayor
Hazard does, should hesitate one mo-
nent to sign aquitclaim deed to the land
the city does not use and never intends
to use. and accept for the city in lieu of
said ouitclaim deed an absolute title to
thirty-three acres for city park purposes
the thing all the people in the vicinity
want and need-and still use the land
for reservoir purposes so long as the peo-
ole in the city desire to do so. But why
should / think it strange, when there
never has been proposition to do any
thing OF any value to the city that did
not find hundreds OF would-be guardians
tnf the city's interests opposing it. To
illustrate, name few things that have
occurred under my notice; When 1T was
proposed few years ago to start new
cemetery and stop burying on the hill,
there were number OF those antl-pro-
gressive people all up in arms against it.
few years ago, when there was prop
OSltlOn made by reSpoHSIoie Pal eios W
take all the sewage at the city limits and
conduct it a number of miles away from
The city and take care Of it at their own
expense there were plenty OF objectors,
who could see nothing but the niger in
the fence, and it fell through. When it
was proposed to put stone or cement
wall in the middle Of the dams OF
reservoirs Nos. and 5 that would have
prevented the break in the dam, the
same class CT smart fellows opposed it.
When it was proposed to purchase the
Feliz rancho for the city, with all its
water rights, for twenty-five or thirty
thousand dollars, up came the cry from
the same old watch dogs of the city's
interests. that the city would be bank
rupt, or that it was the duty OF the own
ers OF the rancho to give their rights to
the CITY because the public good de-
rnanded it. But little later another
CITY council, at the earnest request OF
most of the citizens, bought the water
right alone for fifty thousand dollars,
and left the owners of the rancho in pos
session of half million dollars worth