342 IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. 



to which the city was a successor; but the extension of its hinits by increase of the population must 

 be deemed within tlie purview of the original grant of those waters to the pueblo, and the effect of the 

 grant must be deemed the same as if the waters had been condemned for public use, and all possi- 

 bilities of the future growth and requirements of the city were taken into consideration. 



Outfall sewer. — The water having been granted or dedicated for the health and convenience of the 

 pueblo, as well as for other purposes, the right to drain the cit)* by means of an outfall sewer, and to 

 keep it in a state of efficiency by the necessary flushing, is within the pueblo right. 



Ponds and artifirkd lakes — Diicrelion of city. — The needs of the city may extend to the use of water 

 for ponds and artificial lakes; and the discretion of the municipal authorities in such use will not be 

 interfered with where no gross abuse of such discretion is manifest. 



Suspension of ayuntamiento. — The suspension of the ayuntamiento (town council) of Los Angeles 

 imder the Mexican law of 18.37, and the temporary administration of its affairs by a prefect, did not 

 affect the paramount rights of the pueblo to the use of the waters of Los Angeles River. 



The pueblo right of the city of Los Angeles to the water of the Los Angeles River 

 maj' now be fairly regarded as firmly established, although ^he question has never yet 

 been taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, and of course until it is finally 

 decided by the court of last resort the possibility of its overthrow will alwaj's exist. 

 According to the supreme court of California the city, as successor to the Spanish 

 pueblo, has a paramoixnt right to all waters of Los Angeles River, whether on or 

 beneath the surface, to the extent of the needs of the inhabitants for irrigation and 

 domestic purposes, and of the city for municipal use; this right is not limited to the 

 amount actuallj- used by the pueblo, nor to the particular purposes for which water 

 was forraeily applied, but the right is an elastic one, growing as the city grows, 

 and capable of being extended to include every use to which water maj' properly be 

 applied by a modern municipal government. The rapid growth of the city, from 

 11,000 in 1880 to 50,000 in 1890, and 103,000 m 1900, a growth of more than 100 per 

 cent in the last decade, has led the city, in recent years, to guard with jealous care its 

 water supply so as to provide for future growth. The city's right to Los Angeles River 

 being well established, the only question remaining is. What is the river? Attempts 

 to determine this question have produced several lawsuits of enormous dimensions and 

 corresponding cost. One of the greatest of these, the case of The City of Los Angeles 

 V. Crystal Springs Land and Water Company, is still pending. It was begun in 1891 

 and has not yet reached the supreme court. The defendant, a corporation closely 

 afliliated with the Los Angeles Water Company, laid pipes with open joints designed 

 to admit water, in close proximity to the river, claiming that the flow secured thereby 

 was water developed from percolations in their own land. The city claimed that the 

 developed water was part of Los Angeles River. A large number of hydraulic 

 engineers were introduced as expert witnesses by both sides. 



The city has had much costly litigation with the Los Angeles Water Company, 

 to whom the city's waterworks were leased in 1868 for a term of thirty j^ears. In 

 these suits the questions have not related to title to the river water, but have turned 

 upon construction of the contract, the method of appraising value of the company's 

 property- which the city desired to purchase, the validity of arbitrators' award, etc. 



THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES v. WEST LOS ANGELES WATER COMPANY. 



Another important case involving the distinction between a supposed subter- 

 ranean stream, claimed to be a part of the river, and percolating water, which would 

 be considered part of the land, and therefore the property of the owners of the land, 

 is that bearing the aV)ove title. 



