Los Angeles herald., 1910-08-09
HEWITT ANSWERS
WATER QUESTIONS
Believes City Under No Legal OBJ
legations to Take Over Pri-
vate Companies
MAY DUPLICATE ANY SYSTEM
Attorney Sees No Reason to Pre-
vent Invasion of 0CCu-
pied Territory
MAY DUPLICATE ANY SYSTEM

Five questions asked of the city at
torney by the water department were
answered by Mr.. Hewitt yesterday
These questions all bear on the matter
of furnishing water to the inhabitants
of the city in sections supplied by pri-
vate water companies. These are the
questions:
1. Is the water department
obliged on demand of consider
able number, say one-half, OF the
patrons of a private company TO
extend it's system and supply the
district?
2. If it cannot come to terms
with the water company as to TAX
ing over it's system has 1t the right
to ignore the company entirely,
duplicate it's system and take over
the service?
8. Would injunction or damages
lie against the city in case it should
do so, or attempt to do so?
4. There being many cases of the
kind in the city, are there any rea-
sons of a legal nature against the
establishment by the board of a
policy which would result newt
ably in supplanting all the said
quasi-public corporations?
3. Can the citizens served, or the
city, enforce more adequate and
efficient service on the part of the
water companies?
To these questions Mr.. Hewitt re-
plies:
ment to extend it's system and supply
a district with water, even though a
private company already operates
therein, if it can do so without in
curing an unreasonable and dispro-
portionate expense, such extension to
be made within reasonable time. In
other words, it is bound to supply
water and extend it's system as fast
as it can in reason, consistent with
good management, and without Grip
pling the finances of the department.
UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATIONS
"Second-The city is under no legal
obligation, in my judgment, to take
over the system of any private COM
pany. There is no contract relation
between the city and any private
water company to refrain from invad-
ing the territory served by such COM
pany and duplicating its system. AS a
matter of law I am of the opinion that
the city has the right to ignore the
private company entirely, if it sc
elects.
"Third-As to whether an injunction
WOulQ lie against Iil6 CITY dL LllG III
stance of a private water company II
the city should extend its mains and
distributing system to a portion of the
city occupied by such private COM
pany, or as to whether the city would
be liable in damages in case it should
do so. am of the opinion that an in
junction could not be maintained, and
that damages could not be recovered
against the city therefor.
"Fourth-The city has declared its
policy to maintain a public water sys-
TEN, which has been in existence for
about seven years, and private COM
panies have been established in view
of that fact and are bound TO take
notice that the city may at any time
supplant them. l am of the opinion
that the extension of the city's system
is wholly independent of the private
companies and that their rights, if any,
and their property are wholly sub
ordinate in law to any policy which the
city may inaugurate, even though such
a course would inevitably result in the
extinction of such companies.
"Fifth-As understand the rule In
such matters, mandamus is the proper
remedy for enforcing the duty of sup
plying water to those who are entitled
to water from a water company; this
remedy is usually invoked at the in
stance of private consumers who are
aggrieved by the failure of the com
pany to supply water to them. l would
think that this remedy could be availed
of whether the company had a fran
chise or not"