THE LOS ANGELES RIVER
As the 20th century neared its end a California state legislator from Los
Angeles, not entirely in jest, urged his fellow lawmakers to save "the only
scenic river I have in my district." Environmentalists joined in, decrying
construction decades earlier by the Army Corps of Engineers of a concrete
riverbed and banks in response to numerous floods. Some demanded removal of
the levees. Lurking in the background was a vision of the Los Angeles River as
a "wild river."
Nostalgia ran amok. Older residents, remembering a golden age in their
youth when they fished, hiked or played by the river, yearned for a return to
the time when the Los Angeles was a pristine stream, beckoning nature lovers to
enjoy its flora and fauna.
In fact, the river has been as much ogre as angel throughout its history.
Rising in the mountains adjacent to the San Fernando Valley, the 58-mile-long
Los Angeles River drains a basin covering 800 square miles on its journey to
the sea. Much of the year it carries little water but periodically the river
rages out of control, destroying life and property. In the American era floods
of devastating proportion washed through the city, changing the river's course
and the nature of the landscape.
Even before American occupation of the city, the river played havoc with
local inhabitants. When the original handful of colonists sent north from
Mexico arrived in 1781 they settled near the river, which provided a more
reliable source of water than the rainfall in a land that was only slightly
wetter than semi-arid. At that time the river rarely reached the ocean, its
flow instead emptying into numerous ponds on what was then forested marshland
to the south and west. In the 1820s a major flood opened the present channel
to the sea. Journalist and resident Charles Willard wrote:
Prior to 1825 there had been considerable woodland between
the city and the ocean, which the flood {of that year}
destroyed by cutting a definite channel for the river and
draining the marshland where the trees grew.
Most of the ponds dried up. The forests disappeared.
With the rapid population growth of the 1880s residents began to subdivide
stream-side acreage near what would become downtown Los Angeles. Those who
warned against such rash action, aware of the periodic flooding, were dismissed
as "croakers," the then current word for alarmists and nay-sayers. Such was
the reception that greeted J. J. Warner's effort to alert residents to the
danger that faced those who chose to build on the river's flood plain.
Col. Jonathan Trumbull Warner, also known as Juan Jose Warner, or more
commonly J. J. Warner, first came to Southern California in 1831. He moved
permanently to Los Angeles in 1857 after a long stay at what is known as
Warner's Ranch in San Diego County. Well acquainted with the history of the
river and the potential danger it posed for nearby residents, Warner, whose
homestead was on the east side of Main between Sixth and Seventh Streets until
the early 1880s, wrote for the Times what today would be called an op-ed piece.
The article, printed below, was accompanied by a paragraph in the editorial
column endorsing Warner's concern and specifically recommending that the city
council consider construction of a levee "along the south bank," by which was
probably meant the west bank. While the Warner piece was not technically a
letter, it is reprinted below since it resulted in a heated exchange in the
letters column.
{Times, July 30, 1882, p. 2}
A WARNING.
"And the rains descended, and the floods came and beat
upon that house and it fell, and great was the fall of it."
The folly of building a house upon ground subject to the
overflow of water was in olden time so apparent that the
founder of the Christian religion, in enforcing his doctrine,
gave utterance to the words above quoted.
The sudden destruction of property accumulated through
years of toil, the homes swept away in a day, the sufferings
of homeless families, and the mourning for the loss of
beloved ones along the alluvial lands of the rivers of our
country, within the memory of those now living, should shield
me from being called a croaker, if I direct the attention of
the people of Los Angeles city to the risk to which many of
them are now exposing themselves, their property and their
families in the selection of places upon which to build their
dwellings.
At the time of the founding of this town, the river ran
along at the foot of the table land of East Los Angeles, from
the point where the road leading from the city to the Verdugo
ranch crossed it down to the covered bridge {at Macy Street}.
Some time after the settlement of the town the river left
that bed and moved to the west, and ran along the foot of the
hill and table land west of the present location of Alameda
street, down as far as Aliso street, and thence along Alameda
street, until past the Bliss and Wolfskill properties.
In the third decade of the present century it again left
its bed and located itself on a pretty straight line,
extending from the Verdugo crossing to the eastern end of the
covered bridge.
The flood which caused the first mentioned change
excavated and lowered the bed of the river about ten feet
where the railway leading to San Francisco crosses. During a
greater part of the year a large quantity of sand is daily
brought down by the current of the river, and left along the
river-way between the central and the southern part of the
city.
The oft-recurring floods of the Los Angeles river bring
down an enormous quantity of sand and other solid matter, a
great share of which, for many years past, has been spread
over and deposited in the southern part of the city. As the
bed of the river has been lowered in the upper, and raised in
the lower part of the city, the current of the river through
the city during floods must be correspondingly lessened, and
consequently an increasing proportion of the sand and other
sedimentary matter brought down by the river from above is
deposited in the southern part of the city. Consequently,
the same volume of water, poured into the city by the river
and the Arroyo Seco will now submerge the central part of the
city more than it would have done in times past, and a faint
idea of what would be the condition of no inconsiderable part
of Los Angeles city in case of a flood may be had by knowing
and considering what past floods have done. The flood which
caused the removal of the river from the line of Alameda
street not only covered the land west of that street, but
left a deposit of sand and other solid matter over what is
now the Wolfskill property, of more than three feet in depth.
When it is considered that at that time the river way,
from about the point of the crossing of First street and
beyond the southern limit of the city, was a sand plain,
averaging nearly or quite a mile in width, having a greater
declivity than the present river bed, and without any
obstacle to impede the flow of the water, and that at the
present time the water-way of the river southerly from the
central part of the city is narrow, crooked and filled with
innumerable obstacles tending to impede the rise and rapid
flow of the water, it can be easily imagined what will be the
condition of all that part of the city on a level with
Alameda and San Pedro streets in the event of a recurrence of
a flood of no greater magnitude than either of those which
occurred in the third, fourth and seventh decades of this
country {century? - Ed.}
J. J. WARNER
Two days after Warner's article ran in the Times, Harrison Gray Otis took
editorial control of the paper. His newly created column, LETTERS FROM THE
PEOPLE, designed to carry "brief and well-written communications upon topics of
current interest," made its debut on Aug. 1, 1882. The next day it became the
vehicle for an exchange between real estate developer Alfred Moore and Warner.
Moore, who was selling land in the Aliso tract dangerously close to the
channel, belittled Warner's caution regarding development of riverfront
property. Warner, in turn, used the letters column for his response to Moore.
By 1884 the region immediately west of the river from Aliso Street south to
what became Third, and from the river to Alameda, had developed into a working
class residential area. The Aliso tract, in that section, was located
immediately adjacent to the river on a portion of the 104 acres once owned by
vintner Jean Louis Vignes. The tract was bounded on the north by Aliso Street
{roughly the site of the San Bernardino Freeway} and on the south by First, and
lay between Vignes Street and the river. Several streets still carry the names
placed on them when the tract was developed. The sycamore cited by Warner
stood near the Vignes adobe. Harris Newmark, who resided in Los Angeles for
sixty years and authored a remarkable reminiscence of that period, noted that
the tree, perhaps two centuries old, was cut down near the turn of the century
to make way for the Philadelphia Brew House, the brewery operated by Maier and
Zobelein on Aliso Street.
In 1845 New Mexico colonists settled Agua Mansa, referred to by Warner, on
the Santa Ana River near the present city of Colton. Devastated by the flood
of 1862, the community became a virtual ghost town.
{Times, Aug. 2, 1882, p. 3}
A WARNING.
To the Editor of The Times:
"And the flood came," etc. J. J. Warner seems to be
terror-stricken about the coming flood sweeping away the
homes of the industrious in the central part of the city. I
have lived on the Aliso tract, the most central part, for the
past eight years, and never saw a flood yet. When does
friend Warner think his next destroying flood will come; or
has he or any of his friends property for sale at improved
prices above the bottom lands as he calls them? Apropos of
the above, I sold six lots a short time ago to a lady who has
since built a very fine residence within a few feet of the
river (bed?), and when she was about purchasing some of the
croaking neighbors gathered round her and spoke of the
overflow, and tried to scare her off buying. She was a lady
of very diminutive stature, but plucky enough to answer them
with "Bosh, when the flood comes I can swim anyhow; this
place is my choice, and here I will build my house." And she
did so, at the cost of fifteen hundred dollars, and an
ornament and improvement to the place, so much so that I am
selling bottom land lots, so-called, rapidly ever since,
which makes the croakers open wide their eyes. Mrs. Bigelow,
on First street, near the river, has shown great pluck and
enterprise in building up the beautiful cottages in her
orange grove facing First street. Also, Mr. Graham is about
to build a $1500 residence opposite, and Dr. A. H. Millar,
late of Canada, has bought the corner of Vignes street, with
a view to erecting a substantial grocery house--but if there
is any danger from an overflow at any time in the future, the
authorities should see to it in time to prevent any disaster.
The city, after a heavy rain about eight years ago,
constructed a dam, and this summer the enterprising Mr.
Nadeau built a four-foot flume from the covered bridge along
the west bank of the river to First street, and thus would
take all the surplus water down to his vineyard at Florence
in the event of any extra rain coming; but we need not, I
think, feel at all alarmed about a flood. At any rate, as
you say, "The matter is respectfully submitted to the city
council." Respectfully,
ALFRED MOORE.
{Times, Aug. 6, 1882, p. 3}
Foolhardiness.
To the Editor of the Times:
The floods are not in my keeping, to come or to refrain
from coming at my bidding. Nor am I a real estate broker or
auctioneer, interested in the sale of city lands. Neither do
I know that any friend of mine has land for sale less exposed
to damage by floods than that on a level with Alameda street.
Floods are not, in modern times, preceded by a Noah to
warn the exposed of their danger; nor are they respecters of
persons, but they come upon the defenceless mother, not
infrequently in the dark, stormy hours of night, when,
instead of fleeing away for safety, she is chained to the
spot by the moans of her still more helpless children.
It is presumable that the people who a few days ago were
living on the banks of the Licking and other contiguous
streams, in Kentucky, felt as safe in their homes, and
thought as little of danger from a flood, as does Mr. Moore
in his eight-year-old dwelling, from which he has never seen
a flood. It is probable that the people who were living in
this town in 1835 had not for more than eight years witnessed
a flood, and yet it was related by them that when the flood
of that year subsided, the only object to be seen upon the
face of the land, between the present location of Alameda
street and the high land on the east side of the river, which
was there at the coming of the flood, was the large sycamore
tree now standing near the Aliso mill. All else had been
swept away by the water or covered up with sand or sediment.
It is a trite saying that whatever has happened in the
past may again occur in the future. There are many now
living in Los Angeles who do not know the magnitude of the
volume of water which flows through this city when the river
is flooded. If all those who have seen the lesser floods
which have occurred at various times within the past fifty
years, few, if any one of them would select, or advise a
friend to select, for a family residence that part of the
city lying between Alameda street and the high land on the
east side of the river.
It is not so much from an overflowing philanthropy or
commisseration for those weak-minded, "diminutive, boshy" and
natatory ladies, and others, who shut their eyes, and build
their homes in dangerous places, that I give the warning, as
from sympathy for those who, not themselves sufferers, would
be called upon to alleviate the distresses of the unfortunate
ones who have been misled by reckless and crafty real estate
owners or agents. I believe that a majority of all those who
witnessed the flood in this city about twenty years ago, upon
considering the present condition of the waterway of the
river, the many obstructions which since then have been
placed therein, will concur in the opinion that the
recurrence of such a flood would destroy a large part of the
property situated in that part of the city before mentioned.
Some idea of the devastation that would be caused in
this city by a flood in the river can be formed by learning
of the ravages which befell the settlement of Agua Mansa in
San Bernardino county, and of the losses of the inhabitants
on the Ranchito and Santa Gertrudes in the rainy season of
1861-62, when the new river of Los Nietos was excavated, and
for the time being made a navigable river.
J. J. WARNER.
The potential flood Warner feared and Moore dismissed came in February,
1884. A Times account, printed after a second flood occurred two years later
in much the same portion of the city, gives a graphic picture of how Moore's
Aliso lots fared. {No copies of the Times for Feb., 1884 exist.} The East Los
Angeles bridge was on Downey Avenue, now North Broadway.
{Times, Jan, 20, 1886, p. 1}
THE FLOOD OF '84.
Reminiscences of the Disastrous Overflow Two Years Ago.
The great flood of 1884 occurred Sunday night, February
17th. The season had been dry up to within two weeks of the
date of the flood, and the rain was at first heartily
welcomed. It continued, however, until Sunday the 17th, when
it came down in torrents. Cloudbursts occurred Sunday
morning in the Tejunga and Verdugo canons, and at 2 p. m. the
water reached town and a general alarm was given. From that
time until evening it swept over the whole district bounded
by Macy, Georgia and Alameda streets and portions of the
Sabichi and Hollenbeck tracts near the Southern Pacific
depot. The Southern Pacific railway bridges were both
knocked out of shape. The approach on the east side to the
East Los Angeles bridge was washed away, but the bridge
itself was not materially damaged. Both the Aliso avenue and
First street bridges were completely destroyed and the
covered bridge sank two or three feet in the center. About
forty houses, nearly all on the Aliso tract, were carried
away. The agricultural implement establishment of Rees &
Wirshing, together with a full stock of goods, was carried
down, the loss in this case amounting to $12,000. The Aliso
street car bridge was also wrecked. George Stoltz, a
milkman, was drowned in the Arroyo Seco, and this was the
only life lost during the flood. The body was recovered
several weeks later. The railroads were washed out
everywhere and there was no communication with the North or
East for two weeks. The total loss in the city was estimated
at $150,000. The City Council immediately took measures to
prevent the recurrence of the flood, and, under the direction
of the City Surveyor, a wing-dam of sand-bags was built just
below the covered bridge. A few days later the river rose
again and carried away every vestige of the dam, but did not
overflow the city.
The sufferers by the flood of 1884 received prompt
relief from the charitable people of Los Angeles. A relief
committee was appointed by the Council, and liberal
contributions of money and clothing were made for the benefit
of the destitute people. Miss Louise Rial being in the city,
tendered a benefit for the relief fund, and a large addition
was made to it by this means.
In the country the whole district from the Cerritos
rancho to New River was under water, and bridges and roads
were washed out everywhere. There were three separate floods
during 1884, but the first was the most disastrous to the
city.
Throughout the 1880s, and particularly after the flood of 1884, residents
debated the question of levee construction. The river boulevard proposed as
part of the levee by John F. Humphreys, one of the founders of the reorganized
Chamber of Commerce later in the decade, may have been the first suggestion in
a long line of similar ideas. Advocates of a river transit route have spanned
the decades and the political spectrum, from the river highway proposed by
socialist mayoralty candidate Job Harriman in 1911 to the riverbed freeway
offered by Democratic assemblyman Richard Katz in 1989. The Long Beach Freeway
in a sense became a modern version of Humphreys' idea. Note that Humphreys
offered his suggestion prior to the 1884 deluge.
{Times, Oct. 14, 1883, p. 3}
Public Enterprise.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: While we should be
well satisfied with the wonderful growth of our city and
county, yet, in this fast age of "rapid transit," our
ambition feasts on future results, and to this end allow me
to call attention to an item of public benefit, a future
ornamental and profitable enterprise for our city, wherein
the passing of time adds largely to the advantages named, and
with comparatively no expense. If the city will make a
roadway 100 feet wide along the west side of Los Angeles
river, out of the 300 feet in width of river bed claimed by
the city, say from East Los Angeles bridge south to First
street, or further, build it sufficiently high to protect
property back of it (as it is claimed high water has damaged
as far back as Alameda street). The willows now standing in
the way of said drive could be properly secured along the
outer edge of the road as an ornamental hedge to protect the
bank, while double rows of eucalyptus trees planted on each
side and center would in a short time make an ornamental and
profitable item to our city, particularly for pleasure
driving, to say nothing of the wood the trees would make.
Can you not stir up our city authorities and the public
generally to immediate action in this matter, for all such
public improvements beautify and make the city the more
attractive and healthful, and it is my impression that
interested parties along the river will contribute largely to
this expense if the authorities go to work in earnest and no
delay. While my individual interest in the matter is
comparatively nothing, I will start the list with a
subscription cash of $500.
JOHN F. HUMPHREYS.
[The city authorities will please consider themselves
stirred up.--Ed. Times.]
The flood of 1884 stimulated interest both in levee building and in
determining why the river flooded in the first place. "J" recognized that
man-made structures impeded the river's flow and called for corrections, but
"J" also believed that leaving the river alone was not a solution. The natural
vegetative growth that Humphreys had seen as a partial solution to flooding was
cited by "J" as a cause of the problem. The blue gum "J" referred to was one
type of the Australian eucalyptus that Humphreys had urged the authorities to
plant along his proposed boulevard. The tree was already well established in
Los Angeles by the 1880s.
{Times, Dec. 21, 1884, p. 5}
The "Herald" and the River.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: It seems to me that the
Herald is trying to work off a grudge against someone in the
Republican party. If it is not the Chief of Police it is
with work on the river. Now, Mr. Editor, the money expended
on the river I think is money well spent. Cleaning out the
river itself is worth the money spent. If it had not been
for the river being grown with willows last winter the damage
would have been light, as the sand will lodge there and a new
channel will be the result. The river bed should be cleaned
at least once a year to keep down the willows. Another bad
thing in the river is these short-span bridges, street-car
and railroad bridges, and the sand will lodge there. The new
Council should see to it if any new bridges be built that the
spans be at least 100 feet, so that the sand may be carried
down the river, and I hope that the city will keep on the
work and finish the gap near Mission street, and that
everyone having property on the river will plant at least
five rows of blue gum trees inside the levee next winter, and
if we have no floods in a few years we will not see another
'84.
J.
December 19.
The city council authorized levee construction, proceeding slowly south
along the river. "West Side" interjected a bit of class consciousness into the
debate upon observing the extent of levee development as the rainy season
approached in early 1885. The city council created the River Improvement Fund,
cited by "West Side," in 1884. George Rowan, a wealthy merchant, William H.
Workman, soon to become the city's mayor, and banker/real estate developer John
E. Hollenbeck all had extensive holdings on the east side of the river.
{Times, Jan. 16, 1885, p. 3}
Why is This Thus?
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: Crossing the river a
day or two since at the First street bridge, my attention was
attracted to the new levee, half a mile (more or less) in
length, below the bridge, upon the east side, in front of and
protecting the comparatively narrow strip of land of Messrs.
Rowan, Workman and Hollenbeck (rich men all), and seeing no
corresponding line of protection upon the west side, where it
is very much more needed, and where hundreds of homes of
comparatively poor persons would be disastrously affected by
an overflow, I naturally inquired if we were to be left
defenseless, and was informed that such would be the case, as
there was no more money in the River Improvement Fund, etc.
Assuming that the new levee above First street should
withstand a flood such as we had last spring, the inevitable
result of the construction of the line upon the east side,
below the bridge, would be the precipitation of the raging
waters, much more than our share, upon the unprotected homes
of the West Side, and the result would be most disastrous to
individuals and probably to the city by the time law-suits
and bills for damages were settled. Is not this a most
flagrant and glaring case of favoritism? Others besides the
writer think so. Whenever the river fund was exhausted the
work should have been completed alike on both sides, or the
one-sided levee built upon that side where most of the homes
and property would be protected thereby.
WEST SIDE.
Los Angeles, Jan. 12, 1885.
There was no flood in 1885 and work continued on the levee. At year's end
"R. M. M." offered another view of the role of willows as related to floods.
His concluding sentence struck a note familiar to those who remembered the
alarm sounded by Warner in 1882.
{Times, Dec. 22, 1885, p.2}
Protecting the River Banks.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: As there has been a
considerable sum of money expended since the last rainstorm
in removing the dirt and slush from the streets and placing
it along the river for the purpose of forming a levee, would
it not be well for the Council to continue the good work and
save what has been done by placing a protection to its front.
Certainly it would be a great pity to lose the time and labor
that the work has cost the city simply by a neglect to spend
a small sum more at once, which would make it secure. There
is an abundance of willows that can be procured, say from
three to four inches in diameter, and if they were cut seven
and eight feet long, the butts sharpened and driven one and
two feet from the outside base of the embankment three feet
apart alternately, and two and a half feet in the ground (a
hole should first be made with an iron bar), and brush placed
in the interstices and between the lines of stakes and the
embankment, there would be little danger of a freshet
removing a particle of the work, and the stakes would grow
which would still add strength and safety in the future, but
should a freshet come in the condition that it is now in, it
would be liable to be all swept away in a very few hours
time; and as there are many idle men now in the city who need
employment, it surely would be a paying business to put them
to work clearing out the drift, growing willows and other
obstructions from the channel of the stream. While there is
but little water in the river it can be done, and should be
done at once, as no one knows but it may be a dreadful river
again before the Ides of March come around.
R. M. M.
Before sufficient work had been done on the levee to protect the city and
barely a month after "R. M. M.'s" letter, another torrent overflowed the
river's banks and coursed through the city. Commenting on the city's flood
control effort the biographer of pioneer Horace Bell wrote that carts dumped
garbage along the riverbank "so as to form an odorous windrow, dignified by the
name of levee. When the rains came it floated away."
The flood of 1886 was nearly as destructive as that of two years earlier,
with water reportedly three feet deep at the corner of Turner and Vignes in the
Aliso tract. Several residents drowned and others were spared only by the
heroic work of Deputy Sheriff Martin Aguirre. According to Newmark:
All of Los Angeles between Wilmington Street and the hills on
the east side was inundated; levees were carried off as if
they were so much loose sand and stubble; and for two or
three weeks railway communication with the outside world was
impossible.
The flood produced a stream of letters regarding the necessity of
controlling the river, primarily through levee construction. Milo S. Baker,
founder of the Baker Iron Works, offered the following advice. He erred in
assuming that the river was not in its natural bed in 1886. As noted above by
Warner, the pre-settlement channel had been along the East Los Angeles bluff,
not along what became Alameda Street.
{Times, Jan. 24, 1886, p. 4}
The Sword, the Pen and the Spade.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: The pen is mightier
than the sword; but the spade beats them both. We have no
use for the sword, and we have had enough of the pen. Now
let us have the spade. But when we put it into the strong
and willing hands of the laborer, let us first map out a plan
whereby our money is not thrown away when we pay for its use.
It is much easier, however, to find fault with what has been
done than to tell what should be done.
The above thoughts have been suggested by the sad
experience of our city for the last few days. While we all
are revolving in our minds what to do with our streets and
sewers, we are brought face to face with a much greater
problem to solve, namely: How shall we conduct the Los
Angeles river through our city when it gets on a bender?
It is said water is a good servant but a bad master.
That it ever became master is to a certain extent our own
fault. The mind endowed with good common sense, and having
been schooled in experience, readily understands how to be
master.
To my mind the whole expenditure of money and brains
towards giving our river a free pass through the city has
been all wrong, always beginning at the wrong end. To
illustrate my idea I will ask a question or two and answer
them:
First, what has moved the river bed from where is now
Alameda street to its present bed? The answer is, the
constant flow of slickens and sand being deposited in the
lower part of the city has forced the river up and over until
it is eight feet higher than Alameda street, its former
channel, and the whole lower part of the city is a sand bar
or dam (and a strong one, too,) to hold back any excess of
water and flood the city. Now what is the most natural way
to get rid of this pond of water? Why, tear down the dam and
make an outlet for this deposit of sand.
Then your river will cut down a channel and make a
levee, and it will do it faster than all the Chinamen in
California could do with shovels. One says build a boulevard
levee and keep the river in its bed, but when that bed fills
up with sand you may build another on top of it until you are
as high as Boyle Heights, unless some provisions are made for
the sand that is constantly being brought down.
These thoughts are thrown out for consideration for
those who will have the brain work to do. Our city has
borrowed some money, but already they have so many places to
put it I fear they will not have enough to go around, unless
more economy is used than municipalities generally exercise.
M. S. BAKER.
Unfazed by the second flood in two years, Alfred Moore returned to the
letters column a few days after the latest catastrophe with disparaging remarks
about real estate development in the hills immediately west of downtown. Since
he was still promoting riverbottom land, he may have felt compelled to deride
the hill lots as a means of defending his land promotions in the flooded area.
John E. Preston, proprietor of a stable, offered a response.
{Times, Jan. 28, 1886, p. 2}
Some Extreme Suggestions of a Split.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: "Impossible to build a
sustaining levee and bridges for Los Angeles!" So say some
of our sapient citizens--amongst the rest, Colonel Baker and
Albert Brown, the undertaker. But that is all bosh. But,
suppose that is the case--what then? Why, the west side of
the city would be cut off from the outer world, and would go
to wreck. The east side (and that's where the city should
have been) would take the lead and be the city proper, as it
has an entire back country to sustain it, and the high mesa
lands would be the terminus of a grand central system of
railroads, whose tracks and depots could never be flooded
out. Aliso avenue would become the Main street, and Brooklyn
avenue the Spring street, of the new Los Angeles; whilst the
western side, or old Los Angeles, would become deserted--as
they have no back country to support it; Wilmington, Santa
Monica and the mountain ranges is all they could depend on,
and that would be very poor dependence. It is true, the
courthouse and city buildings might remain where they are;
and if no approaches to them could be had in winter, so much
the better--for the less these places are used by the people,
fortunate are they.
It is a high boast some folks make who live on the
western hills of not contributing a dollar towards levees, as
the fools in the bottom lands have no business there; but I
say, with Mayor Spence, make a general extra tax levy for the
purposes we desire, and the whole city is kept entire, east
and west. Refuse that plan, and the west will be left out in
the cold, and not the east, as some silly folks suppose.
Refuse a general tax levy for levee and bridge purposes
to connect the entire city, and William Workman and other
great property owners on the east side would ask no better
thing, as the valuable $500 front foot property from Spring
and Main would be rapidly transferred to the east side, where
all would be safe, and those gentlemen would soon be
millionaires. For what do the general public care to go to
Los Angeles except to do the trading, attend courts, and see
the sights? If the business centers were transferred to that
side, then all the people care for would be accomplished and
nobody hurt except the noodles on the western hills, who
would not vote a dollar for their own protection. I care
little for myself (and many of my neighbors are like me)
whether I live east or west of the Los Angeles river. I want
to be safe and expect to be protected in my property and
person for the taxes I pay.
If it is not possible to give us protection to cross or
live by the river, then let us divide right here and now; let
us have a city on each side, and my word for it you will soon
see which will be the one to prosper. But unite us in ties
of crossing and bridges and we have but one common interest
to serve, viz.: the good of the whole; divide us and the
western portion of the city must fall and be a fit dwelling
for the bats and the moles. Words to the wise should be
sufficient. Yours very respectfully,
ALFRED MOORE.
Of the Aliso tract.
{Times, Jan. 29, 1886, p. 2}
The "West Side" Gets in Its Work.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: The letter in
Thursday's edition of your paper from Alfred Moore,
disparaging the western hills, reminds me of the tale of the
"eleven obstinate jurors." The concourse on the hills at the
auction sale yesterday certainly numbered eleven to one of
those attending the late auction sales of Boyle and Brooklyn
Heights. Mr. Moore talks of the "silly folks and noodles."
Is it best to be high and dry and earn those nicknames, or be
wise men in the East, and drowned out? Can Mr. Moore name
one city where the east side is to be compared with the west?
Now, why should those not living in the river bed pay a tax
to protect those who do, from choice, when there is plenty of
land on the hills that can be bought at a lower price than
river bed lots. If we were crowded, and obliged to reclaim
and utilize every available acre, then the case would be
different, and all should be taxed alike. Yours obediently,
J. E. PRESTON.
Several letters revealed that there was a division among the residents
regarding the city's obligation to provide relief, primarily in the form of a
levee, to those living in the potential flood zone. When those who had
suffered in the 1886 flood filed claims against the city for the damages they
had incurred, the council tabled the petition. Was it a question of lowlanders
v. highlanders, or was flood prevention of importance to all residents? "G.
W." and "Angelnos" disagreed. The latter's proposal to "wall up and properly
control" the river anticipated work the Los Angeles County Flood Control
District would begin several decades later. John Hizlip, erroneously referred
to as Hazlip by "Angelnos," led a group of property owners holding riverfront
land north of Macy Street. Their offer to give a fifty foot wide right-of-way
to the San Gabriel Valley Railroad provided that it would build a levee had
been rejected.
{Times, Jan. 28, 1886, p. 2}
RIVER VIEWS.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: I have heard some talk
about actions against the city for losses incurred in
consequence of the late washouts, through the levees having
given way. It seems to me that a very little consideration
will demonstrate the folly and injustice of such threats.
First of all, the rents in the washed-out districts are,
comparatively, very low, and real estate is also, relatively,
cheap--in consequence of liability to such disasters as have
just occurred. As the present occupiers and owners bought
their land and rented their premises well aware of the risk
they ran, and have already received their compensation in low
prices, they must not complain.
Again, why should the general taxpayers of the city be
called upon to pay for the improvement of other people's
property, and allow such other people to enjoy the full
benefit to be reached by such improvement? The only
conditions on which the city could be expected to carry out
such improvements should be by having such property owners as
are benefited rated for the improvements and pay in cash, or
let the property thus improved be held by the city as
security for expenditures on improvements, giving the owners
so many years in which to repay such expenditure, whether
free of interest or not is a matter of reflection.
I have a piece of land one extremity of which is rather
precipitous. If I should fall down that declivity I should
do worse than get a soaking (at least from my point of view).
I should break my neck. I do not, however, call upon the
city to put up a fence. I shall, of course, do that myself.
I bought the land aware of this existing drawback, and take
my precautions accordingly. It seems to me (I may, however,
be wrong in my views) I have as much right to ask for such
protection at the public expense as the owners of land on the
river bank, but I take the view that it seems to me any
well-regulated mind ought to take, and bear the expense
myself.
I suppose a levee would increase the value of river-side
property in places 1000 per cent, and I do not see the logic
of being taxed to thus enrich other men. There is one point
that should be borne in mind: If the city undertakes to
construct these levees at the expense of the general tax-
payers, they admit, in principle, their liability for losses
already incurred in the washouts, present and past, but if
they decline one responsibility they cannot be held liable
for the other, and I cannot come down upon them to fix my
fence. If our river was a navigable river, and the whole
community would benefit by the proposed levees, then, of
course, each member of the community should contribute his
proportion to meet the expense; but when, as before stated,
only a few owners will be benefited, then it seems only right
that those few owners should bear the cost. If the owners
object, the State ought to give the city power to purchase
all such lands at a fair and equitable valuation, and the
capital requisite to purchase must come out of rates, but
then the increased value of such lands, after the
improvements are effected, will leave a large margin of
profit to the city.
G. W.
{Times, Oct. 2, 1886, p. 2}
The Levee Question.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: All candid people now
admit that the levee question is a most important one to the
future prosperity of our city. On an inspection of the
topography of this city it will be observed that the Los
Angeles river flows through the corporation about midway,
from north to south, and by a closer examination with the
levee, it will be found that nearly every foot of real
estate, off the hills, south and east of Main and Pico
streets, is jeopardized by a river flood--in fact, involving
millions of dollars of property and the very future existence
of our "Angel City." I know it is not considered in good
form, by a few selfish, purse-proud people here, to parade
our municipal ghosts before the world; but I am satisfied
that the masses of the people are with me, and think as I do,
that frauds and humbugs of every kind should be exposed, and
particularly those of a public nature, in order that we may
have progress. This ridiculing the necessity of leveeing the
river because "it is purely a question of the people living
in the river bed, and should therefore be paid for by them,"
and such maudlin municipal statesmanship, should be replied
to in this manner: Your story is false. This levee question
concerns the whole city of Los Angeles, and strangers should
know it, that this whole city is liable to an inundation in
the future, embracing even the business blocks of our best
streets, unless we wall up and properly control the Los
Angeles river.
Happily for us, this can be securely and cheaply done.
Mr. Hazlip et al. propose to continue the railroad levee down
the west bank of the river, for the contiguous city
lands--the same offer the Council heretofore made to the
railroad company--or at $2 per lineal foot.
The Council should accept this proposition, unless they
will do the work themselves, or can get some better
proposition, and do it all at once, before the winter rains
set in and we have a recurrence of the disastrous floods of
two years ago. Truly Yours,
ANGELNOS.
Los Angeles, Oct. 1, 1886.
While their parents debated the merits and cost of flood control, younger
residents found the river an attractive place to spend their time, accounting
for the later nostalgic recollections of oldtimers who had grown up near the
channel. "Observer," however, had misgivings about the lack of parental
supervision that seemed inherent in allowing youngsters to venture there.
{Times, Oct. 14, 1886, p. 2}
Boys in the Brush.
To the Editor of the Times--Sir: In a little space in your
valuable paper I wish to call the attention of the parents of
some fifteen to twenty boys and girls, whose respective ages
range from six to sixteen years, and who are almost daily
along the river and on the railroad bridge in front of the
Beaudry vineyards. The parents of those children are
certainly very remiss in their paternal obligations, or they
would see to it that their children spent their time in a
more profitable and respectable manner than playing hoodlum
in the willows and along the river; and for profanity and
obscenity one would have to go beyond the confines of this
great Republic to find their equals. And if their parents
cannot, or will not, place them under more rectitude, the
police should be instructed by the City Council to keep a
wary eye on their notorious conduct, and put a stop to it at
once.
OBSERVER.
That the Los Angeles River was a pristine stream in a wild condition is
belied by the letters column and newspaper accounts of the 1880s. The city
dump occupied the foot of First Street near the river. To the north, stray
dogs were kenneled until disposed of at the animal shelter's riverfront
location. In addition, as "Pro Bono Publico" noted, other detestable uses took
place elsewhere along the channel or its banks.
"Cosmopolitan" offered the ultimate solution for the channel's use.
During the great debate over construction of a municipal sewer system at the
end of the 1880s, "Cosmopolitan" saw the river as a means of resolving the
dilemma of sewage disposal. While letters on the sewer debate are contained
elsewhere in this anthology, "Cosmopolitan's" letter is placed here because it
reflects the way many residents looked upon their river. For yet another
vision of the river's future, see G. W. Brigg's unique proposal in the chapter
on sewers.
{Times, Dec. 6, 1887, p. 2}
A Wholesale Misdemeanor.
Los Angeles, Dec. 5.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
Yesterday was dumped into the river channel, just below
Seventh street, the remains of eighty animals burned and
suffocated in the terrible catastrophe at Covarrubias'
stable. Forty tons more or less of dead horse to putrify and
breed typhoid fever in that vicinity and on the adjacent
Boyle Heights. Now, it is contrary to city ordinance to bury
even one dead animal within the city limits, but the Herald
says the Street Superintendent made an exception in this case
and gave permission. Now, I assert the Street Superintendent
could no more give such permit than I could. Neither could
our Mayor, Chief of Police or any other official authorize
the violation of any city ordinance, and I call upon our
worthy Mayor, Chief of Police and City Attorney to vindicate
the law in this and every other such case and bring the
guilty parties to justice. Otherwise we may quickly look for
pestilence "if not war and famine" in our hitherto healthful
and beautiful city.
PRO BONO PUBLICO.
{Times, July 24, 1889, p. 3}
Los Angeles Drainage.
Los Angeles, July 15.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
The proper drainage for the city of Los Angeles is, of
course, the course of the Los Angeles River. This
proposition, considered in all its bearings, can hardly be
disputed. If not self-evident it is capable of
demonstration, at least so it appears to us. The river runs
directly through the city from end to end, much as the Thames
runs through London, or the Seine through Paris, the Spree
through Berlin, the Danube through Vienna, the Tiber through
Rome, and as the Euphrates ran through Babylon, and so on ad
infinitum. The Los Angeles River is not a very formidable
stream in dry times, but it sometimes swells to an enormous
volume, bearing away buildings by the score, if not hundreds.
Though not navigable for commerce, it affords for all seasons
an abundance of water for all the purposes required by the
city--as for domestic uses, for fires, for flushing sewers,
and for irrigation, besides which a goodly stream ever runs
to waste, so to speak. The water required for flushing the
sewers of the city is the water to be considered in
connection with the question of drainage, and that water can
properly be returned to its natural channel when it has
accomplished the purpose for which it was diverted, as is the
case generally with water in cities similarly situated. How
soon, in any case, it shall be returned or what additional
service, as of irrigation, it shall be required to perform
during its diversion is a matter resting in the sound
discretion of the authorities having the matter in charge,
but what we mean to insist upon is, that the course of the
Los Angeles River is the natural and proper outlet for the
sewage of Los Angeles city. It is of little concern whether
the flushing water ever finds its way back to unite with the
other waters of the river or not. The proper outfall for it
may be in the stream far below the town, or it may be on the
sandy bottom lands or arid plains adjoining the river away
off to the south or southeast of the city. To such
disposition of the sewer water no one would have a right to
complain, for it would be precisely the drainage provided by
Nature. The water would go in that direction if not diverted
or used at all, and why should it not be permitted to flow in
the same general direction after it has served its purpose of
cleansing the city? But a still more important question is:
Why should a portion of the river's water, even though laden
with garbage, be turned aside, at great expense, and to the
annoyance of whole communities, and be conducted over hill
and through dale to the distant ocean? That sort of a scheme
savors too much of jobbery. It is not charged that such is
the motive, but only that it has such an appearance to one
perched upon the top of a lamp-post. There is a natural way
to get through with this business, and an unnatural way. The
former can excite no hostility, while the latter is sure to
meet with opposition, because it is not in accordance with
Nature.
The people living along the Thames below London, or
along the Seine below Paris, are doubtless annoyed by the
corruption of the river water, but their complaints are
silenced by the laws of Nature governing the flow of the
river, and so would be the people occupying the borders of
lower Los Angeles River should they be disposed to find fault
because the good city of Los Angeles neglected to contract
for their delectation a new river of brick, leading off in an
entirely different direction, to the ocean.
COSMOPOLITAN.