WATER IN L.A. IN 1920S.   Term Paper ID:21525 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Struggle between city & Owens Valley over water rights. Land, planning, agriculture, drought, violence, construction of aqueduct, outcome.... More...

10 Pages / 2250 Words 7 sources, 20 Citations, MLA Format $40.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Struggle between city & Owens Valley over water rights. Land, planning, agriculture, drought, violence, construction of aqueduct, outcome. Paper Introduction: The Struggle Between the Owens Valley and Los Angeles over Water This paper will discuss the conflict between the residents of the Owens Valley and the city of Los Angeles through the end of the 1920s over the appropriation of water in the Owens Valley by the city. The first part of the paper will examine the background of the controversy. The second part of the paper will describe the high point of the struggle in the middle part of the 1920s. The last part of the paper will discuss the outcome and the ramifications of this struggle. Located on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada, the Owens River drainage system is long and narrow, extending 120 miles from the Mono divide to Owens Lake. Near the Mono divide, the floor of the valley is about 8000 feet above sea level; there is a drop of 2200 feet from the end of the Long Valley to Owens Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. The drought of the early 192 s,however, demonstrated that more water was needed, so the city began buyingland in the upper part of the valley, infringing upon agricultural andother economic interests in the valley. Mulholland then convinced cityofficials to allocate $25 million for an aqueduct which would divert waterfrom the river to the San Fernando Valley. Little resistance was encountered during these early years, since thecity was happy to acquire the riparian land which was downstream of most ofthe agricultural interests in the valley. McClure sent back a report whichwas favorable to the residents. On June 11, 1919, a group of residents opened the gate atthe Hillside Reservoir to allow a greater flow into the Bishop Creek, whichserved local irrigation interests (Walton 2 1). The institution whichheld most of the loans and mortgages throughout the valley was closed andlifesavings were lost. Even the supplies in the Owens Valley were not enough to satisfythe ever expanding Los Angeles and Mulholland was forced to look beyond thelimited water supplies in the Owens Valley to the Colorado River (Ostrom 14-16; Walton 193). The secondpart of the paper will describe the high point of the struggle in themiddle part of the 192 s. Los Angeles: The Haynes Foundation, 1953.Sauder, Robert A. The ire of these agriculturalinterests was largely concentrated against the U.S. It demanded that Los Angeles eitherguarantee agricultural production and commercial life in the valley oraccept mediated negotiations on business indemnification and buy thedesired property rights in a collective agreement whose terms weredesirable to valley residents (Walton 2 2). Third, the struggle between the Owens Valley and Los Angelesrepresented the larger struggle between traditional rural interests andmodern urban interests. In response to McClure's report, the state legislature adopted a billwhich specifically permitted the payment of reparations, undercuttingMulholland's claim that he had no legal authority to compensate the valleyresidents for their losses. The struggle between Owens Valley residents and the City of LosAngeles in the middle part of the 192 s was the result of concern over thecity's desired control over all the water supplies in the valley and theincreasing fear that the city was virtually annexing the valley. "Picnic at Alabama Gates: The Owens Valley Rebellion 19 4- 1927." California History 65 (1986): 193-2 6. The residents of the Valley attempted to preservetheir way of life at a time when the economic interests of the urban areaswere beginning to dominate the state of California. As a result of these developments, a rift developed within the OwensValley community. The battle over water rights between the residents of the OwensValley and the city of Los Angeles was important for several reasons.First, the acquisition of property rights in the Owens Valley and theconstruction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct constituted the first experiencefor the city of funding a large-scale infrastructure project with municipalbonds. Most of the river's dischargeconsists of snow melt from the Sierra Nevada (Ostrom 11-12). This second group was much larger than the first. Recognizing that the local residents could interrupt the supply ofwater flowing through the aqueduct, city officials implemented a programwhich sought to purchase all available land, water rights, and ditchcompanies. The city continued to buy outthe rest of the affected property in the valley but made no reparations fordamages or losses (Karhl 114-15). Water and Politics: A Study of Water Policies and Administration in the Development of Los Angeles. The underhanded tactics of thecity in securing these new water rights precipitated a "rebellion" by thevalley residents. In spite of the report made tothe governor by state engineer McClure, the economic interests of LosAngeles were more important to the state as a whole than those of the OwensValley. Department of theInterior, which had pushed a bill through Congress in 19 2 whichestablished two projects intended to keep Los Angeles supplied with waterfrom the valley. Thisoffer was refused, residents desiring to sell their property at their ownprices or to submit the collective purchase to an arbitration board. These protests died down, however, as the city's ownproject, the aqueduct, was completed. Pressure on the city continued to increasethroughout 1926 and 1927, as prices demanded by owners increased, claimsfor reparations under the state law multiplied, and dynamite attackscontinued. He turned over this property to thecity, along with options on water rights in land which was riparian to theriver. Violence erupted on May 21, 1924, whendynamite blew a hole in the aqueduct at Alabama Gates. Fundingfor the project came from bond issues which were enacted through popularvotes. One side wanted to sell their property at the relativelyattractive prices the city was offering. Citizens of Los Angeles overwhelmingly approved bond issues for thepurchases when the plan was made public in July of 19 5. In response to the acquisitions of the city, these residentsorganized themselves into interest groups in an effort to improve theirbargaining positions. The "war" finally reached some sort of a conclusion that summer. This defeat was turned into a victory bythe city, for during the application process the city had obtainedinformation on the Wattersons' bank which showed that they had beendiverting bank funds to other family enterprises. The issue was not resolved until the end of thedecade, when the valley residents essentially gave up their struggle. The Public Service Commission, however,maintained its refusal to arbitrate (Karhl 1 9-1 ; Ostrom 122). More than 4 personswere killed in the ensuing flood. The Los Angeles basin, on the other hand,receives a lesser amount of water from snowpack runoff in the San Gabrielmountains. McClure. This water was instrumental in the growth of Los Angeles, forbesides meeting the existing needs, it also helped expand this need: theexistence of large water supplies convinced business leaders to expandoperations in the region. Theresistance of valley residents had largely been led by the Wattersonfamily, which owned the bank which serviced most of the valley. This, combined with the poor press hehad been receiving concerning the conflict with the Owens Valley residents,forced him to resign in November of 1928. Thus, the valley's main water supply comes from the runoff of the meltingsnowpack; this runoff feeds the Owens River and contributes to thegroundwater in the valley. "How the Urban West Was Won: The Local State and Economic Growth in Los Angeles, 188 -1932." Urban Affairs Quarterly 27 (1992): 519-54.Karhl, William L. Buyouts skyrocketed, from less than a dozen per year to 1 4 in1923 and about 25 in 1924. The first partof the paper will examine the background of the controversy. Onthe other hand, the water in the Owens Valley was being controlled by thecity to the detriment of the valley residents. Near the Mono divide, the floor of the valley isabout 8 feet above sea level; there is a drop of 22 feet from the endof the Long Valley to Owens Valley proper in a distance of about 2 miles.With an advantage of an initial elevation of about 4 feet, it ispossible to divert water from the river at a point some thirty miles abovethe lake, cross the hills at the lower end of the Sierra Nevada, cross theMojave Desert, and flow it through tunnels in the Coast Range to the SanFernando Valley, all by gravity flow. Mulhollandpersuaded the Bank of America to apply for a charter for establishing abranch in Bishop. Eaton and Mulholland had kept the plans secret for a year while theland was bought. Local residents began to voice their dismay at the city's controlover the water. The Public ServiceCommission then offered to suspend the land purchases, permit thirtythousand acres of land to remain in private ownership with the assurance ofa firm water supply, and attempt to secure the construction of a hard roadthrough the Owens Valley to make the region accessible to tourists. Eaton began acquiring land andappurtenant water rights in the Owens Valley, posing as a developer forlarge cattle holdings in the Valley. Mulholland feared that news of the plan would driveprices up to such an extent that the city would not be able to afford tobuy all the property necessary to secure the water rights. The citysent in armed "guards" to protect the aqueduct in the Summer of 1927 (Karhl11 -11). F. In conclusion, the struggle between the residents of the Owens Valleyand the city of Los Angeles over water rights in the valley began at theturn of the century, when the city began buying land and water rights inthe valley. In May of 1925, the Commission offered to buy all landstributary to the Owens River. They demanded that the citypay reparations for intangible economic damages suffered by businessenterprises, valley residents, and laborers (McClure 24-39; Ostrom 62) Arguing that the terms were unacceptable, the Public ServiceCommission of the city ordered its agent to make additional purchases ofproperty rights to ensure that there was adequate flow in the aqueduct.Residents obtained an injunction which prevented the city form divertingthe newly acquired water until the water rights of the remaining privateowners could be adjudicated. The maindifference is that the Owens Valley is situated next to the Sierra Nevadamountain range, which receives a considerable amount of snowfall each year. In the summer of 1922, a coalition of farmers,ranchers, and businessmen formed an irrigation district. Inaddition, Mulholland instituted a program which searched for ideal sitesfor well drilling. Eaton,meanwhile, dreamed of acquiring wealth by buying land whose value was goingto rise quickly once the plan was made public. At the end of the Nineteenth Century, Los Angeles Mayor Fred Eatonbelieved that water could be diverted from the Owens River to Los Angeles;economic and political realities, however, prevented the development ofsuch a scheme at that time. Thegovernor refused a request by the city that troops be sent in; instead, hesent the state engineer, W. This reservoirdeveloped cracks and gave way on March 12, 1928. "The Politics of California Water: Owens Valley and the Los Angeles Aqueduct, 19 -1927 Part I." California Historical Quarterly 55 (1976): 98-12 .McClure, W. This broke the spirit of resistance in the valley(Karhl 112-13). "The Agricultural Colonization of a Great Basin Frontier: Economic Organization and Environmental Alteration in Owens Valley, California, 186 -1925." Agricultural History 64(4) (199 ): 78- 1 1.Walton, John. The growing population of Los Angeles at the end of theNineteenth Century convinced city leaders that new sources of water had tobe developed outside of the basin (McClure 1-2, 1 -11; Ostrom 1 -12). The actions in the state legislature which favored valleyresidents did nothing to stop the acquisition of water rights by the city;they merely forced the city to pay a fairer price for the rights (Karhl 112-16; Walton 2 4-1 6). Works CitedErie, Steven P. Richardson. Thus, growth not only created the need for newsupplies, new supplies created the opportunity for even more growth (Karhl115). The Department of Water and Power was probably the most powerfulpolitical institution in the city through the 193 s (Erie 539-47). ThePublic Service Commission refused to arbitrate. The Public Service Commission was put underfurther pressure to solve the crisis quickly by the economic expansion ofLos Angeles during this same period. "The Politics of California Water: Owens Valley and the Los Angeles Aqueduct, 19 -1927 Part I." California Historical Quarterly 55 (1976): 2-21.Karhl, William L. Both sides wereinterested in economic growth, their own. The other side called theseindividuals and families "traitors" for selling out to the encroaching cityinterests. Both the Owens Valley and the Los Angeles Basin are arid in climate,receiving about the same amount of annual precipitation. The drought years of the early 192 s proved that this supply was notenough to continue supporting Los Angeles' growing population.Consequently, Mulholland convinced the city to make large land purchasesfurther upstream in the Owens Valley in order to divert groundwater to theaqueduct. It was hoped that the aqueduct wouldbenefit the valley as well as the city, providing valley farmers withadequate water for irrigation. The report recognized the water needs ofLos Angeles but argued that the city had trampled upon the rights of valleyresidents in attempting to secure the water for those needs (McClure 7-13). Letter of Transmittal and Report of W. Located on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada, the Owens Riverdrainage system is long and narrow, extending 12 miles from the Monodivide to Owens Lake. This districtwould ostensibly be a more powerful force in negotiations with the LosAngeles Department of Water and Power. Sacramento: California State Printing Office, 1925.Ostrom, Vincent. F. Consequently, he sold thewater rights to the land he bought while keeping title to the land itself(Karhl 5-7). The city was also attacked in the state legislature, whichbegan considering changes in water law which would adversely affect thecity's use of water from the valley, and in the press, which portrayedMulholland and the Public Service Commission as corrupt and evil. On November 16, 1924, alarge group of residents seized the Alabama Gates spillway on the aqueductand opened the gates to permit water to flow into the Owens Lake. Some resolution to the water problemhad to be found. On theone hand, the city fought for this control because the drought wasstretching the supply of water to its breaking point in the city.Irrigation demands in the San Fernando Valley were especially high sincethere had been little precipitation during the period (Ostrom 61-62). In 19 4, William Mulholland, superintendent ofthe Los Angeles City Water Department, accompanied Eaton to the OwensValley to complete an analysis of the plan. The state bank commissioner denied the application,however, because the economic situation of the valley was so bad that itcould not support another bank. Between 19 and 193 , the city'spopulation increased twelvefold and its land area grew by a factor of ten.The water from the Owens Valley was desperately needed to sustain thisgrowth. Municipal politics played a very important role in the wholeincident, with Mulholland and other city leaders acting according tobeliefs and fears concerning potential political ramifications. Those whowanted to prevent Los Angeles from gaining control over the valley's waterwere increasingly representing non-agricultural commercial interests. The construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct was a response tothe growing water needs of the city. Second, the acquisition of water rights in the Owens Valley and theconstruction of the aqueduct were very important for the development of LosAngeles in the Twentieth Century. When these owners went to court and obtainedinjunctions against the city, the city simply bought the affectedproperties (Karhl 1 6). F. Theyrecognized that the city's appropriation of the water was harming theindigenous economic interests of the valley, preventing any sort ofeconomic growth (Karhl 1 6-1 8; Walton 2 1-2 2). McClure, State Engineer, Concerning the Owens Valley - Los Angeles Controversy to Governor Friend Wm. The residents finally relinquished control of the gates when the LosAngeles Clearing House Association, an association of Los Angeles bankers,offered to seek a settlement. Valley residents alleged that the city wasbuying lots in a "checkerboard" pattern, leaving working farms and canalsections cut off by abandoned plots owned by the city (Walton 2 1). Eventually, the governor had to step in and force both sides tonegotiate, although no resolution was reached until near the end of thedecade. Negotiations concerning this point wereundertaken between 1913 and 192 , but valley interests received noconcessions from the city (Walton 198-2 1). The last part of the paper will discuss theoutcome and the ramifications of this struggle. These purchases affected valley farmers and other residents moredirectly than the earlier project and were contested in a much strongerfashion. The relative scarcity ofwater as a result of the city's policies was economically destroying thevalley. This rebellion went on for several years and nearlyresulted in bloodshed. This struggle between the Owens Valley and the city of LosAngeles eventually became popularly known as the "Owens Valley Rebellion"or the "civil war." Although no blood was actually spilled, property wasdestroyed and the city sent armed "guards" the valley to protect theaqueduct. The aqueduct wascompleted by the end of 1913 and water began to flow from the Owens Valleyto Los Angeles (Karhl 2-21; Ostrom 12-14; Sauder 99). Although a few owners took advantage of thisoffer, it bogged down in resistance and dynamiting of the aqueduct resumedduring the Summer of 1925. This victory was short-lived for Mulholland, however. These wells then pumped water from the ground suppliesof adjacent owners. The Struggle Between the Owens Valley and Los Angeles over Water This paper will discuss the conflict between the residents of theOwens Valley and the city of Los Angeles through the end of the 192 s overthe appropriation of water in the Owens Valley by the city. While thiswhole battle had been going on, he had ordered the construction of areservoir on the San Andreas fault in San Francisquito Canyon, to ensurethat there was a supply of water separate from the valley. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.