GPHY

370

Oliver Terry
5294575
GPHY370
April 8, 2010
Professor J. Linton
GPHY 370 | Professor Jamie Linton | April 8, 2010 | Final Term Paper
Table of Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................................................................... 3
Fifty-one Miles of Concrete: The Los Angeles River Today....................................................................4
A River Fatally Defeated, Twice: The History of the Los Angeles River............................................6
Social, Cultural, and Geographical effects................................................................................................... 10
A Future Rebirth................................................................................................................................................... 12
Conclusion............................................................................................................................................................... 16
Bibliography...............................................................................................................18
Appendices................................................................................................................20
Timeline.................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Maps and Images.................................................................................................................................................. 22
Data on Notable Floods:..................................................................................................................................... 27

2
Introduction

Our contemporary hydraulic regime finds the concept of uncontrolled water

untenable, and thus rather than seen as natural assets, urban waterways are objects

that need to be rigidly controlled, which significantly impacts our relationship with

water. The Los Angeles River is an urban river that has been transformed from a

natural, free-flowing river to a 51-mile long concrete culvert. It is hardly identifiable

as a river at all. How did this happen, and what does the future hold for the river?

The Los Angeles (LA) River is waterway that the city and its citizens do not

truly know how to understand, or what to do with. It has developed a contested and

varied identity that reflects the built environment and society surrounding it. It is in

many ways a symbol of the sprawling post-modern metropolis, one that doesn’t

require nature (or even water) to exist. Its presence is woven into the historical

fabric of the city, and is illustrative of the impacts water has on city building, daily

life, and the cultural narrative of California. It is also deeply intertwined with water

issues in California, which are complex, dense, and political. The LA River serves as

microcosm of many of these contemporary issues relating to urban planning,

environmentalism, sociology, engineering, economics and history.

This paper intends to do the following. It will explain the history and present

state of the LA River, explore its urban context and evaluate its relationship with Los

Angeles and its citizens. Furthermore, it will critically reflect on the current - and

future - urban policy and planning practises that control and manage the river.

Finally, the conclusion shall be that there are many parallels between this river and

3
society at large that explain our changing relationship with modernity and the

environment. By understanding this particular river through such a lens, there can

be a better understanding of urban rivers across the globe.

Fifty-one Miles of Concrete: The Los Angeles River Today

The Los Angeles River flows approximately 51 miles from its origin in the

San Fernando Valley region of the City of Los Angeles, to Long Beach Harbor and the

Pacific Ocean. (Figure 1) The River runs east/southeastward through Los Angeles

and along the cities of Burbank and Glendale in its northern reaches, and then heads

southward, flowing through the cities of Vernon, Commerce, Maywood, Bell, Bell

Gardens, South Gate, Lynwood, Compton, Paramount, Carson, and Long Beach,

respectively. The first 32 miles of the River flows through the City of Los Angeles.

The River begins at the confluence of Bell Creek and the Arroyo Calabasas. It

then extends eastwards toward the Sepulveda Dam Recreational Area and Flood

Control Basin. From there, the River continues eastward, and the Central Branch of

the Tujunga Wash joins the River from the north in Studio City. At this point, the

River continues approximately 6 miles eastward along the southern border of the

City of Burbank and the northern border of Griffith Park. At this point, the Verdugo

Wash joins the River from the northeast. Here, the River is just south of the foothills

of the Verdugo Mountains and bends sharply southward, roughly paralleling the

Golden State Freeway. The River continues southward towards the city’s Downtown

before flowing out of the City of Los Angeles, into the City of Vernon. From here, rail

lines and the Long Beach Parkway flank the River as it progresses south past

4
Compton, Paramount and finally Long Beach where it flows in the Port of Los

Angeles and the Pacific Ocean.

The LA River flows through a variety of land-uses that are representative of

the Los Angeles region. The upper reaches of the river pass through predominantly

low-density residential areas, interspersed with industrial and commercial uses.

The final third of the River represents an industrial urban dystopia, with highway

overpasses, heavy industry, and freight shipping rail yards. The mouth of the River

empties into one of the largest freight shipping ports in the world. There are over 75

crossings, with several bridges dating from the natural river. The vast majority of

the bridges are vehicular, but there are a handful of pedestrian bridges.

The river is primarily fed from storm water, effluent from wastewater

treatment plants, urban runoff, base flow from the Santa Monica and San Gabriel

Mountains, and groundwater inflow in the Glendale Narrows[ CITATION Cit07 \l

1033 ]. Runoff from several tributaries is diverted to spreading grounds and

facilities at various locations in the San Fernando Valley. At peak flow levels, the

river can move 4,134 m3/s, which in comparison is 14 times the Hudson River’s

average flow [ CITATION Los06 \l 1033 ]. The elevation drop of the river is quite

pronounced. It drops 800 feet over its course or 18 feet per mile [ CITATION

Los96 \l 1033 ]. In comparison, the Mississippi River’s elevation falls by this amount

over 2,300 miles. This elevation profile, combined with 78% of the riverbed being

paved with concrete, and long straightaways, results in rapid river speeds at

moments of inundation. The designed function of the river is to discharge as much

5
water as possible at rapid speeds, in order to prevent flooding. The predominant

form of the concrete channelling is a narrow deep channels upstream, and a wide

triangular channel downstream (figure 5). As a result of the flood controls and quick

runoff from storm drain systems, periods of heavy precipitation can cause water

levels and speeds to rapidly increase. This has hindered the ability of natural plants

to take root in the few areas of the river where there is a non-concrete bed, and

claims the lives of several people a year who find themselves caught in the swift

waters[ CITATION Gra00 \l 1033 ]. Presently, almost no water is withdrawn from

the river. Public access is largely prohibited, and fencing is in place along the

majority of the river. With the rail yards, warehouses, and other industrial uses that

line the River’s edge, the River has become both literally and figuratively isolated

from most people and communities. Most residents cannot see the River, let alone

enjoy it as a valuable public resource. Other than some of the heritage bridges that

span the river, there is almost no physical link to the River’s natural past.

A River Fatally Defeated, Twice: The History of the Los Angeles River

The Los Angeles River is the original source of life for the City of Los Angeles.

It is where first the Native Americans and later the Spanish built the City’s earliest

settlements. The transition from a healthy natural river with abundant wildlife to

what William Cronon refers to as “an efficient drain” lined with concrete and refuse

did not occur overnight [ CITATION Cro96 \p 404 \n \l 1033 ]. Rather, it mirrors

much of the development of Los Angeles and is reflective of the region’s interaction

with nature. There were two distinct stages that led to the LA River’s current form,

6
as it shifted from a valuable resource, to a great liability that required a powerful

“fix”.

The first stage of the Los Angeles River’s demise was slow and complex,

although completely unsurprising given that era’s relationship with the natural

world. The rapid boom in population led to dramatic increases in water demand.

Large tracts of agriculture sprung up along the riverbank, which by the 1830s were

fed by an elaborate network of irrigation ditches called Zanjas. During the mid

1870s, this region was the most productive agricultural area in the nation

[ CITATION Dev05 \l 1033 ]. The official responsible for administering the zanjas

network had more power than the Mayor, and in 1860 was the best-paid worker in

the city, and the water system became increasingly privatized [ CITATION Gum01 \l

1033 ]. With the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1876, the population

exploded and demands on water increased commensurately. Agricultural land was

converted to houses and businesses, and there were several private water

companies competing to distribute water from the river. When the surface flow

disappeared from overuse, extensive groundwater withdrawals sought to capture

the underground flow of the River. These extractions, combined with the collapse of

the upstream reservoirs, essentially dried up the watershed and forced extremely

deep wells to be dug[ CITATION Dev05 \l 1033 ]. This water crisis spurred William

Mulholland, the head of the City’s water supply, to say of LA River “our population

climbed to the top, and the bottom appeared to drop out of the river”[ CITATION

Kah83 \l 1033 ]. He then began work planning and constructing the Los Angeles

Aqueduct, which was completed in 1913, and drained the Owens Valley[ CITATION

7
Hun01 \l 1033 ]. The dry riverbed soon became a convenient place to dump

industrial refuse and sewage. It also served as a industrial source of gravel and sand,

with officials reporting that in 1907 there were over one thousand truckloads being

extracted daily [ CITATION Dev05 \l 1033 ]. Railroads and industry grew along the

side of the southern half of the river, and many bridges that exist to this day were

constructed. Much of the river was privately owned, and the City did little to prevent

either development or dumping, even though it was still in a well-known floodplain.

All of these actions, from the draining of the river to the development of the

watershed, increased the speed and intensive of runoff, and heightened the flood

hazard. At this point, the river was remade, and stripped of its value. The River was

dead for all intensive purposes, and the next stage of the River’s life was the creation

of its concrete coffin.

The second stage of the LA River was process that was much more visible

and permanent. With the River no longer central to the growth of the region, as a

water source, it “increasingly came to be seen as a hazard, especially during major

storms” [ CITATION Got07 \p 140 \l 1033 ]. In 1914, just one year after the LA

Aqueduct was completed, severe flooding occurred, and 1200 acres were inundated.

Damage to infrastructure, specifically the port and rail yards, was extensive, and the

river channel changed course through Vernon and Compton [ CITATION Gum01 \l

1033 ] (See appendix C). This event came as a great surprise, and there were almost

no flood control mechanisms in place. An LA Times editorial proclaimed that the city

“had no reason to think that so destructive a torrent could really come rolling down

… through the gully that had been lightly termed the ‘Los Angeles River,’ “ and called

8
for an immediate attempt to engineer a fix to the river[ CITATION Got07 \p 140 \l

1033 ]. Despite the known risks, thousands of homes and business were rebuilt

right where the floodwaters once stood. A regional authority was created to start

flood control efforts, but efforts were ineffective initially due to jurisdictional

infighting, and a lack of capital for such as expensive undertaking[ CITATION Gum01

\l 1033 ]. The county was resistant to any sort of land-use regulations that would

limit development in the flood plain, as there were concerns that business would

relocate to elsewhere in the state, and it was a very politicized debate[ CITATION

His99 \l 1033 ]. In 1934, and 1938, devastating floods prompted the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to construct

the concrete-lined channel that now conveys the River for most of its 51-mile length.

They relied extensively on New Deal stimulus funding to get the project started, and

state legislation was passed that overruled many municipalities’ reservations about

the project[ CITATION Got07 \l 1033 ]. Channels were straightened, sections were

deepened and widened, and dams and reservoirs were built. Politics “determined

the flow just as much as precipitation and engineers designs”, but after the two

brutal floods, people were relieved that the project was finally underway[ CITATION

Dev05 \p 150 \l 1033 ]. Environmental considerations were few and far between,

as “the river had been so deprived of its surface flow and defiled by the growing

population … few cared if it was covered with concrete.” [ CITATION Dev05 \p

117 \l 1033 ] Economics trumped aesthetics, and the concrete straight jacket was

being roughly fitted into place. By 1970, the entire flood control system was in place,

and had proven useful at preventing significant destruction in the storm of 1968.

9
Social, Cultural, and Geographical effects

The LA River itself is difficult to find on a map as it is hidden beneath the

swarm of highways that envelope much of Los Angeles County. It is intersected over

75 times along its course by a variety of bridges, yet despite these crossings, it is a

sharp edge that divides neighborhoods and communities along its course.

Historically, few attempts have been made to integrate the watercourse within its

context, and the river has slowly receded from the public view, until now. Despite

being best recognized as the setting of many Hollywood car-chases (Grease or

Terminator) or as a prop for disaster movies (Volcano), it is has remained socially

relevant in many others less visible ways. It is still very much an active participant

in uniting and dividing the city, influencing politics, and being part of the regional

culture. It is a contested space that has many identities.

The River’s relative dormancy, expect in the event of a violent storm, has

made it an occasional topic for politicians and business to further “construct” Los

Angeles. One city councillor campaigned on the basis that the riverbed should be

painted blue to symbolize a river[ CITATION Gum01 \l 1033 ]. Another more serious

scheme in 1990 called for freeway to be that could be used during dry months. The

idea was legitimized by the Los Angeles Transportation Commission, but ridiculed

by environmentalists and others who want the river restored to a more natural

state[ CITATION Gra00 \l 1033 ]. Another idea that has been suggested is that a

crude oil pipeline be laid along the river to pump oil from nearby facilities to the

Port of Long Beach.

10
 The river itself has divided and immobilized many communities. Electrical

transmission towers, freeways, freight lines, metrolink, railyards, fences – and in the

Elysian Valley, a dearth of bridges – isolated communities and people from the river

and each other. Because the river is so hidden from public view, it is a refuge for Los

Angeles homeless community, who are perhaps the only people in the city to

interact with the river as though it was natural, by relying on it as part of their daily

life for activates such as bathing, and laundry [ CITATION Gum01 \l 1033 ]. The

secluded river, with acres of exposed concrete, is also blank canvass for graffiti

artists, and sections of the river are highly decorated[ CITATION Mor01 \l 1033 ].

Mike Davis has asserted that the set course of the lower stretch of the river

was chosen as part of the struggle to better “define a white metropolis”, at the

expense of the predominantly Latino and black neighbourhoods in the

floodplains[ CITATION Dav98 \p 69 \n \t \l 1033 ]. These areas of the city are

some of the poorest and marginalized for a variety of factors. The extent to which

the River has an impact on that is uncertain, but with the lowest amount of

accessible parkland in the country per capita and poor transportation connections

to the rest of the city, they are impeded to a degree by the river.

It is hard to adequately explore psychogeography of the LA River and its

relationship with the community, without having first hand experience of the river

and the people who interact with it. The river has appeared in many films, music

videos, and books [ CITATION Mor01 \l 1033 ]. It appears as a powerful agent in

settings that are personal and intimate, such as the Death of Speedy by Jamie

11
Hernandez, a book about life in the racialized barrios surrounding the river. The LA

River is an active subject in art, music and poetry and is the subject of much

academic discourse [ CITATION Ors04 \l 1033 ][ CITATION Kle97 \l 1033 ]

[ CITATION Rei93 \l 1033 ][ CITATION Hun01 \l 1033 ][ CITATION Ful01 \l 1033 ]

[ CITATION Dav92 \t \l 1033 ]. A study is being undertaken presently by the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Community Innovators Lab to document and

explore the cultural activity along the river. Participants have been drawing mental

maps of the river and their relationship with it, that reveal a much closer connection

to the river than expected [ CITATION Arr10 \l 1033 ] (Figure 2).

On a political or economic scale, the river seems to be an expanse of

untapped transportation infrastructure, or an inconvenient obstacle. Yet to the

communities that surround it, the river is a poignant part of the cultural identity of

the area.

A Future Rebirth

The pages of the Los Angeles Times are littered with front-page articles from

past decades proclaiming the glorious rebirth of the LA River, as a result of a new

study or funding subsidy, which are inevitably followed years later by an eventual

op-ed piece that laments the lack of revitalization progress, or a makes a fresh call

for a riverbed highway. This past decade however, has witnessed the most

comprehensive and tangible progress so far and there is cause for cautious

optimism. Although the river will never be de-constructed to what it was once,

12
natural and free flowing, it may still be re-constructed, and opened up to nature and

the people of the city.

The contemporary rebirth of the river as a site for public discourse and

debate began in the mid 1980s. The US Army Corps of Engineers wanted to perform

a study on the need for even further flood control mechanisms. Meanwhile, a diverse

group of citizen and activist groups were beginning to integrate the river in to their

lives. Desfor and Keil identify two seminal moments where the river entered

mainstream public consciousness (2004). Mike Davis (author of City of Quartz and

Ecology of Fear) published a lengthy article in a local paper about the germinating

environmental movement and groups such as Friends of the Los Angeles River

(FoLar) that wanted to highlight the unknown natural features of the river, and their

dreams of revitalization. Simultaneously, as mentioned earlier, a proposal for

converting the river into a freeway was generating discussion, and actually received

funding for further study. While Richard Katz, the man behind the freeway plan,

proposed the feasibility of bikelanes, parks and greenspace along the new freeway,

FoLAR suggested building those things, but alongside the existing river instead

[ CITATION Got07 \l 1033 ]. Public reaction was decidedly pro-environmentalist,

and many of LA’s grassroots social and community groups coalesced around the

idea of making the river an inclusive, natural space for recreation [ CITATION Des04

\l 1033 ]. FoLAR became the torchbearer for this activist movement, and led to the

swift defeat of the freeway proposal, and public questioning of the grandiose Army

Corp flood control plans. The narrative slowly changed from “risk enhancement” to

13
a more holistic discussion of what the river could be imagined as, aside from a

concrete culvert.

In 1990, the LA River Task Force was initiated. Environmental and

community activists sparred with FEMA and Army Corps engineers about many

issues. Illustrative of the disparate political and social identities of the river, the

sides vigorously debated the semantics of the river. Army Corps officials

continuously referred to the LA River as a “flood-control channel” which was

corrected by the leader of FoLAR with “river” [ CITATION Got07 \l 1033 ]. This

process has greatly evolved, and at this present point in time, there are several

completed studies and legislations that plan - and partially fund - the future of the

river and watershed.

Presently, there is a series of comprehensive plans that outline the future of

the LA River and it’s watershed. The genesis of these many documents is the Los

Angeles River Master Plan, which outlines the jurisdictional roles of the 27 various

governments and agencies that are involved[ CITATION Los96 \l 1033 ]. The Los

Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan has the most comprehensive vision of the

future of the LA River[ CITATION Cit07 \l 1033 ] (Figure 4). Adopted by the City of

Los Angeles in 2007, it covers the 32 miles of the river within the City of LA, and has

an extensively developed vision of the river. The final 10 miles of the river within

Long Beach are covered in the master plan RiverLink [ CITATION Cit \l 1033 ]. There

are many other small plans, some of which are highly partisan and originate from

14
resident associations or communities that disagree with the current direction of

policy and planning [ CITATION Com08 \l 1033 ].

These efforts face significant challenges. The fiscal challenges are immense.

Although significant stimulus funds have been directed to the project, they largely

focus on watershed storm and flood management, and not on restoration projects.

There are some class and racial issues that have caused many parts of the plan to

become contested. For instance Desfor and Keil indentify that “high ground

environmentalists” advocating for the removal of flood protections in poorer,

working class neighbourhoods can cause tension between communities[ CITATION

Des04 \n \t \l 1033 ]. Furthermore, with so many various municipalities, an

almost bankrupt state government, and severe deficiencies in social and

infrastructural spending elsewhere, make river revitalization a long-term concern,

and not an immediate priority. The cost of land appropriations in central Los

Angeles, riverbank reconstruction, and flood controls would easily cost several

billion just to complete key pilot projects.

The projects that have been completed have been well received by the

community at large. New bikelanes are well utilized, and a comprehensive signage

system has been implemented, finally sharing the river’s geographic identity with

the community. Sizeable tracts of land have been purchased, and there have been

some parks created. Inspiration for many of the proposed restoration efforts comes

from urban rivers around the world that have been integrated within their

communities.[ CITATION Cit07 \l 1033 ][ CITATION Kib07 \l 1033 ]. A key aspect of

15
the various plans in place is that the health of the watershed – and not just the river

itself - is central for success. For instance, it seeks to reduce the runoff effects caused

by storm events by promoting ground absorption through permeable paving, and

the reintroduction of natural vegetation[ CITATION Los06 \l 1033 ].

The LA River seems to have finally gained public acceptance, and a

rejuvenated identity. Revitalization is no longer a question of if, but of when. In the

2000 Mayoral race, there was an entire candidates debate devoted on the future of

the LA River[ CITATION Got07 \l 1033 ]. In the notoriously placeless suburban

landscape of Los Angeles, the river is no longer an abstraction, but a real space.

Conclusion

It is clear that there is a great deal of meaning contained within the concrete

drainage ditch that is the Los Angeles River. It has extensive constructed identities,

and is reflective of our society, and it’s cultural, economic and historical dimensions.

What once was a small, yet occasionally boisterous river has been permanently

disfigured from its natural state. Despite being at the mercy of justifiably stringent

flood control regulations, the river has not been completely tamed, and is still an

important part of Los Angelenos life.

In Los Angeles typically, “nature is seen as nonexistent, manufactured, or

dangerous” and that is precisely how the Los Angeles River has been treated in the

first two phases of its life [ CITATION Dav98 \t \l 1033 ]. During the latter part of

the 19th century, indifference to nature manifested itself through relentless water

extractions and industrial dumping. The 20th century has thus been dominated by

16
the control of nature, with the Army Corps engineering a new River that sought to

keep the City safe from flooding – made much worse by the earlier stage’s damage.

Now in the 21st century, a new form of control over nature is being planned, but it is

attempting to repair and mitigate the damage that has been done. The revitalization

effort seeks to combine nature and people together, and not place them at odds.

Culturally and politically, the figurative tide seems to have turned and this concept

(novel as it is to the region) is being embraced.

Ultimately, what made America, and Western Civilization develop into its

current form, is also what subdued the LA River. The use of concrete, not just to line

the channels of the river, but also to fill and consume the San Fernando Valley, has

erased and ended the original nature that existed, beyond just the river. The cost of

this is felt not just by environmentalists and concerned citizens, but also by all

citizens. Until the land of Los Angeles County can be made permeable again and

absorb water naturally, the LA River, despite all the money invested in its

revitalization, must function as a flood control mechanism first and foremost. The

cycle of neglect and brute force control that has defined the interaction of the LA

River, and nature in general, appears to be slowly transitioning to a more inclusive,

sustainable future.

17
Bibliography
Arroyo, J. (2010, February). MIT Community Innovators Lab. Retrieved April 2010
from Mental Mapping Arts and Culture Along the LA River:
http://colabradio.mit.edu/?cat=95

City of Long Beach. (2007). Riverlink. Long Beach: Long Beach Department of Parks,
Recreation and Marine.

City of Los Angeles. (2007). Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan. Los
Angeles: City of Los Angeles: Dept of Public Works.

Community Conservancy International and BlueGreen Consulting. (2008). Los

Angeles River Natural Park: Vision and Concept Design. Los Angeles: Santa Monica
Mountains Conservancy.

Cronon, W. (1996). Uncommon Ground. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Davis, M. (1992). City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles. Ann Arbour,
MI: University of Michigan.

Davis, M. (1998). Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster. New
York: Metropolitan Books.

Desfor, G., & Keil, R. (2004). Nature and the City: Making Environmental Policy in
Toronto and Los Angeles. U of Arizona P.

Deverell, W., & Hise, G. (Eds.). (2005). Land of Sunshine: An Environmental History of
Metropolitan Los Angeles. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P.

Fulton, W. B. (2001). The Reluctant Metropolis: The Politics of Urban Growth in Los
Angeles. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Gottlieb, R. (2007). Reinventing Los Angeles. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Graham, W. (2000, December 3). This Way, L.A. The Los Angeles Times Magazine .

Gumprecht, B. (2001). The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death and Possible Rebirth.
Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Hise, G. (1999). Magnetic Los Angeles: Planning the Twentieth-Century Metropolis.

Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Hundley, N. (2001). The Great Thirst: Californians and Water. Berkeley: University of
California Press.

18
Kahrl, W. L. (1983). Water and Power: The Conflict Over Los Angeles Water Supply in
the Owens Valley. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kibel, P. S. (2007). Rivertown: Rethinking Urban Rivers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Klein, N. (1997). The History of Forgetting: Los Angeles and the Erasure of Memory.
New York: Verso.

Los Angeles County. (2006). Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. Los
Angeles: LA Country Dept of Public Works.

Los Angeles County. (1996). Los Angeles River Master Plan. Los Angeles: LA County
Dept of Public Works.

Morrison, M., & Lamonica, M. (2001). Rio L.A.: Tales from the Los Angeles River. Santa
Monica, CA: Angel City Press.

Orsi, J. (2004). Hazardous Metropolis: Flooding and Urban Ecology in Los Angeles.
Berkeley: University of California Press.

Reisner, M. (1993). Cadillac Desert: The American West and its Disappearing Water.
New York: Penquin Books.

19
Appendices

A: Timeline
 5,000 BCE - 1700's
o Tongva and yangna indian villages along the river
 1769
o Gaspar de Portola and father Juan Crespi name the River, describing it
as a “good sized, full flowing River”
 1781
o El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles is founded
 1781 to 1913
o The Los Angeles River is the sole water source for the City
 1825
o A massive flood cuts a new path south of the pueblo to San Pedro Bay
 1850
o Los Angeles incorporated as a City
 Mid 1800's
o Development boom results in homes and businesses being built in the
flood plain
 1910
o City passes ordinance prohibiting dumping in the River
 1910-1933
o Many of the historic bridges are built, while levees are built along
more than a third of the River
 1913
o The LA Aqueduct is completed, imports water from the Owens River
 1914
o Major flood causes widespread damage
 1918
o Increasing industrialization along the River's banks
 1921
o Flood control construction moves the mouth of the River one mile
east
 1934
o Massive flooding takes 85 lives and causes Congress to authorize
concrete channels
 1935
o Army Corps begins channelization
 1938
o Most devastating flood on record
 1941

20
 o Sepulveda Dam is completed
 1959
o Army Corps of Engineers construction of River flood controls
complete
 1979
o Sepulveda Basin Wildlife Reserve is established
 1985
o Group of artists and poet Lewis McAdams founds the Friends of the
Los Angeles River (FoLAR)
 1989
o LA Mayor Tom Bradley establishes first task force on the River to look
at potential River improvements
 1990
o County of LA River Task Force is formed and restoration efforts
commence
 1996
o County of LA River Master Plan (LARMP) is approved
 1997
o First segment of the LA City LA River Bike Path opens adding 17 miles
of trails
 2000
o The State passes Propositions 12, 13, 50 and 40 for fund watershed
protection, revitalization, and flood controls, adding millions of
dollars to funding LA River projects
o Mayoral debate on the future of the river
 2001
o California State Parks purchases two former industrial rail yards to be
park space along revitalized stretches of the river.
 2004
o The City of LA passes Proposition 0 which raises $500 million in
bonds for watershed protection
o First Los Angeles City River appreciation day is celebrated
 2005
 City of LA completes official river signage and mileage markers program for
the River
 2007
o City Los Angeles Master Plan for the LA River adopted by council

21
B: Maps and Images

Figure 1: Los Angeles River Watershed (Linton, Joe. 1997)

22
Figure 2: Mental Map of the Los Angeles River (Arroyo, John. 2010)

23
 Figure
3: Flow Velocities within the Channel (City of Los Angeles, 2007)

24
Figure 4: Proposed Revitalization of the Chinatown-Cornfields (City of LA, 2007)

Figure 5: Stages of the Los Angeles River throughout Los Angeles (City of LA, 2007)

25
26
Figure 6: Flooding in 1914[ CITATION Gum01 \l 1033 ]

27
C: Data on Notable Floods:

YEAR 1914 1934 1938 1968 1992 1993 1994

DEATHS 0 0 87 73 8 9 4
DAMAGE $162.1 $73.4 $888.8 $31 $150 $150 $200
(adjusted $
millions)
Flooded Area (% 110 sq N/A 168 sq N/A N/A N/A N/A
of non- mi mi (15%)
mountainous (10%)
area)
Peak River 31,400 N/A 99,100 102,000 N/A N/a N/A
Outflow (f3/s)
[ CITATION Gum01 \l 1033 ][ CITATION Dav98 \t \l 1033 ]

28