The San Francisco call., 1899-06-04
LOS ANGELES WINS
ITS WATER CASE
THE RIVER MAY BE DIVERTED
TO SUPPLY THE CITY.
No Extra Damages in the Condemna'
ton Can Be Enforced for Sup
posed Subterranean
Streams.

A decision favorable to the city of Los
Angeles in its action against a. e. Pom
eroy Hooper ct al, was handed down
yesterday by the Supreme Court IN bank.
The case has been fought through the
courts for the past three or four years
and in the last two years it has had two
hearings in the higher tribunal. 1t was
a contest of the riparian owners of the
water of the Los Angeles River or Creek
and the needs of q great city. In or1er
to secure sufficient water supply Tor
the inhabitants of the city it was neceS-
sarv to obtain possession and control of
the headWaterS of the stream. Here the
contest began, for a number or properly
owners living along the stream resi- reslsIeo itl
the efforts to divert the water from Its
natural course into fumes, ETC., contend
ing that their riparian rights superseded
any rights set up by the inhabitants or
and that was to the courts in condemna-
ton proceedings, and some of the best
legal talent in the southern part Oh the
State was engaged in the case.
Many intricate and puzzling questions
of law and equity We're involved in the
litigation, and even the Justices OF the
Supreme Court We're unable to all agree
on the issues. presented, For instance,
the old city of Los Angeles covered four
leagues of land, and under the old law
by which its inhabitants obtained their
water the supply that could be drawn
from the stream was limited to the pee
pie living within the four leagues. Now
that the city extends over a much greater
territory the proposition was put forth
by the riparian owners that no more
water could be taken from the stream
than was necessary to supply those llT-
ing within the original fOur-league limit.
The Supreme Court decided that the city
has a right TO water for its entire popu-
lation.
The same line of argument was set up
with reference to the water for the mains,
artificial lakes and pleasure resorts. and
again the Supreme Court decided in favor
to the stream. 1t was known that there
is what may be called q double flow OF
water that of the surface over the bed
of the river, and another. subterranean
stream below the bed of the river. Are
they one and the same streams. or should
they be considered as separate? The
lower court held that it is all one stream
which appears and flows and disappears
but still flows. according to the nature OF
the ground along its course. This cut nc
small figure in determining the amount
of damages in the condemnation proceed
ings. The city would pay the value of the
land, but the owners demanded more
SesSed a greater value than what APP
peared upon the surface. namely. the
subterranean stream which flowed there
under. and they We're entitled to extra
damages. This was one point on which
the upper court was divided, but the ma
jority decided to uphold the lower court
against the contention.
The property involved is estimated at
from $50 900 to $40. 900 The decision up
holds the decision of the lower court. but
had the opinion written by Chief Justice
Beatty prevailed the city would have lost
for he disagreed with the majority upon
the four-league proposition