Los Angeles herald., 1907-06-02
RECORDS SHOW
OPPOSITION IS
NOT TRUTHFUL
Sworn Testimony Is
Distorted
Evidence Given by MuIhoIland and
LippIncott Twisted to Suit the Con-
venience of Subsidized Power
Company Organ

fraudulently construed by the opposi-
tion with the intention to deceive, were
made in the case of the city of Los An
geles versus A. e. Pomeroy, j. ID.
Hooker and others.
The city in this case undertook to
prove it's ownership to the entire flow
Of the Los Angeles river and the right
to condemn 300 acres of land at the
lower end of the San Fernando valley,
owned by A. E. Pomeroy and j. D.
Hooker.
J.. D. Hooker, part owner of the
News. and A. q. Pomeroy demanded
$1,500. 900 for this land.
A jury awarded them $4,000 for the
land and $4,000 damages for other
property not condemned by the city,
but damaged by the withdrawal of the
water supply. The city was upheld In
it's contention that it was the owner
of all the waters of the Los Angeles
river. Hooker and Pomeroy were not
satisfied satisfied With this decision and they
took it to the supreme court of the
state. This court also decided that the
property for which they had demanded
$1,500, 900 was worth only $4,000 and
sustained the opinion of the lower
court as to the ownership of the river.
Opinions Upheld
The opinions of Mr.. Lippincott and
the city's engineers, Eaton, Koebig,
Schuyler and others, was upheld by
the court, the case being decided large
ly on their expert evidence.
The case, which was begun in June,
1893, and decided by the supreme court
in June, 1899, is one of the most cele-
brated water cases on record.
The long period of drouth which fol-
lowed the year 1898 proved that the
estimates of Mr.. Lippincott and the
city's engineers, rather than belng
conservative, were excessive.
Mr.. Eaton testified twelve years ago
that the total normal flow of the Los
Angeles river, surface and under
ground, was then ALB miners inches.
During the past year, according to
extensive measurements taken by Mr.
Mulholland, this same flow amounts to
but 2050 miners inches.
And last year all of this 2050 inches
was being gathered and used by the
city through the infiltration galleries
and the Buena Vista pumping plant,
which were installed for the purpose
three years ago. Practically none OF
the river water gets past these eXten-
sive galleries, installed through the
dire necessity of harvesting every drop
of the water.
The difference between the ALB inches
of water found by Engineer Eaton
twelve years ago and the 2050 inches
pumped out by the city last year rep
resents the amount of failure of the
city's water supply from the river dur
ing these years.
Supply Cut in Half
The supply has been more than cut
in half by two circumstances:
First-A succession of dry years
caused a lessening of the actual flow
and the amount of the contributing
sources.
Second-The residents of the San
Fernando valley have been using larger
and increasing quantities of both the
surface and underground flow, and the
city's own pumping stations nave
proved that whenever water is pumped
from beneath the ground the surface
flow promptly diminishes in the same
proportion.
Thus there is available from the river
less than half the quantity of twelve
years ago, and Los Angeles is getting
and using all of this through the
pumping of it into the city reservoirs
Mr. Mulholland was not called upon
to testify to the normal flow of the
river, but did testify as to some ques-
tions of fact. In 1904 in the case of the
city versus Burlington, water suit, he
testified that IA per cent run-off, year
after year. is the mean which reaches
the river.
Mr.. Lippincott did testify that the
drainage of the Los Angeles river was
approximately 4S0 square miles and the
rainfall on an average of twenty-four
inches. Mr.. Eaton made the same estl-
mate of drainage area but placed an
estimate on the rainfall at twenty
inches.
Warped Out of Shape
Taking these two statements, the op-
position as is shown in an adjoining
column has warped, twisted and con-
strued them into statement the oppo-
site of those made by Mr.. Lippincott
and the city engineers, whose testimony
refutes the 100000 inches net which
the opposition publishes cs coming from
them. This refutation is found in the
same volume of the stenographic report
from which the opposition took part of
its statements.
Messrs. Lippincott and Eaton, Schuy-
Ter and other city engineers, who testi-
fed for the city, and whose expert evil
dence led to a decision in favor of Los
Angeles, never made the statement
Total average rainfall equal to $4,000
inches. Less SO per cent for run-off.
evaporation and plant life. leaves 10000
inches net
They made no statement on the wit
ness stand or at any other time that
the stream flow was 10000 inches nor
did they make any statement that
might be properly construed to this eff
feet.
What Mr.. Eaton did state under oath,
contradictory of this, and in which he
was sustained by Schuyler and Koebig,
was that while he estimated the total
rainfall in the Los Angeles watershed
to be 36005 inches, 24222 inches of this
was lost for plant life and evaporation;
1869 inches was in storm water, lost
because there are no reservoir sites,
and that Alb inches go to make up the
normal surface and sd5terranean flow
of the Los Angeles river; that this is
the only flow which can be depended
upon to supply the city.
Quote Wrong Authority
The statement as to the availability
of 100000 inches of water net" which
the opposition coyertly and then openly
asserts was testified to under oath bv
the city's engineers and Mr.. Lippincott
and Mr.. Mulholland, was made by F. c.
Finkle, an engineer who with others
was employed by Hooker and Pomeroy
TO testify that the city had an abund-
ance of water without the development
which it contemplated under the con-