After the Aqueduct
Mulholland's pace did not slacken after the aqueduct hoopla. Five days later he was back in Independence for the soda works case. Shortly after he testified that Fred Eaton's water appropriations were on behalf of the City of Los Angeles and that work on the surveys and preliminary construction had begun one year before the city had voted its first bonds for the project, a writ of prohibition stopped the hearings. A change of venue had been requested, claiming conflict of interest as presiding Judge William D. Dehy was a riparian owner of Owens River property, and now an appellate court had enjoined Dehy from proceeding. Days later, Mulholland confronted the board of public works over its recent purchase of electrical machinery with aqueduct funds needed for tunnel building in San Francisquito Canyon. The resulting delay, he told them, would hinder the ultimate completion of the aqueduct. The next day, after receiving the silk flag he had unfurled at the opening ceremonies (purchased by a subscription of the office force) and expressing his pleasure and appreciation for the gift, he left on a night train to San Francisco, where he was scheduled to appear November 24 as an expert in a lawsuit between the fledgling East Bay Water Company and the City of Oakland. When asked during the deposition what difficulties he had encountered in the construction of the aqueduct, he replied, “The real difficulties of the Aqueduct were not the physical difficulties. They were human difficulties. ” 1
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Book title: William Mulholland and the Rise of Los Angeles. Contributors: Catherine Mulholland - Author. Publisher: University of California Press. Place of publication: Berkeley, CA. Publication year: 2000. Page number: 249.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.