THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



201 



acterized by curtailing the sprinkling of lawns, etc., as 

 hereinabove stated. 



::: In 1910 the mean flow of the Los Angeles river 

 was 60 second feet, or about 38,760,000 gallons daily, 

 and according to the United States census, the popula- 

 tion in 1910 was approximately 320,000 people. There 

 was no claim that water was scarce and insufficient in 

 quantity for all purposes during 1910, and at no time 

 were consumers curtailed in their use, nor did the city 

 fail to maintain the parks, flush the sewers and sprinkle 

 and flush the streets during the summer of 1910. 



A glance at the above figures will reveal the start- 

 ling fact that the Los Angeles river only furnished 

 38.43 per cent more water in 1910 than 1904, while 

 the population increased about 113% per cent from 

 1904 to 1910. This is conclusive proof of the fact 

 that one or both of the charges made against the water 

 department were and are true. 



It is not intended to imply that the Los Angeles 

 river surface flow, to which reference has hereinabove 

 been made, is or was the only source of water supply 

 for the city of Los Angeles, before the delivery of a 

 single drop of water from the aqueduct. tOn July 1, 

 1905, all the sources of water supply for the city of 

 Los Angeles were measured, as follows : 

 Surface flow of Los Angeles river. . .46.0 Second feet 

 Sub-surface flow pumped at Buena 



Vista pumping station 9.0 



Jefferson street plant 1.5 



Slauson Ave. pumping plant 7.0 



Los Feliz Point pumping plant 8.0 



easy now for this farmer 

 when the prices are best 



Total 71.5 Second feet 



tThis is equal to approx- 

 imately 46,189,000 gallons 

 daily, while in 1910 the total 

 average consumption in the 

 summer months was only 

 somewhat over 45,000,000 

 gallons daily. All of these 

 sources of water supply were 

 in existence in 1904 and ever 

 since that time, and have also 

 been further increased by the 

 installation of the Figueroa 

 street pumping plant and 

 other less important develop- 

 ments. 



In just what proportion the water famines of 1904 

 and 1905 were due to lack of proper management on 

 the part of the superintendent of the water works and 

 through willful waste to produce the scarcity of water, 

 or from both of these causes, cannot be known, and 

 everyone familiar with the facts and figures must 

 draw his own conclusions. 



That the continued growth of the city, which has 

 been phenomenally rapid, has not produced a scarcity 

 of water, even up to the present time, with no delivery 

 of any consequence from the Los Angeles aqueduct, 

 is due to two things. 



A large portion of the lands which have been sub- 

 divid^d were irrigated orchards, alfalfa fields, or gar- 



N'inth annual report of the BoaH of Water Commissioners of 

 the City of Los Angeles, page 16. 



fWater Commissioners' report for the year ending November 30. 

 1905, pages 15 and 16 (fourth annual repo'rt). 



tNinth annual report of the Board of Water Commissioners of 

 the City of Los Angeles, page 16. 



dens where more water was consumed than would be 

 required by an equal area covered with city residences. 

 Thus enough water was released from its former use 

 for irrigation, each time an irrigated tract was sub- 

 divided, to take care of the population which would 

 occupy it, and still leave a sufficient surplus to supply 

 the occasional tract which had never been irrigated. 



The other fact is, that had the supply of the Los 

 Angeles river watershed been properly developed and 

 conserved, it could be made to supply a population of 

 more than 1,000,000 people. 



*This was fully discussed and demonstrated by 

 the Aqueduct Investigation Board in 1912. 



It is reasonable to infer that the city officials 

 in charge of the water department were aware of these 

 facts before and at the time the aqueduct project was 

 launched. In fact, there are many statements con- 

 tained in various reports of the superintendent and 

 water commissioners, which show that all of these 

 facts were well known to them at all times, but were 

 not placed before the public in such a way as to make 

 the people understand them. 



The motives of Mr. Eaton in promoting the aque- 

 duct can, of course, only be inferred from the known 

 facts. Mr. Eaton, who had been city engineer and 

 mayor of Los Angeles, had a powerful political in- 

 fluence just before and during the time when the 

 Owens river aqueduct was first proposed. The past 

 relations between him and the superintendent of the 

 water department were and had been such that no one 

 could question Mr. Eaton's overpowering influence. 

 This factor made it easy for Mr. Eaton to control the 

 situation as he saw fit. 



The fact that Mr. Eaton 

 emerged from the aque- 

 duct promotion with a for- 

 tune in land and cattle, ac- 

 quired in Owens Valley and 

 paid for by the municipal 

 water department, is a suffi- 

 ciently strong fact on which 

 to base an opinion. The 

 general opinion by those 

 familiar with the facts is 

 that Mr. Eaton saw an op- 

 portunity to acquire valuable 

 properties and gave his time 

 to promoting the aqueduct 

 for the reason that he desired their acquisition. In fact, 

 it was Mr. Eaton's first plan to have the city build the 

 aqueduct and to permit him to retain one-half the water 

 and carrying capacity. This was not carried out on ac- 

 count of legal objections and Mr. Eaton was satisfied 

 through being presented with the large cattle ranches 

 and cattle thereon within the Owens Valley watershed. 

 Mr. Eaton's political influence has been so great that no 

 attempt to recover this property for the city has been 

 made, although it as demanded by the Aqueduct In- 

 vestigation Board.f 



The fourth charge made against the aqueduct is 

 by far the most important. While Mr. Eaton had 

 large influence as a politician, and could probably have 

 controlled the actions of the water department and in- 

 fluenced leading politicians in its favor, had the project 



"Rsport of Aqueduct Investigation Board of the City or Los 

 Angeles, page 22. 



tReport of Aqueduct Investigation Board of the City of Los 

 Angeles, pages 3 and 4. 



to get his products to market 

 and there is a demand. 



