The herald., 1894-01-07
THE PROPOSITION DECLINED,
The City Water Company Does
Not Like the Offer.
The Reasons Given in Reply to
the City Clerk.
Members of the Water Committee Ex-
press Guarded Opinions-kefls &C.
tions Upon tho Opinion of
Judge Van Dyke.

1
by declining it.
Their reply was type-written and
went somewhat at length into the
reasons for declining the tender.
During the day there was consider
able talk around the city hall about the
matter, but the water supply committee
did not have formal meeting.
From expressions of opinion dropped
by various members of the city council,
it was gathered that the body does not
intend to stop with the affair in the
present ehape.
1t Was. not stated by anyone that
definite plans had been settled upon,
but that the endeavors of this city to
own its own water plant would be kept
up.
The letter OF City Clerk Luckenbach
and the reply OF the water company are
as follows:
THE LETTER OF NOTIFICATION.
Los ANGELES, CAL, Dec. %, 1898.
| 5. H. Mott, ESQ.,, Secretary of Los Angeles City
Water Company, City.
LEAR SIR AT a meeting OF the coun-
Gil OF the city OF Los Angeles held Tues
day, December 26. 1898, upon recom-
mendation OF the committee on water
supply, in conjunction with the city
engineer. it was ordered thatthe sum of
81. 498, ,642. 30 be rendered by the city of
Lus Angeles TO the Los Angeles City City
Water company and allied corporations,
or their representatives, for the rights
and properties owned and controlled by
them; subject to the approval of the
voters OF the city of Los Angeles. and
under instructions from the city council,
| hereby offer upon behalf of the city of
Los Angeles, subject to the approval of
the voters OF the said city of Los An
geles, the sum of 81 ,49S, ,642 80 for all of
the rights and properties owned and
controlled by the Los Angeles City
Water company and allied corporations.
Respectfully, 9. A. LUcKENBAcH,
City Clerk.
REPLY OF THE WATER COMPANY.
Los ANGELES, CAL, Jan. 5. 1894.
To C. A Luckenbach. City Clerk, City.
DEAR SIR: | hereby acknowledge the
receipt OF your letter of December 2S,
1898, stating in effect that the council
OF the city of Los Angeles, pursuant to
the recommendation and report of the
committee on water supply (Which re-
port had been adopted by the council
and published in the daily newspapers),
you offered in behalf OF the city the
sum of SLABS. 642 so {subjeet to the ap.
provsl OF the voters OF the city, for all
the rights and properties owned and
controlled by the Los Angeles City
Water company and allied corporations.
In reply | would, in the outset, beg
leave to repeat what | substantially
stated in my letter of December 2lst to
Hon. E. S. Mnnson, chairman of the
said water supply committee, to the
effect that the properties to which you
| refer are not at present in the market
for sale-frst, because the said compa-
MES are under such contract with third
persons that they cannot now negotiate
any sale to the city; and, second, be-
cause the position taken by the city in
regard to the property rights of said
companies seems to be such as to make
it very improbable that any satisfactory
sale could be negotiated until those
property rights shall be iudicially set
tied.
As the offer you make is based upon
the report of the committee on water
supply to which you refer, it is deemed
proper here to make some reference to
that report, for the purpose of stating
that the representations and estimates
therein contained are considered by the
water companies referred to to be far
from correct or impartial, and can only
be accounted for on the ground that
they are the presentations and esti-
mates OF only one party to the proposed
bargain, where the proposing purchaser
10 trying to decry ths value of the prop
erty it desires to purchase with the
view Of buying it at price far below its
value. This conjecture would seem to
De verified by reference to several of
the items of the said report, one or two
only of which | shall here take the time
to specially refer to as samples of the
rest.
The following is quotation from that
report:
THE Garvenza or Arroyo Ssco system
consists OF right Of way over 1872
acres OF land lying in the Arroyo Seco,
south of the Terminal railroad bridge,
and lands adjoining the town of Gar
vanzs. About 100000 gallons of water
per dsy are gathered by means OF 1000
feet of 20-inch cement pipe laid beneath
the bed of the Arroyo Seco, and led to
the city by means of an 11-inch sheet
iron pipe as lar as Eaet LOS Angeles,
when the size of the pipe is reduced and
the water is carried on to the Florence
Terrace reservoir, built on city land.
1.-THE pointsin the Arroyo Seco where
the water is gathered will ultimately re-
ceive the drainage of cessrools and privy
vaults in the town Of Garvanza and adj
Joining properties, and this fact will
render the water dangerous to health.
Notwithstanding these objections, this
water could be used for flushing sewers
and sprinkling streets, and your com
\ mittee have estimated that the city can
pay $4,000 for said property rights"
Now, the facts are that five or ak
years ago the City Water company paid
| $50. 900 in gold coin for the water rights
and rights of way in the land above re-
ferred to, and has since then expended
for developing the property. in the way
| of underground works and pipes, up
ward of $4,000, and some of the city's
own witnesses in the late case before
Judge Van Dyke, testified that the
water from that source was the purest
and best that comes into the city. The
far-fetched assertion of the committee
that 'the point where the water is
gathered will ultimately receive the
drainage of cesspools and privy vaults
in the town of Garvanza and adjoining
| nronertiee." :" is unwarranted and untrue.