Los Angeles herald., 1906-02-20
WATER RIGHTS
BELONG To CITY
SUPERIOR COURT RENDERS
DECISION
Controversy Between Property Owners
Of San Fernando Valley and City
Of Los Angeles Probably
Ended

tn6 lAlit OI lHe Clly VI LUIS fuSVito
to the Los Angeles river and It's perco-
latlng waters was firmly established
yesterday in decision handed uown by
Judge @. A. Gibbs of department
of the superior court, in the suit of the
city of Los Angeles against T. ID. Buff
fington. J. d. Hunter and about sixty
five defendant property owners of the
San Fernando valley.
The decision was handed down much
sooner than expected, as the case was
bitterly fought and the submission of
evidence alone required four months.
When the suit was first brought 1t
was understood to be war to the knife
between the ranchers and property
owners of San Fernando valley and the
city for possession Of the water of the
river Accordingly, while the city was
represented by Attorney Mathews and
his assistants, the valeyites came for
ward represented by n number of
prominent Southern California firms.
1t was asserted by the ranchers that
If the city won the valley would be
desolated and reclaimed by the desert,
and one of the most fertile spots in the
southwest would thus be wiped off
the map.
The city stated as a side issue that
there was no attempt to be made to
take the waters from the valley unless
II became n matter of the most dire
necessity but that in case of a drouth
the city wanted to be prepared to shut
off the heavy inroads of ninety pump
ing plants into the city's water supply.
In the first section of the opinion
Judge Gibbs gives the following sum-
mary of the case:
What Summary Contains
Upon a broad view of this case two
propositions are presented to be an
swered:
First. Who owns the Los Angeles
river?
Second. Where is the Los Angeles
river?
The city, by its complaint covering
some fifty pages, claims the following
propositions:
/. That the city owns the paramount
right to use and take all the waters of
the Los Angeles rives.
2. That the Los Angeles river is COM
posed of both surface and subsurface
streams with well defined bed and
banks.
g. That the city has need for the use
of the whole volume of the water of
the river.
Many other matters are set forth in
the plaintiffs pleadings, but the above
contains the substance of the claims
relied upon.
The defendants upon their part and
In their pleadings, after specifically
denying all of the above allegations,
make in substance the following claims
l. That the city does not own the
waters of the Los Angeles river, or the
paramount right thereto; but, on the
contrary, both the city and the defen-
dants are riparian owners, with equal
= rights to use the waters Of the Los An
geles river.
; O THAT tbe au;Jaooa
to show that any of these defendants
are using the waters of the Los An
geles river.
3. That other persons than these de-
fendants should also be made parties
to the action.
4. That the claim of the city to the
water was lost by presentation of
its claim to the United States land com
missioners, according to the act of con-
gress of March 3, 1851.
8. That the city has never acquired
any ownership in the waters of the Los
Angeles river by its patents.
6. That the city is seeking to take
private property without due process
of law.
Z. That the Mardera Water COM
pany is furnishing water for domestic
purposes to individuals, who have an
equal right with the city of Los An
geles.
8. That all the waters under the
lands of these defendants are percoat-
ing waters.
8. That the defendants have never
had any notice Of any claim by the city
to the waters under their lands, and
they bought in good faith, having rea-
sen to believe that they bought not
only the land but all under their land.
10. That the claims of the plaintiff
are barred by the statute of limitations
IL. That the city of Los Angeles has
shown no equity emitting it to an in
junction.
The court cites decisions of the su-
preme court to the effect that "the
city of Los Angeles has a right to all
the waters of the river, if required for
municipal purposes or for the use of
its inhabitants" and holds that the
decision of the United States supreme
court IL the Pomeroy case affirms the
principle. mo trial court" says Judge
Gibbs, could for one moment con-
slider such proposition as to decide
case contrary to the rulings of the
higher court"
The real and only question in the
case, in the opinion of the court, is
whether or not the Los Angeles river
is composed of both a surface and
subsurface stream with defined bed
and banks.
6eIore ana dt the beginning of the
trial." says Judge Gibbs, "it did not
seem to me that wells one-half to
three quarters of a mile away from the
surface stream could effect the flow
of the river or be in the river. but
from careful study of the case, the
maps, Topographic exhibits, history of
the wells. and the land itself as l can
give, the conviction grows on me that
if the valley had been fiat the river
would have ~'eandered about the CEN
saturated mass on either side, but on
account of the dip of the land to the
south, the visible stream is thrown to
the south side, and the small visible
stream is but the surface indication of
larger underground river"
Court Reaches Conclusions
on the questions proposed by the de-
PENDANTS pleadings and evidence the
court comes to these conclusions:
That the city does own the para
mount right to use the water, but II
there is any surplus. the owners along
the river are riparian owners for such
surplus water.
That If there was surplus water, the
claim that other persons should be de-
PENDANTS might possibly be made.