The herald., 1893-06-09
THE CITY WINS A WATER CASE,
A Decision Involving the Water
Of the Los Angeles River.
An Apportionment of Water Between
the Vernon Company and Ames.
An Opinion which Involves a Number
of Important Local Interests. =
A Synopsis of the
Decision.

OF Los Angeles and HI. M. Ames, involv-
ing the city'sright to the waters Of the
Los Angeles river.
1t is one of the most important decis-
ions affecting local interests that has
been handed down by the superior court.
There are two controversies in this
case, one between the plaintiff and the
city, and the other between the plaintiff
and Ames.
The contention of the plaintiff against
the city is that the right OF the city to
take water from the Los Angeles river is
limited to the amount that has been
heretofore actually necessary to supply
the city and its inhabitants; that it has
never acquired any other right or title
than this that as the city grows and re-
quires moro water it has no right, az
against other riparian proprietors and
appropriations, to take more than it has
formerly used, but must resort to the
right of eminent domain and condemn
and pay for the right to take out addi-
tional water; that until this ia done such
proprietors and appropriations may take
the surplus in excess of the former use
add restrain the city from increasing its
division; that the city has been taking
and selling water for the irrigation of
lands outside the city limits, and that it
has no power or right to make such q
disposition or use of the water; that
the plaintiff is riparian proprietor
on the river and has also made an APP
propfiation of its waters under the civil
code, and as such proprietor and appro.
priator is entitled to enjoin the city
from using more water than it has pre-
viously used, and to prevent 1t from sell
ing any water for use ON outside lands,
and plaintiff prays for an injunction ac-
cordingly.
In his opinion, Judge Shaw says that
these are questions OF great Importance.
1t has been generally supposed that the
city had the right OF absolute control OF
the water of the river, and could use
and dispose of it as it pleased and for
any purpose, or allow it to flow down
the river, if there was no present use
for it, without thereby losing it's right
TO again divert it whenever it 80 de-
sired. A number of years ago the city's
right to all the water of the river was
disputed by the owners Of the land
along the river north Of the city In the
Los Feliz ranch, who claimed riparian
rights superior TO fhe right of the city.
These claims have all been settled,
either by litigation, or by the city pur-
chasing the adverse claims for the pur-
pose of quietiDg it's title.
The court does not think there has
ever been any controversy, prior to this
one, concerning the water flowing
through the city to lands below, and
that this 10 doubtless owing to the fact
that until recently there has never been
any water flowing in the river south of
the sou thern boundary of the city dur
ing the irrigation season, except in a few
unusually wet. years. But since the
levees were made along the banks OF the
river, the effect has been to force to the
surface the water hitherto percolating
under the sand OF the river bed, and
thereby cause stream which did not
formerly exist to flow down the river
during the entire season to point about
1900 feet south of the city limits. The
evidence sho wed that after the 1st Of
June, in ordinary years, prior TO the
making OF the levees, the water ceased
to flow in the river below Seventh street,
and that for some time before the LIST of
June the stream was usually too small
to be of much value to any person. IL
10 principally the water which these
levees have thus caused to flow in the
river that the plaintiff seeks to appro-
pirate, and which it claims the city must
allow to remain in the stream for its
benefit.
After discussing the conflict OF au-
thorities on the ownership of perColat-
ing and eubterranean waters, the court
says that in this case there is no reason
why the city should not have the abso-
lutte right to the water which 1t has col
lected, or, to use favOrite word among
dealers in water rights In this part OF
the state, developed" by means Of
these levees. This position is strength
ened by the fact that in the charter OF
1874. and in every charter granted to
the city since then, there has been q
clause granting to the city "the rightsto
develop, economic and utilize all waters
flowing beneath the surface in the bed
of said river at any point or points be-
tween its source and the southern bound
ary of the city,"
The evidence showed that while the
city has always claimed and controlled
this water, yet there has been usually
more water in the river than has been
actually required for the use OF the city
and its inhabitants up to the present
time, end that the city has claimed the
right and power to own the water be-
cause it will be required in the future,
when, by reason of the growth OF the
city, the necessities will be greater, and
in the meantime it has claimed and ex-
ercised the right to sell the surplus to
irrigate outside lands. This raised the
question whether the city has the right
to acquire any water supply beyond its
present needs and the power to sell it for
use on outside lands during the time
when it 10 not required in the city.
The court holds that the city has both
the right to acquire such a water supply
and the power to sell the temporary sur
plus; that the city has the power to ac-
Quire and own q water eupply for it's
inhabitants; that in the exercise OF this
power it has acquired and owns all the
water flowing in the river and also all
the water caused to flop by the erection
OF the levees; that this is not an nm.
reasonably large supply; that even If it
were, the plaintiff has no right to raise
the question, and that, being the owner
OF the water, it has power to sell such
portion of it as may, from time to time.
be in excess OF it's present needs. It
follows that the plaintiff has no right to
any relief against the city.
In regard to the controversy between
the plaintiff and the defendant Ames. as
to their respective rights as riparian
owners the court says that while thev
have no right to compel the city to allow
the waters to flow down to them, vet. il
the city voluntarily does so these rights
may be fixed by judicial decree. After
still further discussion OF the euhiacf IL