March 19, 2012
LA River: “The Concrete Coffin”
Los Angeles, like many cities, grew along the banks of its water source (History of the Los Angeles River). After some time, the Los Angeles River proved to be a liability to Angelinos because of its extreme flooding. After a particularly vicious flood 1914, and another one in 1934. The Federal Congress passed the Flood Control Act, which allowed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers curb the 52 mile river by building dams and channelizing all but 10 percent of it.
The concrete paving and straightening of the river increased the speed of the river’s flow by reducing friction between water and its channel, and by reducing the distance the water would have to travel before exiting the watershed by means of ocean. The new cement walls and bottom that lined the River ensured that the city was protected from floods but it also completely changed the river into a “concrete coffin.” (History of the Los Angeles River)
The L.A. River’s unique flora and fauna benefited the least from the development, as their habitat was completely wiped out. Before the dramatic growth and urbanization of Los Angeles, the River and its banks provided unique habitat for many plant and animal species. Flora included sycamore, alder, cottonwood and oak trees, as well as elderberry, cattail, and mugwort plants. Fauna included the now endangered yellow-billed cuckoo, steelhead trout, Pacific lamprey eel, Pacific brook lamprey eel, Santa Ana sucker, and many more species. Revitalization efforts of the river have resulted in stocking the river with non-native species for fishing, and non-native species are known to have negative effects on native ecosystems. There have also been major encroachments of non-native plant species like fennel, mustard, palm, and cocklebur. (Education…FoLAR).
The concrete paving of waterways in essence, replaces vegetative cover with impervious concrete. It lowers the capacity for absorption and infiltration of the precipitated water because de-vegetation reduces the organic matter content of the ground and replaces it with surfaces that are water cannot permeate well through, like cement (Wilson “Floods”). Vegetation is essentially a buffer between precipitation and flooding, and its deficit increases flood frequency and magnitude.
A solution for improvements to the L.A. River fit under the category of revitalization efforts. Various conservation groups advocate distinct methods to achieve revitalization, though the general trend is to reduce the presence of the “concrete coffin” and increase the amount of recreational space alongside the banks of the river. It would be best to advocate the restoration of riparian habitats and the cultivating of native species that were traditionally present. These native species would most likely work the best due to their natural temperature and climate, as well as have the least amount of negative effects on other native species. Many also recommend the building of compact mixed-use developments and parks alongside the banks of the river in order to create a kind of civic space. (“Guide to the Los Angeles River- Revitalization.”)
Sources:
“HISTORY OF THE LOS ANGELES RIVER.” Dpw.lacounty.gov. Los Angeles Department of Public Works. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <http://ladpw.org/wmd/watershed/LA/History.cfm>.
“Birds, Plants, Fish.” Friends of the Los Angeles River (FoLAR). (FoLAR). Web. 1 Nov. 2011. <http://folar.org/?page_id=8>.
“Guide to the Los Angeles River- Revitalization.” Http://thelariver.com. Los Angeles River Revitalization Corporation. Web. 1 Nov. 2011. <http://thelariver.com/about/>.
Sarah Beshir and Ashley Lukashevsky are undergraduates in the USC Dana and David Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.
I’ve never heard of the river as a “concrete coffin,” but the name seems suitable, as channelization effectively “killed” the river, changing it from a lively river to a controlled channel.
As far as river revitalization goes, it’s easy to want the city to change the river, increasing the amount of wildlife and providing recreational areas for residents. It’s hard to determine who will pay for such a project. It would be great if we could promote wildlife and a more natural flow, or create parks alongside the river, but the land is so expensive that such development seems prohibitive. I wonder how many Los Angeles residents would be willing to pay for a revitalized river.
If your interested in reading more about the LA River Revitalization Plan, I’ve had this link in my bookmarks for a while: http://lariver.org/index.htm
I agree that the concrete paving of the Los Angeles River lowers the capacity for water to infiltrate into the soil, which could prevent vegetation growth and reduce soil moisture. However, the benefit of reducing floods is tremendous, preventing damage to buildings and infrastructures worth millions of dollars and reducing risks to lives. So how does society consider whether we should reconstruct the Los Angeles River? Rather than arbitrarily allocating costs and benefits, society should base its decision on concise cost and benefit measurements. So if costs exceeds benefits, then the Los Angeles River should be revitalized. However, if benefits exceeds costs, the river should continue to be paved regardless of its damage to the environment. By following a cost-benefit analysis, society would be less likely to enforce plans based solely on opinions and emotions.
I agree with Ashley and Sarah that revitalization efforts should be taken to improve the status of ecosystems surrounding the LA river. The reintroduction of native species to the area is a great idea that I feel will help boost the productivity of ecosystems in the immediate area while also benefitting those downstream. Although the state of ecosystems prior to the channelization of the river can never be restored fully, the presence of native plants and animals is a step in the right direction. Additionally, the idea of creating mixed-use developments and parks will not only help improve the surrounding areas, but also benefit local communities. Their presence can also lead to greater public awareness of the pitfalls that channelization has led to, and could help boost restoration efforts with increased public support.
I can certainly agree that there must be an effort to revitalize the natural habitat of the Los Angeles River. The concrete aspect adds to the dullness of the development that surrounds the city. However, to undo what has been done won’t be easy. The decision to carry out a revitalization project should be based on a cost-benefit analysis as the project could be more costly than beneficial as it already is. Also, to do complete revitalization is probably not the best idea either, especially in areas of the river where there is more development, such as Downtown L.A. I think what would work is to start revitalization in less developed areas the river runs by to make the transition for introducing native species easier. And as for creating parks and civic spaces along the banks of the river, although it may seem a great idea at first, it could also attract more people to the river and cause more pollution. In order to carry out such projects, environmental impact assessments should definitely be conducted to determine whether the project creates a more positive than negative impact.