WATER RIGHTS ON LOS ANGELES RIVER. 335 



first 40 feet, thence 1 inch to the place of intended use (a considerable distance away). 

 Another claims "3,000 inches of water under a 4-inch pressure in this canjon and its 

 branches, to be taken out in a pipe 1^ inches in diameter.'" The perfonnance of this 

 feat would require the water to pass through the l^-inch pipe at the rate of almost 

 1 mile a second, or about three times the velocitj- of a rifle bullet. Another claims 

 3,000 inches, "to be taken out in a ditch 15 inches wide and 10 inches deep." It 

 would be interesting to know how long the ditch would endure the wear of such a 

 destructive velocity as would be required. One prudent and farsighted man. after 

 claiming a liberal flow of water and describing the ordinary- means of diverting the 

 same, provides for the emergencies of future diy years by adding, "I also claim the 

 right to hand or pack from here to said ranch in case of drought or too little to run 

 down." 



From one cause or another the great mass of recorded notices wholl}' fail to per- 

 form the duty the}- were designed to fulfill. Probabh' the majority possess, or at one 

 time have possessed, some value to the claimant, but they usually fail to give such 

 notice to the public as the latter is entitled to expect when public property- is sought 

 to be taken for private use. If the claimant proceeds diligenth* and uninterruptedly 

 with the construction of his works and actually appropriates the water as claimed 

 in his notice, he is entitled to have the right therein' acquired date back to the time 

 of posting the said notice. In this event it may be important, although by no means 

 indispensable, to have an official record of the fact. Unfortunately it is the excep- 

 tion rather than the rule that a claim is ripened into an appropriation according to 

 the terms of the notice or in the manner and within the time specified by law. In all 

 such cases the recorded notice of claim is false and misleading, and with the lapse of 

 time may acquire a force and standing to which it is in no wise entitled. _ 



In California there is no oflicer authorized to scrutinize in any manner anj- 

 water claim offered for record, nor whose dut\' it is to see whether the rights claimed 

 by such notice are actually secured In* the subsequent actions of the claimant, or 

 whether they are allowed to expire by reason of his default. Vital questions touch- 

 ing prior rights to the water, the validity of the new claimant's preliminary notice, 

 the good faith of his late proceedings, in fact the whole question as to whether an 

 appropriation for a beneficial use has been made, and, if so, to what extent, are one 

 and all left to be determined bj- litigation. Under our present law, or lack of law, 

 on this point there is no other manner in which these questions can be decided. It 

 Is matter of common knowledge in this portion of the State that a lawsuit over water 

 rights is the most pi'otracted and costly form of litigation with which our courts are 

 congested. 



LITIGATION. 



It was stated above that the city of Los Angeles has long asserted a claim to the 

 entire flow of the Los Angeles River, basing its claim principally upon its succession 

 to the peculiar rights alleged to have been granted to the old pueblo founded under 

 Spanish law in 1781. It might have been expected that this supposed sole ownership 

 would operate to prevent litigation. On the contrary, it has itself been the fruitful 

 source of much costh' litigation. Either as plaintiff' or defendant the citj- of Los 

 Angeles has been of necessity a party to most of the important suits involving Los 

 Angeles River, and its "pueblo right'* has been reiieatedly on trial. 



