336 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



The first case to reach the supreme court of California in which "pueblo right" 

 of the city was asserted is that of the City of Los Angeles v. Leon McL. Baldwin et 

 al. , Januaiy, 1879, reported in 53 Cal. , 469. 



In a previous action between the above-named parties the plaintiff cit\' alleged 

 that the pueblo of Los Angeles was entitled to and had claimed and used all the water 

 of Los Angeles River ever since its founding, and that the citj' succeeded to all the 

 rights of the pueblo. It further alleged that a certain ditch leading from the river 

 into the city had been built by a third party and leased to the city, which was then 

 using it to supply its inhabitants with water; that defendants, who were owners in 

 the Los Feliz Rancho, riparian to the river, had diverted water from the ditch and 

 threatened to continue doing so. Wherefore plaintiff" asked for injunction and 

 damages. 



Defendants, in their answer, denied plaintiff's ownership of the river, or of the 

 water flowing in the ditch, alleging that they themselves had built the ditch and 

 granted it to the third party, from whom the city had leased it. They alleged that 

 one of the conditions in the grant was that defendants should be entitled to use from 

 the ditch all the water required for their rancho; that as riparian owners they were 

 entitled to the reasonable use of the water of the river for irrigation and domestic 

 purposes; that they and their grantors had continuously-, since 1853, used the water 

 flowing in the ditch to the extent of two '• irrigation heads" (a head being about 100 

 inches), and that they had never used more than such reasonable amount. 



The trial court found for the defendants substantially according to their answer, 

 stating plainl}^ that since the granting of the I'anch in 1843 defendants and their 

 predecessors had continuous^ claimed and exercised "adversely to plaintiff and the 

 whole world " the right to use two irrigating heads of water from the river through 

 the said ditch, and that the defendants had never used more than they were fairly 

 entitled to as riparian proprietors. The court found, further, that at the time the 

 action was begun there was a surplus of water in the river and in the ditch above 

 what was needed for irrigation in the city, which surplus plaintiff was selling to 

 consumers outside the city limits. There was no finding as to the right or title of 

 the city in or to the water of the river. 



The city did not appeal from this judgment, but after the lapse of some time 

 brought another suit covering practically the same ground. The complaint in the 

 second case alleged "that the plaintiff is and for a long time has been the owner of 

 the waters of the river and is entitled to the full, free, and exclusive use of the waters 

 of the river and the waters flowing in the ditches connected with the river, and has 

 the right to regulate and control the use and distribution thereof." 



The answer denies the exclusive right of the city to the waters of the river or 

 ditches, and denies the right of the city to regulate and control the use and distribu- 

 tion of the waters. It alleges that the city has more water in the ditches than is 

 needed for irrigation within the city, and that the surplus is being sold to parties 

 outside the city. It also sets up in bar the former judgment. 



The trial court found that the second action was substantially the same as the 

 fonner one between the same parties, which had been decided in favor of defendants. 

 It also found "that the plaintiff had shown no grant of the waters of the river other 

 than such as inured to it from the fact that the river flowed through the lands of the 



