WATER RIGHTS ON LOS ANGELES RIVER. 341 



The main issue involved in the case is complicated with a large number of 

 subordinate questions, the decision of the supreme court embracing twenty -five 

 distinct points. Most of them, however, relate to legal technicalities, and two 

 questions only are prominent in the controversy. These are — 



(1) As to the existence of a well-defined subterranean stream by which the waters, or a large 

 portion of the waters, resulting from the rainfall within the watershed of the San Fernando Valley, 

 are carried off through the pass between the Cahuenga Range and the Verduga hills; and, (2) as to 

 the rights of the city of Los Angeles, as successor to the Mexican pueblo in the Los Angeles River. 



Regarding these two points the city alleges that it has certain rights in the river 

 superior to those of ordinary riparian proprietors; that the river is composed of the 

 surface stream and a large subterranean stream moving through the sand, gravel, 

 and bowlders under and adjacent to the river; "that ever since its organization the 

 citj^ has been the owner in fee simple of the exclusive right to the use of all the 

 waters in said river from its source to the southern boundary of the citv, in trust, for 

 the public purposes of supplying the inhabitants of said city with water for domestic 

 uses, and of supphing water for the irrigable lands embraced in the 4 square leagues 

 of the pueblo, and for other municipal uses;" also that the defendants own their land 

 subject to the right of the citj- in the Los Angeles River. 



Omitting such points of the decision as relate to legal technicalities, the following 

 are quoted from the sj'llabus: 



Percolating water — Subterranean flmr of rirej" — Value of land. — Percolating water which forms part 

 of the subterranean flow of Los Angeles River, and is moving in the same direction with it, through 

 the lands sought to be condemned, does not belong to the owner of the soil, and can not be taken and 

 conveyed away by him to other lands for sale; and where the supply of the percolating water which 

 might be so removed is of slight value, and might be wholly interfered with by drainage on adjoining 

 lands, a verdict fixing the value of the land at its market value for agricultural i)urjx)ses will not be 

 disturbed upon appeal. 



Percolation not inconsistent with stream — Defined channel. — ^The fact of percolation is not inconsistent 

 with the idea of a stream, when it is caused by the waters of a subterranean stream passing through 

 the voids of loose, permeable material, or partially obstructing the channel of the stream, and when 

 the material through which the water forces itself fills a well-defined channel with imijervious sides 

 and bed. 



Diversion of underftoti: or percolating vxiter. — The owner of the soil can not divert any part of the 

 underflow of (or?) subterranean water forming part of the stream, whether such water would or would 

 not reach the surface stream of the river; nor can he divert jjercolating water if the effect would be to 

 cause the water of the stream to leave its bed to fill the void caused by such diversion. 



Nature of subterranean stream — Question of law. — What a subterranean stream must be in order to 

 bring it within the law of riparian rights is a question of law. » * * 



"Defined" and "known" channel — Reasonable inference. — The channel of a subterranean stream 

 is "defined" when it is contracted and bounded, though the course of the stream may be undefined 

 to human knowledge; and its course is sufficiently "known" when it is the subject of reasonable 

 inference. 



Inference as to channel — Submission to jury. — Where the boundaries of the channel and the 

 existence and course of a subterranean stream in the lands sought to be condemned are not defined or 

 known otherwise than by inference from the evidence, and it might reasonably be inferred therefrom 

 that the channel was bounded and defined by the sloping sides of hills meeting underground, and that 

 there was a subsurface flow in the channel through such lands, corresponding with the known surface 

 flow of the river outward through the gap, the court was justified in submitting to the jury whether 

 the subsurface flow in such lands was a part of the stream. 



Extent of paramount rights of city — Riparian rights of Mexican grantees. — The paramount rights of 

 the city of Los Angeles in the waters of Los Angeles River over the riparian rights of persons claiming 

 under Spanish and Mexican grants are not limited to water sufficient to supply the original pueblo, 



