March 9, 2012
The LA River Pre & Post Channelization: Mountain Lions, Antelope and Bears…Oh My!
The LA River, with its rich and diverse ecosystem, was a very crucial part in the development of the city of Los Angeles. Before Spanish settlers came into Sothern California, the river was the foundation for Native Americans that inhabited the land for nearly ten thousand years. Among the many Indian tribes living in the Southern California region, the Gabrielino were the most technologically advanced and prosperous tribes in the area. This was more than likely due to the river and its surrounding ecosystem providing all the necessary raw materials and nourishment needed to expand the extensive trading system they had in place. As the map below shows, these people were spread out through the southland in what is now known as the Los Angeles and Orange counties, including the Channel Islands. Surrounded by other Indian tribes, the Gabrielino were the only tribe that predominately utilized the river, its resources and understood its patterns over the significant amount of time passed since Indians were first there. As a result, their settlement followed the pathway of the river as floods enabled it to erode and meander a new path because it provided a critical foundation for their way of life.
Map of Southern California and the Gabrielino territories.
The ecosystem surrounding the LA River was quite extensive, which the Gabrielino made abundant use of. First, Willow trees and large oaks lined the streams and water flow that provided the staple of the Gabrielino food diet- the acorn. The floodplain forest was also extremely useful as it provided the wide range of small animals, seeds and berries that were hunted and gathered for food. In addition, the marches provided raw materials used to build shelters and tools for important use; among these included supportive beams for housing, bows and arrows, and natural bright-colored woods that they would wear to distinguish themselves from prey. However, most importantly, the river was the main source of drinking water and the spot of ritual bathing before sunrise for religious purposes. This was the cleansing ritual supposedly dictated by Chengiichngech, their creator-god that played a central role in their society. Since the Gabrielino settled in association to where water resources were located, they did not utilize agriculture but rather used the native ecosystem for nourishment. This lack of cropping did not tie them to the land and allowed them to be nomadic in nature by re-settling along the river in multiple spots, but were most prevalent in the San Fernando Valley.
The Gabrielino tribe is a great example a community taking full advantage of the LA River and its resources sustainably. Although the LA River was unpredictable after heavy rainfall, changing its water flow many times, the Indians living in the region learned to adapt and thrive in the ecosystem nonetheless. Until the Spanish took over and pushed the Gabrielino out of the area that is current-day Los Angeles, the Gabrielino flourished and prospered on the river that built the largest and most important city of the American West.
There are few people who know that Los Angeles used to be a messy jungle of thorny thickets and oaks, antelope and grizzly bears, marshes, desert washes and quick sand. None alive and only those who read histories remember the days when Los Angeles was known for not only bird watching but bird hunting due to the fact that the air would blacken with migrating geese, ducks and other water fowl like the herons and cranes.
The green backed heron now rare was one of the millions of wetland birds that frequented the marshlands that were fed by the Los Angeles River.
The wandering river, when it was running on the surface, was a meandering river that didn’t have a set path with solid banks to keep it on course. This was due to the fact that it really only ran substantially after the winter rains and with the spring melt from the mountains. During these times it was a raging river that would rip trees out of the ground. At these times there was massive flooding that fed the surrounding marshlands, lakes, and water loving vegetation, and the water followed the path of least resistance to the ocean.
Early human accounts from the 1850s describe a Los Angeles river basin that was too dangerous to cross through on account of the quicksand, mountain lions, flash flood, and grizzly bears waiting to meet the human traveler on one of the only two trails that passed through the thick, thorny thickets of the basin.
The rest of the year most of the water flow was bellow the surface and the river was no more than a gentle creek and sometimes completely dry. This huge riparian ecosystem with very rich biodiversity was supported by what is now one of the nation’s largest storm drains: the Los Angeles River.
The muskrat habitat is one where wetland grasses and shrubs are abundant and water is plentiful. The Los Angeles basin was once famous for its bird and muskrat habitats, the birds for game and the muskrat for its prized waterproof fur.
The Los Angeles River is now forced to follow one course to the ocean. This is totally against the natural existence of the river. It is estimated by the City of Los Angeles that 100% of natural wetlands and 90-95% of natural riparian ecosystems have been lost through the urbanization of the Los Angeles River (Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan).The river used to travel miles east or west of its current path and it emptied into different areas on the coast from the Port of Los Angeles to Ballona Creek. Today there is a lot of talk about revitalizing or restoring the Los Angeles River. When people talk about restoring the river it warrants the question, “Restoring the river to what??” The Friends of Los Angeles River state that their mission is to “protect and restore the natural and historic heritage of the Los Angeles River and its riparian habitat” (folar.org). The City of Los Angeles claims that the Los Angeles River is a “landmark resource” (larriver.org). Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa says that the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan will create an “emerald necklace” of parks and green spaces surrounding the 32 miles of the river that runs through LA (lariver.org). But what does all this mean for the river itself?
The Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan would incorporate bike trails, recreational parks and green ways along the banks of the LA River but keep the river partially cemented for flood control.
The FoLAR is a non-profit organization that was founded in 1986 with the “utterly attainable” goal of restoring the river and its banks physically but also in the minds of modern Angelenos. The organization aims to change the dismissive view of the LA River as “storm drain” to an idea that the LA River is a place of natural beauty and meditation. Generally the LA River today is thought of as almost a joke and refers in speaking to the LA “River” in quotations. FoLAR however plans to change this image through education of the local LA children and by holding canoeing classes and seminars about the restoration and history of the River.
The LA River today is currently one of the world’s largest storm drains. Running a total of 51 miles, 32 of those miles lie within the City of Los Angeles.
Obviously restoring to pre-contact times is absolutely impossible. Both sides of the LA River are lined with neighborhoods, 35, 000 businesses, roads and almost 400,000 housing units containing over a million people. To let the river wander like it once did would be the complete relocation of millions of people, cost billions to implement, move more than 80 schools and almost half a million workers with jobs in the Los Angeles River Corridor (lariver.org). Although complete restoration is impossible, current plans bring into question the standards or baselines are for this restoration. The plan shows basically a “bio-engineered” river that consists of rubber dams, concrete eddies, fish ladders and terraced sides (Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan). While these things are necessary in such an overly urbanized area, and will be a great improvement to the current state of the river, the plan also shows green ways and parks that are supposed to provide water clarification, recreational opportunity, and a wildlife refuge corridor. Although there is some mention of using native plant species there are many areas that will be grass to provide areas for soccer fields and such. There are very few to no native grasses outside the bunch grass category in Southern California! While it is impossible to argue that our city neighborhoods don’t need more green space, it would be more reassuring to the conservationist if a bigger emphasis was placed on assuring that large portions of the “emerald necklace” would be dedicated to wildlife.
As the area surrounding the Los Angeles River becomes biking trails, parks and wildlife refuge in the next 50 years, house values and rent price may rice beyond what many renters and thus a majority of the people current living in the River Corridor can afford.
Another potential issue with the Revitalization Plan is the fact that one of the goals is to create value in some the poorest neighborhoods that border the LA River. From Downtown LA, through Boyle Heights and Compton these neighborhoods have some of the highest unemployment rates in the nation at an average of 20%. The Master Plan argues that bay creating aesthetically and recreationally valuable land along the river, homes values will go up increasing the economic status of some of our poorest neighborhoods. Historically however this does not work. When state or city money is put into a beautification project, money moves to the areas with rising home values. A perfect example of this gentrification is Downtown Los Angeles. After the 50s and 60s, Downtown was down and out. Old movie houses, banks and hotels were changed into cheap or welfare housing for the poor. With the revitalization of Bunker Hill and Historical Downtown Districts there was an exodus of middle and upper class folk into the city (http://www.downtownlagentrification.com). This eventually raised the rent prices and pushed the poor further east to what is currently and also being gentrified, the LA Arts District. Where will the poor go? Although this plan aims to empower and uplift the lower socio-economic brackets it may actually be back-fired upon.
No matter where the baseline for restoration lies, I don’t think we will ever see or want to see the type of habitat that covered Los Angeles more than a million years ago.
This post was authored by Sherwood Egbert ’13 and Mariah Gill ’12 who are both pursuing a BS in Environmental Studies.
Sources:
Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan, April 2007
The Los Angeles River, Chapter 1 and 2
The City of Los Angeles certainly has a hard decision to make with the restoration of the Los Angeles River – to put the needs of the environment or the established people first. I think in the case of Los Angeles, the city has done so much environmental damage that returning the Los Angeles river back to a more natural state is really important. I agree with Mariah and Sherwood that the revitalization of the river will not necessarily bring a greater value to the land surrounding it, but the value it would bring to the ecosystem and the watershed is enough to support the project. A more naturally flowing stream that would allow for wildlife to live in and near it once again is what we really owe to the Los Angeles River after decimating its ecosystem for so long.
According to our readings, the LA River in its natural state was unpredictable, subterranean, and (most importantly) unable to sustain a large population. If the river struggled to provide water to Angelinos over 100 years ago, how could it possibly sustain the number of people who currently live here? Even if one were to factor out the degree to which damaging floods would threaten local livelihoods, it is simply unfeasible to return the river to a natural state due to the amount of water that would be lost into the soil among other scarcity issues. I believe that we’ve already passed the point of no return in regards to human restructuring of the LA River. Any reorganization in the future will have to take into account the present state of the SoCal environment/climate and the people that live here. These two obstacles alone may preclude the river’s return to any semblance of a “natural” state.
Therefore, I think it may be pertinent to reassess the definition of “natural” when it comes to accommodating 3.8 million people before city planners move forward to “restore” the river to a more natural state.
Los Angeles used to be too dangerous to cross alone because of things like bears, mountain lions, thorny thickets, and quicksand. Currently, many consider Los Angeles to be dangerous because of things like gang violence, air pollution, and a crowded freeway system. A lot has changes since the times when the Gabrielino tribe lived of the Los Angeles River in a sustainable and peaceful fashion. With the urbanization of the Los Angeles area the LA River has been so heavily degraded and controlled that it has been transformed from a source of all life to an oversized storm drain. In my opinion, there is currently very little hope for an major revitalization of the LA River. We have already caused way too much irreversible damage. As you mentioned in your blog post, “100% of natural wetlands and 90-95% of natural riparian ecosystems have been lost.” Restoring the river to its natural habitat would be far too expensive and difficult. In a time where our economy struggling, there are not nearly enough resources available to make it happen. I also think that there are more pressing environmental issues at hand like global climate change that require our attention and efforts first. While little things can be done to make the LA rive more tolerable, I don’t think it is going to be a desirable destination anytime soon.
I also found your discussion of the potential gentrification that revitalizing the LA River could cause to be particularly interesting. In a city that was founded on and continues to be based around growth and expansion, this is an issue that is often overlooked. In fact, it is something that is happening right here in the USC community. As USC has become an increasingly popular destination for college students throughout the years, there has been great amount of development surrounding campus. Just in the four years I have been here, I have seen Figueroa Street become home to several expensive student housing projects. Rent prices in the area have reached absurd amounts and forced many families and individuals living in the area to move out. Revitalizing the LA River would definitely create a higher demand to live along its banks and lead to an increase in the amount of money it costs to live in the surrounding area. If a major revitalization project is ever executed, I think it is very important to consider the effects it is going to have on the people who have already established themselves in the area. Steps need to be taken to make sure that it is done in a way that does not place an unfair burden on these populations and brings about gentrification.
The idea of living on the native land of Southern California has always fascinated me, like what was said near the beginning of the post. While I hear that some people perceive Southern California as a near-desert with no natural resources, learning about how the Gabrielinos were able to sustain themselves makes me wonder why we can’t use some of our own resources more effectively and efficiently. If we did, then we would not have to travel around the world for food and materials, spewing air pollution and greenhouse gases in the process.
At the same time though, having seen the beauty of natural land like on Santa Cruz and comparing to what we have made this land into, I hardly want to encourage people to disturb the little wild land we do have left on the mainland in Southern California to extract any resources. Obviously a balance of some sort must be struck, but it is close to impossible to get a consensus on what that balance might actually be as we alternate between destroying the pristine river and now restoring it to the extent that it is possible.