March 19, 2012
Revitalizing the Concrete River: the Benefits of LA River Restoration
Flowing some 51 miles through Los Angeles city sprawl, the course of the Los Angeles River cut an ever changing path from the San Fernando Valley to its mouth in Long Beach. In early years, the natural flow of the river played an important role in the settling of the Los Angeles area. The river provided water and nutrient rich soils to a growing farming community, and people began to develop the floodplain area. However, devastating and deadly flooding in 1914 and the 1930s prompted the channelization of the river; the United States Army Corps of Engineers soon encased the river in concrete; altering the natural flow, and functions of the river (FOLAR 1). Since then, the concrete river has often been referred to as a “stain” and an “eye-sore” to the city of Los Angeles.
Recently, after years of neglect, focus has turned to revitalizing the river and its surrounding environment. Various nonprofit organizations, and environmental groups, emerged to advocate for the river’s restoration, and in 2007, the city approved the “Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan”. The plan specifically targets a 32-mile stretch of the river, and outlines the removal of concrete where feasible, along with the creation of open-space, parks, residential, and business areas along revitalized riverbanks (Hymon 1).
Although restoring the river to its true natural state is impossible due to developments in areas of the rivers natural flow, the loss of natural vegetation, and the loss of native wildlife, the revitalization plan brings new hope to the area. The plan will significantly increase the aesthetic appeal of the area, and the economic benefit from a restored river is expected to be great. The city believes a renewed river has vast potential for recreation, open space, and greener communities. Lush riverbanks are envisioned to attract residents and business centers to the area. Numerous bike paths, pedestrian bridges, and waterways will connect a network of public parks along the river; promoting all sorts of recreational activities.
In addition to improved aesthetics, and the associated opportunities, revitalization brings environmental benefits as well. Removing concrete will improve nutrient recycling, create habitats for wildlife and vegetation, and recharge aquifers. Returning the river to a more natural state will hopefully create a healthy and thriving ecosystem; all the while retaining flood control. The plan outlines flood prevention as a priority and considers the use of detention areas, channel expansion, and watershed prevention practices as possible ways to ensure retention of the flood control benefit from channelization.
Many people are expected to benefit from this revitalization. Over one million people live near the river, along with over 35,000 businesses, and 80 plus schools that are in close proximity to the river (City of Los Angeles 1). Revitalizing the river means revitalization for many neighboring areas and communities. The goals are to create a more aesthetically appealing environment, try to “green” the community, and improve the overall quality of life of Los Angeles residents.
The LA River plan also targets many region wide problems, such as trash and contaminated runoff, and is designed to work in conjunction with other projects meant to improve the quality of the LA river watershed.
Those in opposition of the plan argue the plan is too ambitious, costly, and that money would be better spent elsewhere (Hymon 1). However, ambition has helped to spark public interest and the recreational, economic, aesthetic, and environmental benefits justify the costs. Revitalization means turning the once “stain” of LA to a beautiful and thriving river that someday everyone will be able to enjoy.
Sources/website links:
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/feb/02/local/me-riverplan2
http://www.lamountains.com/involved_river.asp
“City of Los Angeles :: Los Angeles River Revitalization.” City of Los Angeles River
Revitalization. City of Los Angeles. Web. 29 Feb. 2012. <http://lariver.org/index.htm>.
Hymon, Steve. “L.A. Will Take Its River to a New Level.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles
Times, 02 Feb. 2007. Web. 29 Feb. 2012. <http://articles.latimes.com/2007/feb/02/local/me-riverplan2>.
“Los Angeles River | LAMountains.com.” LAMountains.com. Santa Monica Mountains
Conservancy. Web. 29 Feb. 2012. <http://www.lamountains.com/involved_river.asp>.
“River History.” Friends of the Los Angeles River. FOLAR. Web. 29 Feb. 2012.
http://folar.org/?page_id=16.
Katie Peters and Casey Frost are undergraduates in the USC Dana and David Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.
I do support this initiative and I believe that revitalizing any urbanized establishment to include greener and more natural aspects will ultimately benefit the area; however, both the city should be cautious about what areas they have declared ‘feasible’ for revitalization. The channelization of the river was intended to stop flooding; therefore, the city must understand that rapid revitalization may increase the risk of flooding amongst residential areas where the families living there are unaware and unequipped.
Moreover, the revitalization of a small stretch of the river might provide a false impression to the locals that the water flowing through the river is clean and safe. There might be harmful contaminants and other toxins in the water, which will now be more accessible to locals for recreational use.
Again, I am not opposing the master plan for revitalization. I just ask for careful and meticulous planning before any drastic changes.
When the LA River was made into the concrete channel, there was no communication between the Army Corps of Engineers and environmentalists. Though they did the job of preventing future floods in the Los Angeles area, they ruined the environment in this area also. Now people want to revitalize the river, which will have many benefits. I do agree that that these benefits include creating an ecosystem, while also maintaining flood control. Another benefit that is not stated is that the new recreational space will help the working class people of the area. Because the LA River is partly located in working class areas, the revitalization of the river will create an area where people can visit and play. This will bring the different classes in Los Angeles together closing the gap. The revitalization of the LA River will be a valuable project for all of Los Angeles.
I, as much as the next nature enthusiast, would LOVE to have a natural river running through Los Angeles that would be a great location for picnics, parks, and leisurely strolls as the photo about depicts. However, I simply do not foresee this as a reality given the specific circumstances surrounding this river. First of all, the project is estimated to cost two billion dollars. Although I believe this astronomical figure speaks for itself, I will go further to point out California’s current financial situation, and Los Angeles’ ability to fund immediately pressing issues such as hunger and homelessness initiatives. My second doubt lies in my view of the River that I catch glimpse of every Friday on my way to and from the Health Sciences Campus. The river, at times, can best be described as a trickle. Los Angeles is already using water from the Colorado River at an increasing pace known to unsustainable and could be facing shortages in the near future. I just don’t understand where they are planning for the water to come from to fill the wide charging river they LA River Revitalization is advertising. Also, from what I’ve seen of the river, the river banks are not empty plots of land, but industrial warehouses, storage yards, and even what look like construction dump sites. Is the purchasing of this land and converting it to green space going to affect the perimeter beyond the purchased land, or will the parks be juxtaposed against the mounds of rubble right across the street, still in clear view from the river. Just two nights ago, I was sitting next to a woman from LA Water Words at the CMAA Symposium, and she was telling me how there is already a plan to use the LA River water for power plant cooling, and then treatment before discharging it into the ocean. To me, this seems like a more economically realistic use of the water that would also mean the plant would be taking less ocean water for its cooling, and also lighten the concentration of toxins being discharged.
I appreciate how you examined the issue of river revitalization from the perspective of environmental and societal benefits while still acknowledging the issue of the cost of such a project. Financial cost of environmental efforts have come under more scrutiny in politicians’ budget talks, and will only become more so in the next few years. I think it would be useful to assess the viability of river revitalization in the near future using a cost benefit analysis. Maybe ike the Risk Assessment equation, we could try to quantify the Acceptability of not revitalizing the river. In doing so we would evaluate all the factors that could contribute to costs (financial), the factors that would be considered benefits (e.g. “improving nutrient recycling, creating habitats for wildlife and vegetation, and recharging aquifers,” “revitalization for many neighboring areas and communities,” etc.), and all the factors that could be considered risks (extinction of native species, loss of potential revenue, etc.). It’s difficult to assign a number to something like “aesthetically unappealing” though…