April 10, 2012
A new vision for the LA River
Since Los Angeles’ founding in the late 1700s, the Los Angeles River has been highly controversial. Used originally as Los Angeles’ main source of water, the Los Angeles River provided enough water for both the city’s agricultural need and its domestic needs. However, as the city’s population grew, the river failed to provide enough water to meet Los Angeles’ increased water needs. In the late 1800s, city officials realized that the once life-giving river served the city more as a sewage and trash dump than a viable source of potable water. As the city continued to grow, railroad and industrial development on the river’s bank continued to exacerbate the amount of waste discharged into the river. The unsightly river encouraged citizen to submit cleanup and beautification proposals to the city. Similarly, today, a new proposal—The Los Angeles Revitalization Plan—aims to improve the image of the river.
New legal interpretations of the Clean Water Act helped increase federal protection for the Los Angeles River. The 2006 Supreme Court case Rapanos v. United States challenged the traditional criteria for navigable waterways under the Clean Water Act. Traditionally, the Army Corps of Engineers regulates the development of flood control, navigation and reaction along waterways. Rapanos v. United States attempted to reduce ambiguity regarding the terms “waters of the United States” and “ significant nexus.” The case set precedence for what water bodies were accurately classified as a “water of the United States”. Thus, the ruling essentially clarified the criteria for waterways to be federally protected.
In 2008, the EPA declared the Los Angeles River a special Case to the Clean Water Act. In July 2008, a group of environmental activist kayaked the 51-mile Los Angeles River in order to prove the river was a navigable waterway. Known as the L.A. River Expedition, the demonstration drew attention to the river as a navigable waterway, rather than a “storm drain”. Previously, the Army Corps of Engineers classified only 5 miles of the river as a navigable waterway. However, the demonstration proved that the entire 51-mile length of the river was in fact navigable. On August 17, 2008, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Water designated the Los Angeles River as a “Special Case’ as defined by the EPA-Corps 1989 Memorandum. The declaration transferred the river from the jurisdiction of the Army Corps to the EPA.
In 2010, the EPA announced that it would ensure more protection for the river under the Clean Water Act. This announcement strengthened future environmental protection for the 51-mile river and its tributary streams and wetlands. By being under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, the EPA is able to more effectively protect the river from potential pollution and destruction. These new regulations are important for protecting water quality, wildlife, recreation and public health.
In 2007, the city developed the Los Angeles River Revitalization Plan. By improving parts of the 51-mile river, city planners hope to improve water quality, increase wildlife abundance and health, and ultimately increase the economic value of adjacent neighborhoods. The plan attempts to return the splendor and natural beauty of the forgotten LA River back to the people of Los Angeles, while simultaneously maintaining necessary flood control systems. The plan consists of 239 projects along 32-miles of the river, from Canoga Park to downtown LA. Although not projected to be finished for another 25 to 50 years, the plan is envisioned as a greenway of interconnected parks and amenities acting to connect communities along the river.
The river’s master plan has many new areas for development. The plan aims to widen the channel in order to preserve its flood control capacity. Also, it hopes to expand the riparian habitat, thus increasing the watershed ecosystem. In addition to adding parks along the river’s banks, the revitalization efforts will also increase the number of walking paths, bicycle trails, gathering spaces, public art, community markers, restaurants, and mixed use areas. These recreational developments will make the river a feature destination.
Prominent city officials, such as Councilman Ed Reyes and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, have advocated for the preservation of the river. These individuals reference significant areas, such as the Glendale narrows, where its soil river bottom encourages natural vegetation growth and wildlife inhabitation. Areas like the Glendale narrows encourage citizens to imagine what the river could be if it were properly restored.
While the proposal has gained significant public support, persistent economic conditions have delayed revitalization efforts. Although some areas of progress already exist along the LA River, such as bike paths and equestrian trails, the goal of creating an “emerald necklace” of parks is still far in the future. However, if completed it would offer Angelinos a fresh perception of their city: a long forgotten natural treasure.
LA River Revitalization Proposal
Before and After
Pictures from:
http://www.bustler.net/index.
http://blog.carybrazeman.com/
http://freeassociationdesign.
And watch a video explaining the revitalization plans: http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_19008514
This post was authored by Scott Gross ’12 and Michaela McLoughlin ’12, both Environmental Studies majors.
Sources:
Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/la-river-video_n_1367661.html
Pictures: http://lariver.org/beforeandafter.htm
After class last week I was talking to Lisa about an urban renewal project in NYC that this revitalization proposal reminds me of. The High Line was originally a system of freight rails within the old meat packing district of NYC. Rail lines were suspended above the street and ran through warehouses to load and unload cargo on trains coming in and out. The rail lines turned into an eyesore in the city and was under threat of demolition, but then a group called Friends of the High Line (founded in 1999) petitioned to have this historic railway system preserved. So a plan was developed to turn the railways into a park, where people could walk along the old rail lines and relax within the gardens and various seating areas that have been created. I went to the High Line over winter break and I think it was an awesome way to turn the historic site into something usable and appreciated by people. Here’s the link to their website with all the history of the High Line, how it’s managed, future plans for the site, and lots of really nice photos if anyone is interested!
http://www.thehighline.org/
Los Angeles, though it didn’t have many resources, did have water to support it in the its early days. Settlers quickly exploited and polluted the river and eventually city planners, out of necessity, brought it to concrete form it is in today . Thankfully, we now do have a Revitalization Plan in place, which will surely bring green space and a greater appreciation of nature throughout the city. However, it seems that a greater plan should be developed that incorporates green space all over the city, not just small parks next to the river. The Olmstead brothers, who designed New York’s famous Central Park, did propose a plan in 1930 that would have provided Los Angeles County with more than 160,000 acres of urban park space. After that plan was rejected by city leaders, we still mourn the absence of such areas and must compensate with plans like the River Revitalization Project. Although the Olmstead brothers did not give us that network of green spaces, it is reassuring to know that the city is currently working to make the city a more livable place. Hopefully Angelinos too will soon have urban green spaces to hold in high regard, like New York holds Central Park or Boston holds their own Emerald Necklace.
http://www.cityprojectca.org/ourwork/olmsted.html
Personally, I find it very difficult and perhaps implausible to change the Los Angeles River from the concrete river it is into a natural waterway. However, I definitely think Los Angeles needs to work on altering the area around the river to make it more aesthetically appealing and environmentally friendly. The county has made progress on this already. For example, the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works is planning a project to construct and landscape 1.25 miles along the north embankment of the Los Angeles River in the Canoga Park region. This project includes trail construction, native landscaping, educational signage, and a pedestrian bridge. Although this is not changing the Los Angeles River back to its previous conditions, it does show an intent to make the river a more recreational and environmentally conscious place. Hopefully, these attempts to make the river more friendly and appealing to residents will increase their interest in protecting the water inside the river and approving further projects to naturalize and beautify the river.
I think widening the channel for increased flood control of the river is a great idea, but would that allow for a small channel throughout the year? And how do they plan to widen the channel if there are already businesses there? I think especially the second point Los Angeles is going to run it some difficulty.
Overall this is a great idea and I think Los Angeles underestimates the value this could bring to the city both for residents and for tourists.
I have done some of my own research on the LA River and YES! I would personally love to see it succeed. But there definitely is a long way to go. It might seem to a lot of people like a really grand and lofty goal, which it is, but many urban design projects are exactly that. It is not simply a change in zoning or adding parks. It has many facets and will affect many people. It is far more visionary and large-scale. The good thing is that the river is already in place, local governments and organizations have placed pocket parks and bike paths, and many entities are already advocating for the Revitalization Plan. Transit, recreation, and education need to be well-integrated into the plan as well. It needs to take more economic variables into account as well, such as using inclusionary zoning, which prevents gentrification, or the driving out of low-income residents. The project also needs to take the projected population increase into consideration and plan accordingly and it also needs to connect itself better with Downtown, like the revitalized river in Seoul, Korea did. The river in Seoul, by the way, was a great success and is used to help plan the LA River Revitalization Project. Anyways, this was based off my own research, but the point is that I think the Revitalization Plan is plausible but it will take radical thinking, courage, and a few years to complete.
There are many controversial proposals about what to do with the river, hover only some are actually viable because of political concerns over the impeding effects from climate change. The Southern California area will be greatly affected by climate change in the next 25-50 years, which is on the same time frame as the proposed Revitalization plan for the LA River. Increasing temperatures are the very last our worries, it is the increased flooding risk associated with unpredictable rainfall and the diminishment of our groundwater supply. To but in bluntly, if we take out the concrete-lining of our “river” it completely exposes the groundwater underneath the river bed to contamination from industry and recreational use. The La River currently receives the majority of its flow during summer months as treated water from a treatment facility upriver in the Valley. I don’t know about you, but I do not want that water leaching into the groundwater for fear of contaminating it during a high flood period. Even though the ground may percolate some of the major contaminants out, the risk is just still too much. In a warming southern california climate, that water will be too precious to put it up for the threat of contamination. We are already spending millions of dollars to clean up the SFV groundwater basin, that we do not need to have another Superfund site in LA. I am all for a revitalization plan for a “green” LA infrastructure, but hydrological and geological properties must be taken into account when considering to de-line the concrete river in certain places because the river has been dumping in the same place for so long, it could have sue unforeseen impacts.
Food for thought,
Sherwood Egbert
While a revitalization of the Los River is much needed and something I would love to see, there are currently several major barriers preventing it from becoming a reality. In addition to money, I think that people’s perceptions of the LA River are greatly hindering any revitalization efforts. The degree to which the river has been degraded is embarrassing, and many consider it to be nothing more than polluted storm drain. Efforts need to be made to clean up the river’s surrounding area and prevent any further pollution of its waters. There is also need for more local efforts similar to the L.A. River Expedition that you discussed. This initiative demonstrated that the river is in fact still navigable and holds great potential for recreational activities. Changing Los Angelino’s negative perceptions of the Los Angeles River is critical if we ever hope to gain adequate political support and funding to make a revitalization plan a reality.
Having come from a place rife with riparian settlement and lakes (aka Minnesota), Los Angeles strikes me (as it has many others) as a city that should not have grown as rich as it currently is. Although the LA River instigated development of the city, it quickly became disregarded due to the fact that it’s a non-traditional river that cannot be used as a water source or a reliable route of transportation unlike the Mississippi in its steamboat days. Cities like Boston and NYC have taken measures to recreate little natural corridors for recreational and aesthetic purposes. LA could ostensibly create a more urbanized version of Central Park with the concrete LA River as its centerpiece. While it sounds nice in theory, revamping the river also means fixing up adjacent neighborhoods. If middle class residents are going to take their kids for a stroll or go for a run, they’re not going to hang out in a dodgy area. Therefore developing the river is going to require the expertise of a lot more people and local communities if the end goal is to create an attractive site.
And while the river is “navigable,” it is not reliably so. It has the propensity to carry hazardous materials to the ocean, and it comes in handy during storm season. It’s a part of the city’s environment, and as such it ought to be taken care of for the betterment of the city. The measures we take to meet this goal, however, is up for debate.
I agree in order to make the revitalization of the river possible a large deal of effort needs to go into educating Angelinos on the benefits of the river. Otherwise, I think progress will continue to stall because residents of the city would rather see tax-payer money go into other things. But, I think a revitalized Los Angeles River is definitely possible. I do not see the river ever having a natural bottom a long much of its course but I think making the river more attractive and actually making it part of the city with pocket parks and trails is possible and a great idea, for the communities who live near the river, for the wildlife that will have a renewed habitat and for the economy of Los Angeles as a whole (more tourism because of the river).
P.S. But, where would they film all those action films in the future?
Great information throughout this blog. I hadn’t looked into exactly how the navigable versus non-navigable debate came about with respect to the L.A. River, but now knowing that Rapanos v. United States clarified the criteria for which waterways are to be federally protected, the issue of whether or not the L.A. River is navigable or non-navigable now makes more sense.
Aside from the environmental potential in restoring the L.A. River, I really like the master plan that the city has for making it a feature destination rather than just a place that city dwellers and visitors could care less about as they drive above it on bridges and freeway overpasses. Being a Los Angeles native I feel that by enhancing the economic and communal value of the river would be a great benefit to the city and add to make the otherwise urban environment of Los Angeles a bit more balanced between city and nature. After-all this city really has no space for city gathering, other than concert halls and big sports venues, which makes absolutely no sense given the wonderful Mediterranean climate we have here. By seeing the before and after photos of the L.A. River really helped put this proposal into perspective and gives promise to the potential of this proposal. I too believe that this proposed “emerald necklace” of parks proposal would offer Los Angeles a fresh face, and hope that funding and additional progress can be made to continue with the restoration of the LA. River while still maintaining the integrity of the city’s flood protection.
To go along with what Sherwood mentioned, I think a lot of consideration needs to be given to the potential future impacts of climate change on the LA River, especially when planning for long term restoration. The IPCC has predicted that the with an already measurable increase in atmospheric water vapor, the magnitude of storm systems will continue increase. This could be potentially harmful to LA area if it were to increase the occurrence of flooding of the river. This also means that the river will see more of both extremes: heavy bouts of rainfall as well as periods of extended drought. I think this should be takin into consideration when planning flood control mitigation measures over the next few centuries. With the river running right through so many densely populated areas, it puts a lot of people at risk and the city could face billions of dollars of flood damages in the future. Yet at the same time, widening the channel could lead to an even shallower base flow during dry periods and may even dry up in areas, which would do nothing to improve the quality of the river. It is not something with an easy answer, and it will be interesting to see what happens over the next few decades as these restoration plans come into fruition.