340 IRBIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



outside the cit}' limits; that plaintiff owns a water right, acquired bj^ appropriation, 

 to divert from the river 2,100 inches. 



The answer of the city denies plaintiff's rights and claims all the water of the 

 river: 



(1) As successor of the pueblo of Los Angeles, which it contends owned all the water in the 

 river. (2) As an appropriator of the water, claiming that it has been in the undisturbed and 

 undisputed use of it, under claim of right, for fifty years. 



A full statement of the facts is contained in the opinion of the supreme court, 

 which is voluminous, covering nearly twenty pages of the report. The opinion also 

 quotes at length from the findings of the lower court and abstracts from briefs of 

 counsel much interesting history of the organization and administration of the pueblo 

 under Spanish and Mexican laws. Following is a brief outline of portions touching 

 the subject of our inquiry: 



The waters of all rivers were, under the Spanish and Mexican rule, public property, to be 

 administered and distributed for the use of the inhabitants. Apparently this was sometimes done by 

 the pueblo authorities outside of the pueblo lands. * * * When the pueblo was organized under 

 the laws a sufficiency of this water was appropriated to it. * * * The pueblo had a prior right to 

 consume the waters, even as against the upper riparian proprietor. * * * The court approves the 

 decision of the supreme court in Lux v. Haggin (69 Cal., 255), to the effect that the right of the city as 

 successor to the pueblo to the water, for its inhabitants and for municipal purposes, is superior to the 

 rights of plaintiffs as a riparian owner. Approval is also given to the decision of the court in Feliz v. 

 City of Los Angeles, above noted, that the city has no right to take from the river more water than is 

 required for its inhabitants and for municipal purposes and to sell the same outside the city. * ♦ » 

 Pueblo had preferred right to the water, but only to the amount needed for its inhabitants. * * « 

 The city's claim that it has acquired a right by appropriation of fifty years' standing to sell surplus 

 water outside its limits is denied by the court on the ground that under its charter the city had no 

 power to do this, and hence that it could secure no such right by the unauthorized acts of its officers. 

 This right may have existed at one time, but subsequent limitations in the city's charter amounted to 

 an abandonment thereof. 



CITT OF LOS ANGELES v. POMEKOY ET AL. 



The pueblo right was again tested in the case of City of Los Angeles v. Pomeroy 

 et al., reported in 124 Cal., 597, and 57 Pac. Rep., 585. This suit was begun in 

 June, 1893, came to trial in March, 1896, and was decided in the superior court in 

 June, 1899. It is a case of colossal dimensions. A large number of engineering 

 expert witnesses were introduced on both sides. The transcript on appeal is a 

 voluminous document, and the opinion of the court covers nearly lifty pages of 

 the report. 



Defendants Avere the owners of a large tract of land situated in the southern 

 portion of the San Fernando Valley, near its outlet, and at a point where the valley 

 has narrowed to a width of 2 to 3 miles. The city sought to condemn all the right, 

 title, and interest of defendants in a poi'tion of the said tract containing about 315 

 acres. This land, comprising a strip about 2 miles long by one-fourth mile wide and 

 traversed by the river, throughout its length, was wanted for the purpose of 

 constructing suitable headworks for the proposed extension of the city's waterworks. 

 Defendants claimed that the land sought to be condemned contained an enormous 

 quantity of percolating water capable of development, upon which they put a high 

 valuation, which they claimed ought to be paid them if their land was taken for 

 public use. 



