The herald., 1897-08-01
Observation-Disclosures.
: OUR UNDERGROUND Waters
AAAAAAeAAAAA&&ee4As&&A4
A POINT VERY IMPORTANT IN
WATER DEVELOPMENT

ueISIOuHu waters OF southern CallIOT-
MIA are the most reliable, and this has
been well proved by the series Of very
dry winters just closed. 1t is quite as
certain that we have no more than com
menced to draw on them and that in the
future they are to be the principal
source of the increasing wealth of the
country. But so far little has been
known about the effect of the draining
works that are put in to tap these wa
ters. And even the rights and liabilities
in such cases have been largely matter
of conjecture. The majority imagine
that when a draining flume s placed un
derground it taps everything at that
level for miles away. And even those
who know better than this have had
few data from which they could tell
anything about the actual extent of the
draining.
The recent case Of Yarwood eft al.
against the West Los Angeles Water
company is of the greatest Importance
to all interested in this subject. This
company is now supplying all the city
west of Hoover street, as well as Ca
huenga, with the finest of mountain
water 1t comes from a tract of severa.
hundred acres owned by that company
some two miles west of Burbank and
mile from the Los Angeles river, with
,o visible Connection with it either above
or below ground. From this flume
some eighteen feet under ground draws
about 450 inches of water that cannot be
distinguished from that on the top OF
our highest mountain. Its quality has
aroused much curiosity about its
ia1 11xtx hot h O r
| were flowing stream. a moving sheet,
! or mere sponge fed by the local rains
and SOON exhausted.
! The plaintiffs and intervenors in this
suit reside above the draining works
| not below. Ali the land is above, the
nearest being some seven or eight hun
| dred feet running from that to nearly
| half a mile and covering some 200 acres
| of land. They claimed that during the
| time of the construction of the fume
and especially when it was runring into
| the best water bearing portion of the
| land to be drained, their wells sank four
| feet-the period being about two months,
November and December, 1885, In June
| Of 1896 an extension of this draining
| fume was made on which the work last
| ed some six weeks. During this time the
water in the wells above Sank sixteen
| inches.
| This measurement of the lowering of
| the water in the wells was carefully
made, was found the same in sew
| eral wells scattered over the same area,
and in none of these wells had the water
| level changed materially for several
years previous to the digging of the
draining works. The proof was certain
| on the trial that the wells had so low
| cred; there was no way to disprove it.
| The eXamn ton of the wells made by
| myself and several other expert wit
nesses for the defense showed plainly
| that the water had fallen just about as
| stated, and there was no reason to doubt
| the evidence.
This coincidence of the drop was no
doubt deemed conclusive by plaintiffs
and the suit based on that 1t coin
cided also with the common opinion that
water finds it's level. and that therefore
| a development nume will drain every
| thing for miles around.
| 1t was claimed that the water was an
underground stream. with a regular de-
| fined channel, the same as if above
ground, and that plaintiffs were riparian
| motion the water would surely have
been percolating water, and hence they
| would not have been entitled to damage
if party took 1t from his own land for
a proper purpose, thereby lowering it's
level elsewhere. The claim of riparian
| ownership was essential to the support
of the suit, and the riparian law on
which they relied would apply only to
| flowing water and not to standing water.
The defense took the ground that if
it were a flowing stream it must then
have supply and a discharge, and that
it would be governed by the laws of flow
ing water above ground, Therefore in
creasing or facilitating the discharge at
the lower end cannot lower the level of
the stream back of the hydraulic curve
seen at the end of a common flume dis
charging into the air. That the length
of this curve would depend upon the
resisting character of the sand or gravel
but that it must run out in a very few
hundred feet, and that the plane of the
surface of the stream will then be un-
affected as long as the supply keeps
up. Vice versa, IL the plane is lowered
back Of that point it must be from fail
ure in the supply, and not from facili-
tating the discharge. We claimed fur
ther that this rule would apply to any
moving water underground, even a
sheet at very slow rate of motion. The
only difference would be in the radius of
the curve at the lower end but point
would soon come where the sheet would
be unaffected, except by failure of the
supply.
A fiume carrying 100 inches of water
will run full to very near the end, when
! it will drop off in a curve. If it be filed
with sand SO that it carries only one
inch the same result will be seen, the
radius Of the curve at the end depending
on the resisting character of the sand.
You may break off section after section,
| but it will still be the same. You cannot
| in any way lower the level of the water
| in it back of certain point by enlarg-
| ing or facilitating the discharge. We
claimed that the came principle applies
| to all water moving under ground, no
matter what it's motion, width or depth.
| The double coincidence of great and
sudden drop in all the wells with the
work upon the development cut was
quite remarkable. But even more re-
markable was the question: If the cut
made the drop the water must have gone
out that way and why has no one dis
covered it? The plaintiffs lived right