April 5, 2012
River or stream, creek or brook: All are precious in my book!
In many respects, it’s unsurprising to learn that the passive disdain with which most modern Angelinos regard the Los Angeles River was not an overnight development. The contemptuous nature of our relationship with the river dates back more than a century, and no matter what we would like to believe today, “[the river] was never the center of local life as some modern-day environmentalists have supposed” (Gumprecht 123). For instance, what little does appear about the L.A. River in the historical record generally takes the form of complaints about the various ways in which the river aggrieved local residents, namely by overflowing its banks. Infinitely more common than mentions of the river itself, however, are descriptions of the Southern California region’s bountiful croplands and high standard of living, both of which the L.A. River directly enabled.
Examining the reasons behind Los Angeles’ longstanding neglect of its eponymous river brings to light some concerning trends as to how we interact with the natural world. Interestingly, the L.A. River did play a fundamental role in establishing the city in its present location, but not in the usual way that a river fosters municipal expansion. Los Angeles began as a railroad town, more or less, precisely because the river devalued the surround area: Because the river was so prone to flooding, land on either side of the banks was deemed low-grade, and unfit for residential or other commercial purposes. Judged unsuitable for most other uses, the land lining the river became railroad. Particularly near the station, the newly lain railway incited the development of some of the city’s first industrial buildings, where “[w]arehouses, lumber yards, blacksmith shops, foundries, and wagon factories began to displace the vineyards and orchards” (Gumprecht 125).
Obviously, by initiating the city’s transition away from agriculture, instead positioning it as a center of industry, the L.A. River had a vital role in shaping present day Los Angeles. But one possible explanation for the chronic disregard shown by Angelinos toward the L.A. River could be that it doesn’t offer the utilities conventionally supplied by a river: Its flow was too meager and too inconsistent to ever make the waterborne transport of goods a viable consideration; by the time industry had become sufficiently widespread so as to make hydroelectric power necessary, too much of the surface water had been drained to make turning a turbine practical; and the feeble trickle of water in the channel was — thankfully — judged inadequate to dilute sewage, let alone wash effluents downstream (Gumprecht 125). For settlers relocating from other parts of the country, accustomed as they were to different, more robust varieties of rivers, the L.A. River scarcely constituted a proper river at all.
Given its meager surface flow and accordingly limited conventional uses, it makes sense why the L.A. River would be afforded less respect — reverence, even — than a river like the Colorado, that carved the Grand Canyon, or the “Mighty Mississippi,” which is so much a part of the local identity as to take on an almost mythic quality. But the L.A. River is no less important to the watershed it drains than the Colorado or Mississippi are to theirs. Just because it might be less superficially imposing does not diminish the absolutely crucial ecosystem services it provides.
In many respects, early Angelinos’ neglect of the L.A. River parallels certain actions of contemporary environmental non-governmental organizations. When designing campaigns to mobilize action against deforestation, overfishing, climate change and other environmental ills that lead to species loss and extinction, NGOs like the World Wildlife Fund have been criticized for disproportionately emphasizing the plights of so-called “charismatic megafauna” —whales and polar bears, for instance — while overlooking keystone species that may be more important but less photogenic. Such organizations rightly acknowledge that “if that’s what interests people then that’s how we start the conversation about conservation” (Tesar), but when discussing water resources, that rationale doesn’t hold water quite as well (pun initially unintended, but later gleefully embraced).
Time after time, Americans have demonstrated a characteristic inability to value things that might not appear valuable. Our history of neglect and abuse of the L.A. River unfortunately fits this trend to a T, but with increased education about its less-than-obvious importance, the river will hopefully gain the respect it deserves from the region it serves.
The Los Angeles River near present-day downtown, ca. 1900. Seaver Center for Western History Research, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.
The LA River, view from 6th Street Bridge (illustrating the use of land on either side of the banks being in their historic use for railway). Photo courtesy of Mark Behr. 30 December 2011.
This post was authored by Louis Lucero II ’12 who is majoring in Environmental Studies with a double minor in English and Screenwriting.
References
Gumprecht, Blake. “Who Killed the Los Angeles River?” Land of Sunshine: An Environmental History of Metropolitan Los Angeles. Eds. William Deverell and Greg Hise. University of Pittsburgh Press, 2006. 115-134.
Tesar, Clive. “Tracking megafauna in Iceland.” Thin Ice blog. WWF, 27 June 2011. Web. <http://blogs.panda.org/arctic2/2011/06/27/tracking-megafauna-in-iceland/>.
I find it very interesting that the L.A. River was largely ignored until it occasionally overpowered humans and the development they created. Scientists and engineers knew the potential threats that the river could cause, but they didn’t seem to jump into action until after lives were lost and homes and businesses were destroyed. Once they received the funds they required, the Army Corps of Engineers vigorously built up the walls of the L.A. River with cement and no consideration for possible alternatives. When greater amounts of flooding occurred, the Corps did not take this as a red flag indicating their inadequate anti-flooding techniques, but instead magnified the size of their existing projects.
Today, we are left with an embarrassing excuse for a river and an eyesore to those who pass. Future beautification plans seem plausible, but in comparison to other construction priorities, significantly altering the river will take decades, if not longer. People likely tend to care more about the conditions of freeways, beaches, and public school buildings (which are all valid concerns), and many people forget that the river even exists. Luckily, there are groups like the Friends of the Los Angeles River that work hard to clean up the river when they can and educate others about its history and potential future.
http://folar.org/?page_id=84
P.S. Excellent title, Louis!
I thought this post was really insightful and direct in identifying our blatant disregard for the Los Angeles River. Years earlier, it harbored seasonal flow and riparian wildlife, both unique flora and fauna that only a river could sustain. Because of its characteristic seasonal flow though, locals underestimated its power and dismissed it. Just to add to what you were saying Louis, by channeling the river and concreting the riverbeds that persist until today, we seem to be ever-contributing to Angelinos’ mistaken perception of a skimpy, embarrassing channel. This presentation of the river only highlights the already engrained view that our waterways are useless and not worth reckoning with, when, in reality, if we took the river for what it was and still can be to some extent, both the river and its residents would be more satisfied. People would be more willing to recreate there and understand the flows of the river, and the river would not be so constrained but might allow for more wildlife to inhabit its banks, water to percolate and groundwater resources to recharge.
This sort of harmony between Los Angeles residents can only be achieved through outreach and education programs. I too feel that a reflection of our culture is necessary so that we could treasure natural environments even if they might not seem to provide immediate value.
I think that this post illustrates a very important problem in the whole “environmental” sphere, that is narrow mindedness. As an environmentalist you can choose to focus on anything you like from animal rescue to climate change, from protecting wilderness to advocating for hunting in these areas, and like this post pointed out you can use poster animals to “start the conversation on conservation” or you can try to educate the masses about the importance of a less-cute keystone species. All these different topics separate into individual advocacy groups and almost seem to fight for the definition of being an environmental group. There is little conversation going on between the groups and sometimes there is out right hostility. An example of this disconnect is between hunter groups like the NRA and conservation/animal rights groups like the Humane Society and local conservation groups. What I find is lost in this hodge-podge group of groups is a “big picture” scheme.
Although I see the difficulties with getting advocacy groups to talk to one another and work towards a specific holistic goal (besides making the world a better place) I think that ecosystem management needs to move toward and is moving toward looking at the entire watershed or ecosystem in question while trying to sort out issues with development and conservation. The LA river, while not pretty and I strongly doubt it will ever be useful beyond a centerpiece for green spaces in LA, would benefit from different interests groups talking about its options not just as the LA River, but as the LA watershed. I am not proposing how to get the business men talking to the immigrant rights groups or how to get LAR conservation groups talking to Heal the Bay but if they (and others) could come up with a strategic plan to make the LA watershed healthier then maybe the something news-worthy and “environmental” will happen.
I don’t fault environmental groups like WWF for using cute animals for their campaigns because like Luis quotes it does get the conversation started. But I do agree that environmental groups have failed to mobilize for the LA River like they have for other environmental causes. Environmental groups just need to be more creative. If a species or cause does not have the cute-factor to make it worthy of being publicized then they just have to figure out another way to spread to the word. Or they can use a different approach: Just like everybody wants to save cute animals everybody want to get rid of ugly places so maybe promoting the eye-sore in the middle of the city, along with increased education on the benefits of the river, will motivate people to support the revitalization of the river.
As an LA resident, I always found myself in a very small minority of people who actually like the current Los Angeles River. Every time I drive over it, I get the same feeling of amazement that I get when I see a skyscraper or any huge physical construction. They are all odes to the astounding feats humans can accomplish. It reminds me that we are different from all other species on the planet. We can shape our environment and make it suitable to our needs as opposed to being helpless against the whims of nature. Of course, we have learned that there are good ways to control our environment and bad. The LA River was unpredictable and limited space for humans to live. In retrospect, we see that our attempts to control its flooding could have been done better. However, I think that is part of the gift generations hand off to each other. We see the success and failures of the past and learn from it. We are in a transition stage of humans becoming more aware of their relationship to their environment and struggling to live in a sustainable way. We are constantly debating what is the right and wrong way, but there is a general trend toward a greener future. I have faith that humanity will ultimately arise to these challenges.