WATER RIGHTS ON LOS ANGELES RIVER. 345 



maintenance of this inefficient system is due apparently to the indifference or conserv- 

 atism of the municipal legislative body, and perhaps in the past to the cit3-'s desire 

 to monopolize the flow of the river in order to prevent the possible establishment of 

 adverse rights. In the latter case the practice has proved to be a boomerang, and, 

 whatever the cause, it is needlessly wasteful. For some years the river's supply has 

 been inadequate to meet the increasing demand. In the summer of this year, 1900, 

 the third consecutive year of drought, the shortage became so serious that the city 

 was driven, hurriedly and at considerable cost, to construct three pumping plants 

 with a view to augmenting the irrigation supply from the large underflow supposed 

 to exist below the dry bed of the river, but these are stated to have been largely 

 disappointing. 



Where the methods of measurement are so primitive it is natural that the 

 irrigation practice should be correspondingly crude. It is so in and about Los 

 Angeles where the duty of water is very low. There can be little doubt that b}' a 

 modern sj'stem of measurement and apportionment the water now available would 

 be found capable of a vastly greater duty, the income from the sales of water would 

 be increased, pumping could be dispensed with, and the necessity of largeh* supple- 

 menting the suppl}' would be postponed some j'ears. 



The West Los Angeles Water Company is elsewhere mentioned as involved in 

 litigation with the city over its light to develop on its own land percolating waters, 

 which, presumably, would ultimately reach the river if not intercepted. For five 

 years past this companj- has taken from the San Fernando Valley a quantity of water 

 ranging from about 5(X) inches to about one-half that amount, which it has sold for 

 irrigation and domestic use in the western portion of the cit}' and in the fertile 

 Cahuenga Valley, its sj-stem extending to the Soldiers" Home, near Santa Monica. In 

 the beginning the company sold acre water rights equivalent to 1 inch of water to 10 

 acres of land. These were sold for $40 per acre, and in addition an annual rental of 

 $8 per acre, paj'able quarterlj- was provided for. After 225 of these acre rights had 

 been sold the company discontinued their sale, preferring not to obligate itself in 

 this manner, but rather to reserve its supply to meet the rapidh* growing demand for 

 domestic service. It« present method of selling water for irrigation is termed "gallon 

 sales," and is at the rate of 10 cents per thousand gallons. The form of agreement 

 covering this ti-ansaction imposes no liability upon the company; it provides for the 

 sale of surplus water only, and does not secure to the purchaser the right to the same 

 or any supplj^ of water in the future. Where water is sold for mixed irrigation and 

 domestic use, there is a minimum rate of $1.50 per month. This rate entitles the 

 consumer to 6,000 gallons; anj- excess above this amount is charged for at the i-ate of 

 10 cents per thousand gallons. 



The rates established by the company are by statute subject to revision by 

 representatives of the people. Inside the city limits the citj- council has authority 

 to fix rates, and outside the city the board of supervisors of the countj' has this power. 



This company considers itself the absolute owner of the water handled bj- it. In 

 this respect it is in a different position from companies dealing with natural streams. 

 If its contention in the pending litigation with the city is correct, viz, that its supph' 

 is developed from waters percolating in the soil — hence a part of the soil — owned by 

 it, there is no doubt that under the existing law the water is as much the subject of 



