WATER RIGHTS ON LOS ANGELES RIVER. 331 



or the legal sufficiency of the form of notice is raised at any time or in any manner. 

 Unquestionablj' the records of Los Angeles Count}- are incumbered with enormous 

 masses of worthless claims to water, and this condition is constantly growing worse. 

 The crowding already noticeable in the recorder's office is some criterion of what the 

 congestion will be in future 3'ears. 



For the purpose of this study of Los Angeles River the writer has examined 

 each one of the 3,874 documents relating to water which appear of record in this 

 count}'. A great manj' of the claims give no clue to their locality; others describe 

 it so indirecth' or so imperfectly as to require a prohibitory amount of time to 

 ascertain from other sources what stream is affected thereby. The number of claims 

 which clearly relate to the main body of the river is small. This is owing, probably, 

 to the exclusive right claimed by the city. Large numbers of claims have been made 

 to the water of the several tributaries or streams existing higher in the same water- 

 shed. These have been claimed in detail many times over, and much greater service 

 has been expected from them than they are capable of supplying, at least under the 

 present conditions. 



The earliest recorded water claim in Los Angeles County bears date July 16, 

 1861, although it is well known that water was extensively used for irrigation more 

 than eighty j-ears before that date. It should be added, however, that there exist 

 in the archives of both county and city a number of manuscript books in the 

 Spanish language which contain miscellaneous documents antedating American 

 occupation. These books have not been examined. They may contain records of 

 water rights, but it is doubtful whether at that earlj- periotl much attention was 

 given to documentar}- records of this character. The open and notorious use of 

 water was doubtless considered to be all that was necessary to perfect and to preserve 

 a water right, and there are probably not a few old and well-recognized water rights 

 in this county in force at the present time of which there is no record whatever, 

 except possibly where mentioned incidentall}' in transfers of real estate. As it is, 

 many of the earliest records of claims were evidently afterthoughts, as they refer to 

 the long and continuous use of the water, or claim that the use began on a given 

 date many years before. 



In these records water is claimed for every conceivable purpose to which it 

 could be applied. The predominating use stated in the notices has been changed 

 from time to time. In the early days of the records mining was the principal use 

 for which water was wanted. At a later period agricultural and stock uses were 

 those most commonly specified. During "boom" times irrigation and municipal 

 supply were almost invariably named, while at one time in recent years there was a 

 widespread epidemic of schemes for utilizing water power to generate electricity for 

 transmission to the surrounding centers of population. Usually the notices of each 

 period embraced not onlj^ the uses popular at that time but also those of all 

 preceding eras. 



The wording of recorded claims shows how the estimation placed upon the 

 importance of documentary record has changed from time to time. At the begin- 

 ning, and for a number of years, the belief seems to have prevailed that actual use 

 was the sole requisite for a title to water. This idea was not far wrong, for the 

 supreme court of this State, in the case of Waterson c. Saldunbehere (101 Cal., 107), 



