Los Angeles herald., 1906-09-12

is Does the city in fact require all this
surplus water and all this power after
ignoring it for two years? Are we, in
the face of repeated assurances that
there was but one point of conflict, and
that on Cottonwood, and after a year
spent in maturing our plans, now to be
held up to public condemnation as OBJ
structionists because it turns out that
the water board and It's officials have
been mistaken in the plans and esti-
mates and purchases to which the past
two years have been devoted.
l can scarcely believe that the public
exigency is SO great as to warrant such
a conclusion at this time. Yet if it is
really so we have sufficient loyalty as
citizens of Los Angeles to make great
concessions.
But what of the facts in the case?
Your honorable board in August of last
year officially estimated the mean water
flow acquired through Mr.. Eaton's pur
chases to be 10000 miners inches. Mr..
Mulhollands figures were %, 900 inches,
and enough for a city of from 100000
to 100000 inhabitants. Taking the
estimate of per capita use contained in
the protest recently filed in Washington
the figures show a supply sufficient for
a city of some 100000 inhabitants
more people than are now living in the
entire state of California. Your honor
able board further correctly pointed out
in it's official communication to the city
council in August, 1905, tat the period
of high water in Owens valley is dur
ing June July and August, when water
is most needed here, so that while the
figures would show enough for 100000
of people practically there would be
enough to suffice for 100000.
IT would saan1 that we Of this genera
tion will be doing very we'll for our
successors in providing for them along
such ample lines. l take the same
patriotic pride in the growth of Los
Angeles as does this honorable board,
yet am aware of no recent occurrence
calculated to enlarge our horizon be-
yond the 100000 point.
I have the same difficulty in under
standing what recent developments can
have occasioned the further declaration,
coming two years after the city's enter
prise was inaugurated, that Los An
geles will need all the power that can
be developed upon half dozen or more
streams in Owens valley, situated $50
miles away. 1t cannot be that the
necessities of construction demand it.
It cannot be that the city plans to sup
ply power to the mines and mining
camps Of Inyo county and southern
Nevada. 1t cannot be that 1t plans to
transmit such power $50 miles to Los
Angeles to compete with the $4,000 or
10000 horsepower that will be developed
by the city at Pacoima.
1t has seemed to us, in view of the
foregoing, that there exists no reason
at all why your honorable board,
though inspired by the most commend
able public zeal, should attempt to
thwart our Owens valley plans. But If
we are wrong in this, If there do exist
some far away benefits of which the
city will be deprived by the existence of
our undertakings, / would ask the
board to weigh those possible benefits
against the very obvious and direct
benefits that will result to this city
from the execution of our plans. 1t is
not our railroad and other enterprises
that we ask to have weighed against
the citys great project. That is not the
issue or the alternative. 1t is onl. the
possible benefit of little additional
water and a little additional far away
power (assuming for the moment that
their confiscation is possible) that are
to be considered, as against the open
ing of additional back country that
will be tributary to this metropolis
Cities that have progressed have ever
been those whose citizens had broad
outlook, grasping the economic and
strategic possibilities of position, alert
to develop the resources of outlying as
we'll as adjacent territory. ever WIDEN
ing and extending the highways of
municipal commerce For these quail
tiles the people Of Los Angeles have In