UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES Government and Water: A Study of the Influence of Water upon Governmental Institutions and Practices in the Development of Los Angeles A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science by Vincent A. Ostrom June, 1950 ii In Memory of CLARENCE A. DYKSTRA who gave so freely of time and effort during the last months of his life to guide this study to its completion. iii Control of water to secure maximum supply at costs determined by the economic situation is the engineering problem, and that problem is solvable. Ahead of the engineering accomplishment is the engineering of men. The decision of the community at large must be made. For accomplishment, its public body, its semipublic water organizations, and its individuals must unite in team work to pool, rearrange and compromise existing interests, to legislate and to create a competent organization to carry out the engineering solution. California, Department of Public Works, Division of Engineering and Irrigation, Santa Ana Investigation, p. 32. iv PREFACE The motivation for this study is rooted in personal experience. During my first stay of several years in the Los Angeles area, I had been relatively oblivious to the existence of a water problem. An unlimited quantity of water was always available at the water tap and seemingly no critical problem of water shortage existed for any of the water consumers of the area. After leaving the Los Angeles area, I became a resident of a small city in Wyoming where the problem of an adequate water supply was a daily concern to the community. The normal water consumption of the householder was subject to detailed regulation by municipal ordinance. The irrigation of lawns and gardens was limited to certain days of the week for even- and odd-numbered street addresses. Then, watering was permitted only for specific hours in the day. Nozzles and sprinklers were required to prevent the waste of water. All of these regulations were enforced subject to penalties for a misdemeanor if violated. The contrast between the two communities was so marked as to demand an explanation. How had Los Angeles, under comparable conditions of aridity been able to secure an adequate water supply and manage its water resources to be able to meet the needs for all local requirements? Obviously the development of an adequate water supply and the administration of the available water resources were of the first order of importance to human life in the arid west. Preliminary investigations of the water problem and other related aspects of natural resources administration revealed that these problems presented unique demands upon political institutions and practices to facilitate human adjustment to requirements of the physical environment of the arid west. The works of John H. Powell, Elwood Moad, Frederick Jackson Turner, and John M. Caus stimulated further interest to consider the adaptations of political v action in approaching these problems and the impact of these problems upon social and political organization in the west. This study has been conceived essentially as a case study of the impact of water as one of the critical factors in the human ecology of the Los Angeles area upon development of governmental institutions and practices in the growth of the Los Angeles metropolitan community. The development of one of the largest American cities in an arid region intensified the importance of the problem. By using the water problem as a focus of attention to consider the various facets of political action, which arise from efforts to deal with the problem, certain values may be derived which obviate weaknesses implicit within the conventional academic divisions of political science. The usual dichotomy between politics and administration is avoided so that the political process can be observed in its inherent unity. The division of responsibility between federal, state and local government loses its arbitrary characteristics when the role of the various units of a federal government are viewed in terms of a force which transcends political jurisdictions. In this study, it has been necessary to use some terms and measures of a technical nature. The accompanying table provides the equivalents of hydrologic measures which may be useful to the reader. Many persons to numerous to mention within these pages gave generously of their time and energy to make material and information available for research and to give me the benefit of their years of experience and insights regarding the human aspects of the water problem in Los Angeles. Countless other persons who have woven the story of Los Angeles’ struggle with this problem have provided both the substance and the record to make this study possible. vi TABLE OF EQUIVALENTS UNITS OF MEASURE EQUIVALENT 1. 1 cubic foot of water 1. 7.48 gallons 2. 1 cubic foot of water 2. 62.5 pounds 3. 32 cubic feet of water 3. 1 ton 4. 1 cubic foot per second flow (a) 4. 7.48 gallons per second 448.8 gallons per minute 646,317 gallons per day 5. 1 cubic foot per second flow 5. 1,983 acre feet per day or approximately one acre-inch per hour 723,795 acre-feet per hour 6. 1 acre-foot of water (b) 6. 43,560 cubic feet 325,850 gallons 7. 1 cubic foot per second flow 7. 40 miner’s inches (c) (Calif. and Aris.) 38.4 miner’s inches (Colo.) 50 miner’s inches (So. Calif.) 8. 1 million gallons 8. 3.07 acre feet 9. 1 horse-power 9. 1 cubic foot of water falling 8.80 feet 10. 1 horse power 10. .746 kilowatts (a) 1 cubic flow per second flow is a measure of the rate of flow required for one cubic foot of water to pass a given point each second in time. (b) 1 acre-foot is a measure of the volume of water required to cover an acre one foot in depth. (c) 1 miner’s inch is a measure of the rate of flow of water with varying values depending upon statutory provision or customary usage. While California has established the minor’s inch as the equivalent of 1/40th of a cubic foot per second flow, Southern California hydrographers customarily use the miner’s inch as the equivalent of 1/50th of a cubic foot per second flow. i I am deeply indebted to Dr. Clarence A. Dykstra who took time from his heavy administrative responsibilities as Provost to serve as the chairman of my doctoral committee and to direct the research on the dissertation. Dr. Dykstra’s intimate knowledge of Los Angeles water administration, as a result of his service on the Board of Water and Power Commissioners and as Director of Personnel and Efficiency for the Department of Water and Power, greatly facilitated my orientation to the subject matter and my acquaintance with persons involved in the Los Angeles water problem. The other members of my doctoral committee, Dr. Winston W. Crouch, Dr. Malbone W. Graham, Dr. Thomas P. Jenkin, Dr. Charles H. Titus, Dr. Ruth E. Baugh and Dr. Craig L. Taylor, were very helpful in general guidance of my research program and in providing counsel for the many problems arising in a graduate study program in addition to making many helpful criticisms of this dissertation. Dr. Crouch was especially helpful in anticipating and meeting a number of problems that might otherwise have caused delay and inconvenience. Dr. Baugh offered many invaluable suggestions and comments on the portions of the study concerned with geographic data in addition to many other constructive criticisms of the paper as a whole. To Dr. Dean E. McHenry, Dean of the Division of the Social Sciences and Chairman, Department of Political Science, I am greatly indebted for many years of friendly advice and counsel which led me on advanced studies and an academic career. On many problems relating more immediately to the preparation of this dissertation, Dr. McHenry gave freely of his time and effort in valued advice and assistance. At the department of Water and Power, I received the friendliest cooperation from numerous persons throughout the organization. I am especially indebted to Samuel B. Morris, General Manager and Chief Engineer pf the Department of Water and Power, for his friendly ii cooperation and his efforts to assure my success to all types of information and data available in the department. Walter K. Boyd was most helpful in giving me access to the department’s elaborate collection of newspaper clippings extending from 1905 to the present, in providing me with copies of several maps used in the study and in reading the first draft of the manuscript. Most of the research for this study was done in the library of the Department of Water and Power. Mrs. Frances S. Davis and her staff were exceptionally cooperative in providing information and assistance at each stage of the research. The sense of helpfulness and cheerfulness pervading the library provided a thoroughly delightful environment for endless hours of grueling research. Many officials and employees of other public agencies including various departments of municipally government in Los Angeles, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Colorado River Board of California, the Division of Water Rights of the California Department of Public Works as well as numerous private individuals, and several private associations including the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce and the Colorado River Association, gave extensive information and assistance valuable to the final completion of this study. Finally, I wish to express my deep appreciation to my wife, Isabell B. Ostrom, for the invaluable assistance to which she has given by reading and helping to prepare the manuscript. I assume full responsibility for any interpretations of facts, observations or opinions and for any erroneous statement of fact. Vincent A. Ostrom University of Oregon iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE...................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................... xvi LIST OF MAPS ............................................................................................................. xvii I. THE LOS ANGELES WATER SUPPLY………………….. 1 Southern California………………………………………….. 1 The Local Water Supply…………………………………….. 3 The Watershed………………………………………. 3 The Water Crop……………………………………... 4 The Stability of the Local Supply………………….... 6 The Limit of the Local Supply………………………. 9 New Source of Supply: Owens River……………………….. 12 Discovery……………………………………………. 12 The Owens River Watershed………………………... 12 Acquisition………………………………………….. 14 The Los Angeles Aqueduct…………………………. 16 The Limits of the Owens River Supply……………... 17 New Source of Supply: Colorado River…………………….. 20 The Colorado River Drainage System………………. 20 Preliminary Developments…………………………... 25 The Colorado River Aqueduct………………………. 26 New Source of Supply: Mono Basin………………………... 27 The Mono Basin Watershed………………………… 28 Hydrographic Puzzle………………………………... 29 The Mono Extension………………………………... 31 Present and Future Water Supply…………………………... 31 II. THE EVOLUTION OF THE POLICY OF COMMUNITY CONTROL OF WATER RESOURCES…………………… 37 The Spanish Tradition………………………………………. 37 The Pueblo System…………………………………. 38 Water Administration in the Pueblo………………... 40 Litigation…………………………………………… 43 The Evolution of the Pueblo Rights………………………... 44 The Problem………………………………………... 44 Adverse Litigation…………………………………. 46 Legislative Definition…………………………….... 47 iv Acceptance by California Courts…………………... 48 Confirmation in the Federal Courts………………... 50 Further Expansion of the Concept…………………. 50 The Pueblo Right as Public Policy……………….... 52 The Zanja System…………………………………………… 53 The Administration of the Zanjas…………………… 53 The Acme of the Zanja System……………………... 55 The Decline of the Zanjas…………………………… 58 The Domestic Water Works System………………………… 60 Early Contracts and Leases…………………………. 60 The Thirty-Year Lease………………………………. 61 Dissatisfaction with the Private Lease- hold Operations……………………………………… 65 Return to Municipal Ownership……………………... 68 The Power System…………………………………………… 72 III. WATER AND CITY POLITICS……………………………. 77 The Politics of Municipal Ownership………………………... 78 Acquisition of the Water Works……………………... 78 Aqueduct Bonds……………………………………… 80 Public Power…………………………………………. 82 The Aqueduct Investigation………………………………….. 83 The Charges………………………………………….. 83 Investigation…………………………………………. 84 Conclusions and Consequences…………………….... 85 The Acquisition of a Power Distribution System……………. 87 Water Bonds and Owens Valley……………………………... 90 The Struggle for a Power Monopoly………………………… 94 The Boulder Canyon Project and Public Power……... 95 Progress with Cryer………………………………….. 97 Controversies in the Porter Administration …………. 99 Victory with Shaw…………………………………… 104 Relations with the Shaw Administration…………….. 106 The Destruction of the Water and Power Machine…………. 107 Reorganization………………………………………. 108 The Political Contest………………………………… 109 Strike………………………………………………… 110 The End of the Struggle……………………………... 112 The Water and Power Machine……………………………… 113 Leadership…………………………………………… 114 Citizens’ Organizations……………………………... 115 Employees’ Association…………………………….. 117 Relations to Community Groups……………………. 120 IV. WATER AND MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION……….. 123 v Predecessors of the Department of Water and Power……… 123 The Domestic Water Works System……………….. 123 The Water Department……………………………… 125 The Bureau of the Los Angeles Aqueduct………….. 126 The Bureau of the Los Angeles Aqueduct Power…... 129 The Department of Public Service………………….. 131 The Department of Water and Power………………………. 133 The Board of Water and Power Commissioners…… 133 The Management…………………………………… 136 The Water System………………………………….. 139 The Power System………………………………….. 142 The Joint Divisions…………………………………. 144 The Relations of the Water and Power Administrations to Los Angeles City Governments…………………………… 147 The Determination of General Policies……………. 147 Finance Administration……………………………. 148 Personal Administration…………………………... 153 V. ADMINISTRATION OF THE WATER SUPPLY AREAS……… 160 Inauspicious Beginnings……………………………………. 161 Maintenance of the Status Quo, 1905-1922………………… 162 Original Plans………………………………………. 162 Early Negotiations………………………………….. 163 The Agreement of 1921…………………………….. 164 Power Complications………………………………. 165 Conkling Plan………………………………………. 166 Stalemate…………………………………………… 166 Land and Water Right Purchases…………………………... 167 Purchase Plans……………………………………… 167 Protests……………………………………………... 167 Compromise Proposal……………………………… 168 Farm Purchases…………………………………….. 169 Reparations and the Purchase of Owens Valley Towns…… 170 Damages…………………………………………… 170 Reparations Claims………………………………... 170 Violence…………………………………………… 172 Purchase of the Towns……………………………. 173 The Elements of Misunderstanding and Disagreement….... 177 The Uncertainty of City Policies………………….. 178 Personalities………………………………………. 178 Suspicion and Misunderstanding…………………. 180 Proprietorship……………………………………………... 182 The Administration of City Lands………………… 182 Taxation………………………………………….... 184 vi Economic Re-Conversion…………………………. 186 New Conflicts……………………………………... 187 Indians……………………………………………… 189 Federal Public Lands………………………………. 190 Administrative Organizations……………………… 192 VI. WATER AS A CATALYST IN THE GROWTH OF LOS ANGELES…………………………………………………. 195 Local Water supply and Community Growth……………... 195 Early Boundary Changes………………………….. 195 Pueblo Rights and Annexation……………………. 196 Surplus Water and Territorial Growth……………………. 200 Public Hearings…………………………………… 200 Mayor Alexander’s Consolidation Commission…. 201 The Quinton, Code and Hamlin Report…………... 202 The Graham Plan…………………………………. 206 The Contest for Popular Approval……………….. 207 Mayor Rose and the Annexation Commission…… 209 The Great Annexation Movement, 1915-1927…… 212 Water and Internal Growth……………………………….. 218 Irrigation………………………………………….. 218 Industry…………………………………………… 225 VII. WATER AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT…………………………………………………. 231 Designing a New Political Institution ……………………. 231 The Problem……………………………………… 231 The Initiative of Los Angeles…………………….. 233 Forming a New Agency for Metropolitan Water Supply……………………………………... 236 The Metropolitan Water District Act…………………….. 241 Purpose and Nature………………………………. 241 Incorporation Procedure…………………………. 241 Corporate Powers………………………………… 242 Water Rights……………………………………… 244 Board of Directors………………………………... 244 Finance…………………………………………… 245 Annexation and Withdrawal……………………... 246 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California… 248 Incorporation……………………………………… 248 Organization……………………………………… 249 Water and Power Rights…………………………. 252 Finance…………………………………………… 254 Personnel………………………………………… 259 vii Annexation………………………………………. 260 Problems: Present and Future……………………………… 264 Relations with Los Angeles………………………... 264 The Future of Metropolitan Government…………. 265 VIII. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOS ANGELES WATER RESOURCES……………………. 270 California’s Control and Development of Water Resources………………………………………………… 270 Sources of California Water Law………………... 270 The California Law of Riparian Rights………….. 272 Early Plans for Water Development…………….. 274 The California Water Commission……………… 275 The Reaction of the Courts……………………… 275 Comprehensive Planning for Water Developments…………………………………… 277 The New “Reasonable Use” Doctrine…………... 278 California and the Central Valley Project………. 279 California Water Law and the Los Angeles Water Supply Problems………………………… 281 The Pueblo Right………………………………. 281 Riparian Law and Water Rights in Owens Valley…………………………………………… 282 Power of Condemnation………………………… 283 Water Right Litigation in Owens Valley……….. 284 New Problems: Flood Control v. Maximum Utilization………………………………………. 287 California and the Colorado River……………… 289 The State of California and the Operation of Los Angeles’ Water and Power Utilities ……………………………… 291 Home Rule……………………………………… 291 Proprietory Freedom……………………………. 292 The Expenditure of Funds for Political Purposes................................................................ 295 Civil Service Requirements…………………….. 296 Extra-Territorial Operations……………………. 297 Problems of State-Local Relations in the Development of Los Angeles’ Water Resources……………………… 300 viii IX. WATER FOR LOS ANGELES AS A PROBLEM OF FEDERALISM…………………………………………………. 303 The Federal Government, Owens Valley and Municipal Ownership…………………………………… 303 Early Developments on the Colorado River……………. 307 The Physical Problem…………………………… 308 Early Developments…………………………… 309 Demands for the Control of the Colorado…………….. 310 Floods, Drought, and silt……………………… 310 The Problem of Water Rights…………………. 312 The Colorado River Compact…………………………. 314 The League of the Southwest…………………. 314 Compact Negotiations………………………… 316 The Colorado River Compact………………… 317 The Struggle for the Development of the Colorado River………………………………………... 319 Plans for Action………………………………. 320 Public v. Private Owner………………………. 321 The Six-State Compact……………………….. 324 The Boulder Canyon Project Act…………….. 325 Operation of the Boulder Canyon Project…………… 328 Power Contracts……………………………… 328 Water Contracts……………………………… 330 Administrative Organization and Operation……………………………………. 331. The Mexican Water Treaty………………….. 334 The Arizona-California Controversy………………... 335 Litigation……………………………………. 338 The Present Controversy……………………………. 341 The Central Arizona Project………………… 341 Conflicting Claims…………………………... 343 Los Angeles’ Stake in the Colorado River………….. 346 X. CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS………………… 348 Water and Community Growth……………………... 348 Water as a Determinant of the Location of Los Angeles……………………………… 349 Water as a Factor Determining the Communal Organization of Los Angeles………………... 350 Water as a Stimulant to Annexation………… 353 Water and the Land-Use Pattern of Los Angeles……………………………………… 355 Water as a Determinant of the Extent of Community Growth…………………………. 356 ix Water: The Catalyst of a New Metropolitan Community………………………………….. 357 Water and Politics…………………………………… 358 Water as a Political Problem ………………… 358 Politics and Administration………………….. 361 Politics and Federalism……………………… 364 Water and Administration…………………………… 365 Water and Municipal Administration……….. 365 Water Administration and the Extension of Home Rule………………………………... 370 Water and Extra-Territorial Administration… 371 Water and Metropolitan Government………. 373 Water Administration and Federalism……… 374 Water, Institution and Men…………………. 378 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………… 380 x LIST OF TABLES Table of Equivalents ............................................................................................. vi I. Los Angeles Water Supply, 1920-1948 ................................................................ 32 II. Los Angeles Water Consumption, 1920-1948...................................................... 33 III. San Fernando Valley Irrigation............................................................................223 IV. Growth in Use of Wells in San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange and Los Angeles Counties, 1889-1930..................................................................233 V. Expenditures by the City of Los Angeles for the Development of the Colorado River Aqueduct ............................................................................. 236 VI. Taxes Collected by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California .... 258 VII. Area, Population and Assessed Valuation of Metropolitan Water District Areas ............................................................................................................. 263 VIII. California Water Priorities................................................................................. 331 IX. Central Arizona Project Cost Allocation ........................................................... 342 xi LIST OF MAPS I. Map of the Los Angeles Watershed...................................................................... 5 II. Map of Owens Valley and the Los Angeles Aqueduct........................................12 III. Map of Colorado River Aqueduct........................................................................27 IV. Map Showing Territory Annexed to the City of Los Angeles, California......... 196 V. Map Showing Agriculture Within the City of Los Angeles, California ............ 220 VI. Land-Use Plan, San Fernando Valley................................................................ 225 Consider the desert Amid the thunders of great silence in these wastelands lies the key to the future of our Southland. Some men look and see only sand and rock, stretching endlessly Others gaze on the desert scene and read a sermon in the sand, the cactus and the flowers. Silence everywhere – majestic, wonderful God made the desert, and the Great Architect of the Universe does all things well. Out of the desert with its rocks, heaven-hued and awe-inspiring, its cactus like sentinels of solitude raised this Los Angeles – your city and mine. The magic touch of water quickened the desert into its flowering life – our city. And lest our city shrivel and die, we must have more water, we must build a great now aqueduct to the Colorado. William Mulholland, 1925 CHAPTER I THE LOS ANGELES WATER SUPPLY Southern California Los Angeles, the third largest metropolis in the United States, has developed in one of the smallest and driest watershed areas. With little more than one pre cent of the state’s water resources, southern California supports over one-half of the population of California.1 The semi-desert coastal plains of Southern California extend from Point Conception at the entrance to Santa Barbara Channel to the Mexican border a distance of 275 miles, with a depth that is practically nil where the Santa Ynes Mountains almost meet the sea to nearly one hundred miles from the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains to the beaches at Santa Monica. The Southern California coastal strip is surrounded by a single more or less continuous chain of mountains formed from the convergence of the Coast Ranges and the Sierra Nevada at Tehachapi Pass and continuing southeasterly to Lower California. Among the more prominent mountainous masses are the Tehachapi, the San Gabriel, the San Bernardino, the San Jacinto and 1 California, Department of Public Works, Division of Engineering and Irrigation. Summary Report on the Water Resources of California and a Coordinated Plan for Their Development. Bulletin No. 12 (Sacramento, 1927), p. 42. 2 the Peninsular Range. Few of the dominating peaks rise to more than 10,000 feet above sea level, with a general elevation that is intermediate between the Coast Range and the Sierra Nevada.2 However, the sharp rise of the mountains from the floor of the plains tends to accentuate the contrasts in the relief of the region. This chain of mountains saves the coastal plains from the bleak desolation and the tortuous extremes of the Mojave Desert, Colorado Desert and the notorious Death Valley. The mountains form and insulating barrier, permitting the moderate breezes from the ocean to blanket the coastal plains while restricting the desert air mass with its extreme of heat in summer and cold in winter. The limited moisture that moves across the land with the winter storms is intercepted by the mountains to provide in pat the water so essential to the life and development of the region. This delicate balance between the ocean, the mountains and the desert has created the incomparable climate of Southern California. This land of sunshine and ocean breezes is so marked by contrast with its hinterland that it has been described as “a sort of island on the land.”3 Los Angeles, the dominant city of the region, occupies 453 square miles of area in the western portion of the water drainage basin officially known as the South Coastal Basin. This strategically located drainage basin covers the broadest reaches of the Southern California coastal plain with the greatest industrial and agricultural development of the region. The entire South Coastal Basin has an area of 3,900 square miles with 2,500 square miles of irrigable or habitable land.4 While the South Coastal Basin also includes the watersheds of the San Gabriel 2 Ibid., Water Resources of California. Bulletin No. 4 (Sacramento, 1923), p. 20. 3 Carey McWilliams, Southern California Country, An Island on the Land (New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1946) p.7. 4 California, Department of Public Works, Division of Water Resources, South Coastal Basin, A Cooperative Symposium of Activities and Plans of Public Agencies in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties, Leading to Conservation of Local Water Supplies and Management of Underground Reservoirs. Bulletin No. 32 (Sacramento, 1930), p.9. 3 and the Santa Ana rivers, Los Angeles has access only to the Los Angeles River and the intermediate coastal plain for its local water supply. The Local Water Supply The Watershed. For many decades the Los Angeles River was the exclusive source of water supply for Los Angeles and it continues to be important today. This watershed, approximately 500 square miles in area, is almost entirely enclosed by mountains. The rugged San Gabriel Mountains, familiarly known as the Sierra Madre, are the principal range in the Los Angeles watershed. Rising on the northeastern boundary of the City of Los Angeles, they reach a comparatively high elevation of 6,000 feet at the crest line above the slopes facing the city.5 A relatively low range of mountains, the Santa Susana Mountains continue from the western terminus of the San Gabriels to form the northern bounds of the watershed, separating the drainage area of the South Coastal Basin and the Los Angeles River from the Ventura Basin and the Santa Clara River. A Series of hills, known as the Simi Hills, forms the western limits of the watershed joining the Santa Susana Mountains with the Santa Monica Mountains. The Santa Monica extend form the ocean north of the City of Santa Monica, inland to where the Los Angeles River has cut its course through hills, forming the southern boundary of the watershed. From the San Gabriel Mountains another range of low mountains and hills including the Verdugo Mountains extend south to the river to complete the mountainous bounds of the drainage basin.6 The narrow flood plain, through which the river flows, is the break between the Santa Monica Mountains and the Verdugo Mountains is known as the Glendale Narrows. The Narrows 5 Ibid., South Coastal Basin Intervention, Geology and Ground Water Storage Capacity of Valley Fill. Bulletin No. 45 (Sacramento, 1934), p. 33. 6 Ibid., pp. 26-28. 4 are only about one mile wide at the narrowest point. The same general geological formation giving rise to the mountains continues under the alluvial deposits of the river bed to form the bed rook which is about one hundred feet below the surface of the plains.7 Above the Narrows, within the ring of mountains is a large structural valley filled with alluvium, eroded from the surrounding mountains and deposited to depths of several hundred feet. This valley with and area of nearly 200 square miles, is known as the San Fernando Valley. The eastern half of San Fernando Valley is covered by pervious gravel cones formed by the Big and Little Tujunga rivers and Facoima Creek. The smaller streams from the Santa Monica range have deposited less pervious cones along the valley floor.8 These pervious alluvial deposits in San Fernando Valley form a natural reservoir for the storage of an immense amount of water. It has been estimated that in a 100-foot zone, fifty feet above and fifty feet below the water table there is a storage capacity of 944,000 acre feet of water in San Fernando Valley.9 Since there are no serious fault structures to act as an obstacle to the underground flow of water through the pervious alluvium, San Fernando Valley is like a vast underground lake. This subterranean lake is the source of the Los Angeles River. The Water Crop. The main source of the water crop of the Los Angeles River watershed is in the mountain ranges surrounding the San Fernando Valley, and principally in the western San Gabriel Mountains. These rugged and comparatively high mountains, with an area of 174 square miles within the Los Angeles River watershed, receive the precipitation of rain clouds, moving in from the ocean, on their southern and western slopes, to produce the substantial portion of the water harvest. 7 Ibid., p. 117. 8 Ibid., pp. 28-29. 9 Ibid., p. 21. 5 [Map of the Los Angeles Watershed here] The effect of elevation and inland position upon precipitation is illustrated by the following measurements at locations along a line extending from San Pedro to the Mojave Desert: At an elevation of 10 feet, San Pedro receives but 10.66 inches per year. Los Angeles (338 feet) has an annual rainfall of 14.95 inches, Pasadena (805 feet) 18.17 inches. Sierra Madre, at the base of steep mountain slopes, gets 23.67 inches, at an elevation of 1,100 feet. Lowe Observatory, somewhat over half the distance up the seaward face of the Sierra Madre (3,420 feet) has an annual rainfall of 26.74 inches; and Mount Wilson 5,850 feet, on one of the summit peaks, gets 31.20 inches. Across the range, even though 3,400 feet above sea level, Llano has a total precipitation of but 6.41 inches. The distance from San Pedro to Mount Wilson is 40 miles and that to Llano is less than 60.10 This water crop descends the slopes of the mountains during the wet season in numerous rivulets and streams to the floor of the San Fernando Valley, principally through the Big and Little Tujunga and Pacoima creeks at the northeastern edge of the valley. The discharge into San Fernando Valley from the 153 square miles of area within the Santa Susana Mountains, the Santa Monica Mountains, and other foothill areas is slight in comparison to that from the San Gabriel Mountains. Normally the water discharged from the mountains disappears into the detritus cones of the tributary streams to continue its course underground until it reaches the lower levels of the valley along the base of the Santa Monica Mountains. Here the water normally rises to the surface to form the Los Angeles River which first appears at the Encino rancho and flows with increasing volume until it passes the bed rock of the Narrows, where it reaches its peak flow. The tributaries of the Los Angeles River do not maintain a continuous surface flow in a single drainage system, except during flood discharge.11 10 Roderick Peattie, ed., The Pacific Coast Ranges (New York: The Vanguard Press, Inc., 1946), p. 374. 11 William Mulholland, “A Brief Historical Sketch of the Growth of the Los Angeles City Water Department,” Public Services IV, (June, 1920) 3. 6 On the coastal plain below the Narrows, between the Santa Monica Mountains and the ocean is additional water bearing strata with significant potentials for water supply. Geological notion through faulting and uplift have resulted in a number of partially isolated ground water basins within the general area of the coastal plain. The most significant of these is the Beverly- Newport uplift, a series of hills extending from Beverly Hills to Newport Beach. However, percolating water breaches this barrier in a number of points permitting movement from one basin to another. The source of water in the coastal plain basins is the percolation of water through the gravels above the bed rock of the Narrows and precipitation on the coastal plains and adjacent areas in the Santa Monica Mountains. Generally the lower reaches of the coastal plain is covered by impervious strata which reduces the amount of water that can be taken into the ground water basins. But the impervious quality of these strata also produces the conditions necessary for the development of artesian wells which have been a significant source of municipal supply for some portions of the city located on the lower coastal plains, especially the Wilmington and San Pedro harbor areas. The Stability of the Local Supply. This combination of physical circumstances has done much to make possible a metropolis in a desert. The immensity of the underground reservoir in the San Fernando Valley has tended to stabilize the seasonal and annual flow of the Los Angeles River. The waters stored among the earth particles during the rainy season are released at a nearly uniform rate during the year. Even one year of deficient rainfall will not appreciably alter the flow of the river although prolonged droughts have reduced the virgin flow of the river by about one-half of its maximum mean flow during a series of wet years. 7 This firm perennial flow at the Narrows unquestionably was the reason for the inland location of the original Spanish pueblo that was to become Los Angeles. Friar Crespi, the chronicler for the Portola expedition, which first discovered the Los Angeles River on August 3, 1769 was greatly impressed by the “beautiful” river and reported it to be “…the most suitable site of all that we have seen for a mission, for it has all the requisites for a large settlement.”12 In addition to the remarkable stability of the natural flow of the river, the tremendous reserves within the confines of the San Fernando basin were available for exploitation to meet the needs of a growing community. While fears had been expressed that the limits of the local water supply had been reached when the population numbered only 10,000, Los Angeles was able to grow to a prosperous city of 350,000 before it secured water from the Owens River to supplement the local supplies.13 Long term cyclical variations in precipitation however, have seriously affected the adequacy of the local water supply during the dry phase of the cycle. The low flow of the dry cycle and the increasing demand of a growing population were the determinants of the adequacy of the local supply. While the average annual precipitation for Los Angeles is approximately fifteen inches, rainfall is subject to periodic wet and dry cycles that vary greatly from the mean. During the ten- year period from 1894-1904 annual precipitation varied from a maximum of 19.32 inches to a low of 5.59 inches. Five years within that decade had an annual precipitation of less than nine inches, with these consecutive years from 1897-1899 receiving only 7.06, 5.59 and 7.91 inches respectively. In contrast to this dry cycle the immediately preceding decade registered maximum precipitation of 38.18 in1884 and a minimum of 9.21 in 1885. Five years of this wet cycle 12 Herbert E. Bolton, Pray Juan Crespi, Missionary Explorer on the Pacific Coast, 1769-1774 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1927), p. 147. 13 J.M. Guinn, A History of California and an Extended History of Los Angeles and Environs (Los Angeles: Historic Record Company, 1915), p. 390. 8 exceeded nineteen inches of rainfall.14 Similar Cycles, with each phase varying somewhat from the ten-year average, have marked the precipitation record since accurate measurements began in the year of 1877-78. In an effort to explore rainfall fluctuation over a longer period to determine the probably variations in future supplies, Henry B. Lynch constructed rainfall and stream run-off measures for Southern California based upon all available records, diaries, crop data and official reports to 1769. On the basis of this study, Lynch arrived at the following conclusions: There has been no material change in the mean climatic condition of Southern California in the past 162 years. There have been earlier fluctuations from average rainfall conditions, however, both excesses and deficiencies, of greater magnitude than any which have occurred in the past forty years. The 20 year period of rainfall deficiency which ended in 1810 was about as severe as has been the present one to date, and much more protracted. The period of rainfall surplus from 1810 to 1821 was more intense than any in the past forty years. It seems to have been about as in intense as that between 1883 and 1895. The period of rainfall deficiency which lasted from 1822 to 1832 was more severe than has been any occurring since. The period of rainfall deficiency which commenced in 1842 and lasted until 1883 was much longer than any other of which we have record. It was not so acute, however, as some others, both earlier and later. It was broken by a period of normal rainfall, but was without any period of normal rainfall to balance the deficiency. In comparison with several periods of rainfall shortage which have occurred in past years, this present rainfall deficiency to date cannot be considered a major shortage. By means of those fluctuations, the useful water yield has at various times been reduced from the average by considerably more than one-half for a period of 10 years.15 14 Henry B. Lynch, Rainfall and Stream Run-off in Southern California Since 1769 (Los Angeles: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 1951), p. 25. See also A.L. Sonderegger, “Sources of Local Water Supply,” in School of Citizenship and Public Administration, Compilation of Papers Read Before the Water Supply Section (Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1930), pp. 42-50. 15 Ibid., pp. 1-2. 9 The cyclical behavior of annual precipitation is reflected in the flow of the perennial streams of Southern California. During the decade of excess rainfall from 1884-1894, the mean annual flow of the Los Angeles River reached a record level of 100 cubic feet per second. The five year period of 1900-1904 inclusive had a mean annual flow of 48.5 second feet with mean annual flows of fifty-seven second feet for 1900, 53.5 second feet for 1901, forty-five second feet for 1902, forty-four second feet in 1903, and an all-time recorded low of 42.8 second feet in 1904.16 This gradual decline in the flow of the river generally reflected the cyclical pattern and does not respond to favorable precipitation in a single season. The fall of 19.32 inches of rain at Los Angeles did not affect the general cyclical trend during this five year period. A second year with precipitation in excess of nineteen inches in 1905 after an extreme deficiency year in 1904 was reflected in only a slight rise in the river to a mean flow of 45.5.17 After a series of wet years the river was again flowing at a mean rate of sixty-eight second feet in 1910.18 The remarkable stability of the Los Angeles River is indicated by the slight variations during 1904 which marked the last year of 1894-1904 dry cycle. The mean flow of 42.8 second feet was exceeded by only 11.7 per cent when the maximum observed daily flow of 47.8 second feet as measured on May 25, 1904. The minimum flow was 40.16 second feet, as measured on September 7, or six and two-tenths per cent below the mean flow for the year.19 The Limit of the Local Supply. While the water supply was responding to an undulating pattern of surplus and drought, the population of Los Angeles was advancing in geometric proportions. With a population of only 11,183 in 1880, Los Angeles jumped to 50,395 persons in 16 Los Angeles City, Board of Water Commissioners, Report for the Year Ending November 30, 1905 (Los Angeles, 1906), p. 35. 17 Los Angeles City, Department of Public Works, Bureau of the Los Angeles Aqueduct First Annual Report (Los Angeles, 1907), p. 8. 18 Los Angeles City, Board of Public Service Commissioners Tenth Annual Report For the Year Ending June 30, 1911 (Los Angeles, 1911), p. 10. 19 Los Angeles City, Board of Water Commissioners, op. cit., p. 35. 10 1890 and to 102,479 by 1900.20 By the end of the dry cycle in 1905 the city had attained a population of approximately a quarter of a million persons. During this dry cycle the city’s water supply problem was rapidly approaching a crisis. The inadequate flow of the river was supplemented by the construction of wells and an extension of the underground galleries at the Narrows. Wells were sunk into the coastal plain. Altogether these supplementary sources provided an average flow of 28.5 second feet to give the city a net supply of 71.5 second feet or forty-six million gallons daily. On the basis of an average annual consumption of 150 gallons per capita per day this would be adequate to supply a population of 300,000. But with the slight variation of seasonal supply and the peak summer demands, the city was reaching the limit of its local water supply. The heavy summer water consumption approached crisis proportions. During a ten-day period beginning July 20, 1904, the average daily flow into the reservoirs had decreased to 35,782,000 gallons producing a daily crop in reservoir capacity of 3,494,000 gallons. At the end of the ten-day period, the temperature moderated and water consumption dropped below the average daily flow enabling the half- emptied reservoirs to fill again.21 Earlier measures such as the elimination in 1903, of the last of the open ditches used to irrigate agricultural areas about the city and the introduction of metering to reduce waste in water consumption had been effected to conserve the available water supply as fully as possible. Under these circumstances, if the city were to continue its phenomenal growth, a new source of water supply was absolutely essential. In his third annual report to the Board of Water Commissioners, William Mulholland, superintendent of the water department, observed that, 20 Cuinn, op. cit., p. 255. 21 Los Angeles City, Department of Public Works, op. cit., p. 8. 11 “The time has come … when we shall have to supplement its (the Los Angeles River’s) flow from some other source.” But as Mulholland further observed, There are but two other streams on this side of the mountains that can compare with it, but it would cost many millions to purchase either of them, as there waters have been used … to water the rich agricultural sections created by such use.22 In the South Coastal Basin the only other streams with perennial flow are the San Gabriel and Santa Ana rivers. Both of these streams were being heavily appropriated for agricultural and domestic use in the famed citrus croplands through the San Gabriel and Pomona valleys and Orange county. The underground waters of the coastal basins were being subjected to very heavy drafts. In 1904, W.C. Mendenhall of the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that $2,413,000 had already been invested in pumping plants and facilities on the coastal plain between the Puente Hills and the ocean to irrigate 100,000 acres with a total mean flow of 275 second feet. In 1888, it was estimated that this area had 296 square miles of land with artesian flow. Mendenhall found that the area of artesian flow had shrunk to 192 square miles and that the rate of flow within this area remaining artesian had materially diminished.23 No adequate water to meet future requirements of substantial urban and agricultural growth could be found on the watersheds of the coastal plains of Southern California. The only alternatives were a restricted growth within the limits of a carefully conserved local supply or to secure a new source of supply beyond the mountains. 22Los Angeles City, Department of Public Works, Bureau of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, Third Annual Report (Los Angeles, 1908), p. 23. Parenthetical information added. 23 Los Angeles City, Department of Public Works, Bureau of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, First Annual Report, pp. 73-74. 12 New Source of Supply: Owens River Discovery. By fortunate circumstance, a prominent local engineer, Frederick B. Eaton, who had formerly served as superintendent of the Los Angeles City Water Company as well as city engineer and mayor of Los Angeles, had discovered a new source of water supply which could be made available to the City of Los Angeles from the eastern slopes of the towering Sierra Nevada, some 250 miles away. Around 1890, Fred Eaton had gone into Owens Valley to consider the possibility of developing and irrigation project in the Inyo-Kern district with water from the Owens River.24 From a general view of the terrain, he became convinced of the possibility of developing an aqueduct to take the surplus waters of the Owens River across the Mojave Desert, through the coastal range at the northwestern end of the San Gabriel Mountains into San Fernando Valley by gravity flow. During the next decade he spent his vacations and spare time making surveys of Owens Valley and possible routes for an aqueduct across the desert to Los Angeles. The surveys confirmed his conviction of the feasibility of the project. [Map of Owens Valley and the Los Angeles Aqueduct here] The Owens River Watershed. The Owens River drainage system is located between the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada and the parallel Inyo Range. The basin is long and narrow with a slight northwest-southeast trend. From the head of the basin at Mono divide to its terminus at Owens Lake is 120 miles. Its width varies from forty miles at the north end to twenty-five miles at the lake, with a minimum width of fifteen miles between Bishop and Big Pine.25 24 Ibid., p. 17. 25 Los Angeles City, Department of Public Service, Complete Report on Construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct with Introductory Historical Sketch (Los Angeles, Department of Public Service, 1916), p. 276. 13 A secondary range within the drainage basin extends from a few miles north of Bishop to the Mono Craters separating the upper basin into two valleys. The western portion is known as Long Valley. The head of Owens Valley is to the east. Owens Valley, about eighty miles long, includes the greater portion of the drainage system, extending south to Owens Lake. Its floor ranges in width from two to eight miles. At the northern end of Long Valley, near the Mono Divide, the valley floor is about 8,000 feet above sea level. From the end of Long Valley at an elevation of 6,670 feet to Owens Valley proper there is a drop of 2,200 feet in a distance of about twenty miles. Through a lava sheet extending across the valley at this point, the Owens River has out a deep gorge known as the Owens River Gorge. From this point where the river enters the floor of Owens Valley north of Bishop, there is a nearly uniform gradient to its terminus in Owens Lake which has an elevation of 3,567 feet above sea level.26 With the advantage of an initial elevation of about 4,000 feet, it would be possible to divert the water from the river at a point some thirty miles above the lake, and by following the contour, cross the hills along the lower end of the Sierra Nevada, across the Mojave desert and through tunnels piercing the coast range to San Fernando Valley all by gravity flow. Owens River is supplied with about forty small tributaries entering at fairly regular intervals from the west. The 536 square miles of the drainage basin on the slopes of the Sierra Nevada produce most of the water crop. There is very little run-off from the desert mountains on the eastern bounds of the valley. Precipitation ranges from an average of three or four inches at Owens River in the Independence area to thirty to forty inches at the crest of the Sierra Nevada.27 26 Ibid., p. 277. 27 Ibid., p. 278. 14 Because of elevation, most of the precipitation occurs in the form of snowfall. As a result, stream discharge is at a minimum between September and April, although about eighty per cent of the precipitation falls during this period. When the snow begins to melt around the first of April, stream flow increases as the temperature rises, reaching a maximum discharge between June 15 and July 15 depending on the quantity of snow to be melted. The discharge decreases to its minimum flow in September. The minimum flow remains very regular since it depends almost entirely upon percolating ground water. The floor of the valley is composed largely of absorbent volcanic ash and tufaceous rocks. The streams discharging onto the valley floor have accumulated large gravel cones which are ideal for the absorption of surface water into the underground basins. Since the underground basin is completely enclosed by impervious barriers these waters percolate to the river. This percolation helps to regulate the annual flow. Accurate data on the flow of the Owens River was not available before 1904. Measurements for that year indicated a mean annual flow 353 cubic feet per second, but in 1905 the flow dropped to 258 second feet. Since this period represented the low point in a dry cycle of years this was assumed to be the minimum flow of the river. In 1906 the mean annual flow of the river was measured at 714 second feet. On the basis of preliminary hydrographic estimates, it was assumed that the Owens River would produce an annual mean flow of about 400 cubic feet per second.28 Acquisition. When Eaton first became convinced of the physical practicability of the Owens River supply, he realized that the economic and political circumstances were 28 Ibid., p. 52-57. 15 inopportune.29 Eaton waited until conditions seemed favorable for the reception of his idea. In 1904, he presented his plan to William Mulholland, chief engineer of the Los Angeles City Water Department. In September 1904, Mulholland went into Owens Valley with Fred Eaton to examine the route and hydrography of the region. On the basis of this survey and detailed analyses, Mulholland urged the construction of an aqueduct for and estimated $25,000,000. Early in 1905, a delegation of city officials including John F. Fay Jr. and J.M. Slliott of the water board, Mayor Owen McAleer, City Attorney William B. Mathews and William Mulholland, accompanied by Fred Eaton, made a tour of the proposed aqueduct route and the Owens Valley water supply. They enthusiastically approved the plan for the aqueduct and made preliminary arrangements with Fred Eaton to acquire the necessary land and water rights.30 Eaton, who had plans to convert his vision into a fortune, had already taken preliminary steps to acquire water rights on the Owens River. His proposals contemplating purchase of the necessary land and water rights to be delivered to the city without cost in exchange for benefits from the aqueduct failed to materialize. Consequently Eaton agreed to sell the options for land and water rights already in his possession and to acquire the necessary additional water rights to assure the city control of the flow in the lower channel of the Owens River. Using the subterfuge that he was trying to develop large cattle holdings in the valley, Eaton purchased and turned over to the city 22,670 acres of land in Owens Valley with all 29 Los Angeles Times, July 29, 1905. William Mulholland reported the following incident: “Thirteen years ago Fred Eaton first told me that Los Angeles would one day secure its water supply from Owens Valley’, said Mr. Mulholland, telling how it came to pass; ‘at that time the Los Angeles River was running 40,000,000 gallons of water daily and we had a population of less than 50,000. I laughed at him. ‘We have enough water here in the river to supply the city for the next fifty years’, I told him. ‘You are wrong,’ he said, ‘You have not lived in this country as long as I have. I was born here and have seen dry years, years you know nothing about. Wait and see.’ ‘Four years ago I began to discover that Fred was right. Our population climbed to the top and the bottom appeared to drop out of the river.’” 30 Los Angeles City, Department of Public Service, Complete Report on Construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct with Introductory Historical Sketch, p. 276. 16 appurtenant water rights, including sixteen miles of frontage on the Owens River, an easement permitting the perpetual use of 2,680 acres in the Long Valley reservoir site, below the 100 food contour, and options on large tracts of land riparian to the Owens River.31 The first news of the venture appeared on July 29, 1905. Mulholland, Mathews and others explained their amazing project to an overwhelmed citizenry who gave their almost unanimous approval on September 7, 1905 for bonds to consummate the land purchases and to begin preliminary surveys of the aqueduct. The land purchases were closed and the work on the detailed plans and surveys of the aqueduct were begun. By November of 1906, the plans and designs were submitted for review to a board of consulting engineers who gave their approval of the project. On June 12, 1907, a $23,000,000 bond issue for the construction of the aqueduct was approved by the citizens of Los Angeles. With these funds, the actual construction of the aqueduct was commenced in 1908 and five years later on November 5, 1913, the first Owens River water entered San Fernando Valley. The work was completed within the original estimates of $25,000,000. The Los Angeles Aqueduct. The flow of the Owens River is diverted into an open canal at the Intake near the Alabama Hills, thirty miles above Owens Lake, after passing through the Tinemaha regulating reservoir. The aqueduct follows the highest possible contour until it crosses the first twenty miles of the aqueduct is an open unlined canal to collect seepage from artesian strata. The remaining forty miles of canal to Haiwee reservoir are lined with concrete.32 After fifteen miles of covered conduit from Haiwee reservoir to Little Lake, the aqueduct traverses rugged country near Indian Wells, the Red Rock and Jawbone canyons, through tunnels, siphons and conduit. Across Mojave Desert to the west end of Antelope Valley nearly 31 Ibid., p. 48. 32 For a general description of the Los Angeles Aqueduct see Ibid., pp.18, 75-81. Los Angeles City, Board of Water and Power Commissioners, Fortieth Annual Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1941 (Los Angeles, 1941), p. 9. 17 seventy miles of fairly regular terrain are spanned with conduit and siphons to the Fairmount reservoir. Beyond the Fairmount reservoir, the Elizabeth tunnel pierces the Coast Range carrying the aqueduct water to the head of the power drop in San Francisquito Canyon. Bouquet reservoir, with a capacity of 36,500 acre feet, stores water to regulate the flow for both power generation and water supply requirements. From San Francisquito Canyon the aqueduct water flows through siphons, tunnels, conduit and tiny Dry Canyon reservoir into the San Fernando Valley reservoirs to enter the Los Angeles municipal water distribution system. The Limits of the Owens River Supply. During the first year after the completion of the aqueduct, the city was still pre-occupied with what to do with the surplus water. With the decision to annex San Fernando Valley and other contiguous areas to make the surplus water from the aqueduct available for irrigation, all of the waters of the aqueduct were quickly absorbed. The full flow of the aqueduct was being utilized by 1918. With the continuance of the population increase by which the number of people in Los Angeles had risen from 319,189 in 1910 to 576,637 in 1920, a new wave of expansion in the early 1920’s caused Mulholland to become concerned about the future water supply. The Owens River supply had been estimated as adequate to supply the domestic and industrial requirements of a population of two million which could not be too far away. Anticipating this problem, Mulholland, in his annual report submitted on June 30, 1923, observed, … the season just (past) has been one of the lowest in precipitation in the history of the term of years covered by our measurements, and re-emphasized the importance of looking well in advance into the future for our productive needs. Reconnaissance work to that end has been taken up or rather resumed, for in point of fact no engineering corps having the important task of the City’s water supply in mind would be justified in relaxing vigilance at that point. Following this suggestion, this Department will have something in the way of disclosures to make that without doubt will create considerable 18 discussion when revealed or released to the general public, contemplating as they will the possession of a vastly greater water supply than is now available.33 As a temporary measure, the appropriation of funds was urged to make extensive purchases of land and water rights in Owens Valley to bring the supply up to the aqueduct’s capacity for 400 cubic feet per second. The complete run-off for the past year had been 355 second feet.34 In 1924 local rainfall for the year had dropped to 6.67 inches from 9.59 inches in 1923. Practically no snow fell on the Sierra Nevada and the average flow of water into the aqueduct had declined to 262.5 second feet.35 According to Mulholland, “…this condition cannot be relieved by any other means than that of renewed precipitation and larger development by the extraction of ground water…”36 Heavy land purchases to secure access to ground waters had been contested in the courts by the residents of Owens Valley which temporarily perverted the city from pumping water to take out of the valley. The drought continued. Total rainfall for the year ending June 30, 1925 was only 7.94 inches with a mean rainfall for three successive years of only 8.07 inches, a deficiency of nearly fifty per cent.37 The mean flow of the Owens River into the aqueduct had reached the record low of 214 second feet. Of this eighty second feet had been supplied by pumping underground waters. The natural flow of the stream had dropped to 134 second feet.38 Meanwhile the local supply with reserves built up after several years of replenishment through irrigation and 33 Los Angeles City, Board of Public Service Commissioners, Twenty-Second Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1923 (Los Angeles, 1923), p. 68. 34 Los Angeles City, Board of Public Service Commissioners, Twenty-Third Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1924 (Los Angeles, 1924), p. 8. 35 Loc. cit. 36 Loc. cit. 37 Lynoh, or. cit., p. 23. 38 Los Angeles City, Board of Public Service Commissioners, Twenty-Fourth Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1925 (Los Angeles, 1925), p. 7. 19 spreading, continued to flow at nearly maximum levels. At the end of the three year drought the Los Angeles River was still providing a flow of 74.7 second feet.39 39 Loc. cit. 20 New Source of Supply: Colorado River Beyond the purchase of all the water bearing land in Owens Valley to provide the maximum exploitation of that water supply, the attention of Los Angeles was again directed toward the development of new sources of supply. There can be little doubt that Mulholland’s allusion to “…a vastly greater supply than is now available…” meant the Colorado River.40 In October, 1923, he recommended to the Department of Public Service that a survey be made to determine the feasibility of importing water from the Colorado River. This recommendation was approved and on October 29, 1923, William Mulholland led the first reconnaissance party of the Colorado River aqueduct survey into the field.41 The Colorado River Drainage System. The Colorado River, which forms the southeastern boundary of California for more than 200 miles along its lower channel, opened a great new watershed along the western slope of the Rocky Mountains extending as far north as the source of the Green River in Central Wyoming. The Colorado River drains a vast area of 244,000 square miles of which 242,000 square miles extend over the seven states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming and 2,000 square miles in northern Mexico. The Salton Sea Basin, an additional area of 7,800 square miles, which had been isolated from the main channels of the river by natural dams or levees, is frequently included as a part of the lower Colorado River Basin.42 40 Los Angeles City, Board of Public Service Commissioners, Twenty-Second Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1923 (Los Angeles, 1923), p. 7. 41 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, History and First Annual Report for the Period Ending June 30, 1938 (Los Angeles: Haynes Corporation, 1959), p.52. For further detail of the preliminary development see Chapter VII. 42 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, The Colorado River, A Comprehensive Report on the Development of the Water Resources of the Colorado River Basin for Irrigation, Power Production and Other Beneficial Uses in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1946), p. 31. 21 The Colorado River proper rises among the mountain peaks in the northwestern part of the Rocky Mountain National Park and drains the vast rugged mountainous area west of the Continental Divide in Colorado. The principal tributary of the Colorado, the Green River begins in the glaciers and snow fields of the Wind River, Gros Venture and Wyoming Mountains in western Wyoming and the Wasatch Range in Utah, draining an area of 44,400 square miles.43 At the junction of the Green and the Colorado rivers it is estimated that the average annual flow contributed by each stream is 5,903,000 acre feet and 7,289,000 acre feet respectively.44 Another principal tributary stream, the San Juan River, rises in the San Juan Mountains in southwestern Colorado, flows southwesterly into New Mexico and then turns west and northwest to join the Colorado River in southern Utah. Three other tributaries, the Fremont, Escalante and Paria rivers rise on the western slope of the basin in the Wasatch and Escalante mountains and discharge into the Colorado above Lee’s Ferry.45 The main stream, with these tributaries forms the Upper Basin of the Colorado. At Lee’s Ferry, the dividing point between the Upper and Lower Basins, the discharges are estimated at an annual flow of 16,270,000 acre feet.46 In the Lower Basin relatively little additional water is contributed by tributaries to the parent steam. Of these tributaries the principal ones are the Little Colorado River, the Virgin River and the Gila River. The Little Colorado River rises among the pine forests of the White Mountains and drains a high plateau and mountainous region extending to the Continental Divide in west-central New Mexico and northeastern Arizona. This tributary is described as “…a 43 U.S. Geological Survey, Colorado River and Its Utilization, Water Supply Paper 395 by B.C. LaRue (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1916), p. 37. 44 Loc. cit. 45 Loc. cit. 46 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, op. cit., p. 55. 22 flashy stream, seldom clear even during low stages. The discharge fluctuates greatly, being insignificant during dry seasons.”47 The Virgin River rises in the mountains of southwestern Utah near the town of Beaver to form the last important tributary to enter the Colorado River from the west. From its mountainous sources at about 10,000 feet elevation, the Virgin River flows through “…typical mountain-desert country with its characteristic stretches of sand and sagebrush, its cloudless sky and scorching sun,”48 across northwestern Arizona to discharge into Lake Mead in the southeastern Nevada. The Virgin River is another flashy stream “…subject to sudden floods, and carries a large amount of sediment in suspension.”49 Near the mouth of the Colorado River at Yuma, Arizona, the Oila River, its last tributary, discharges into the main stream. The source of the Oila is in western and southwestern New Mexico where it receives its water from mountains 7,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation, supplemented by the discharge of tributary streams from the mountains of southern and central Arizona and from Sonora in Mexico.50 The Oila River is a very temperamental stream, subject to severe flash floods and extreme variations in discharge ranging from 140,000 to 6,141,000 acre feet of annual run-off.51 From Lee’s Ferry the main stream of the Colorado River is supplemented by the flows of the Little Colorado and the Virgin Rivers to attain an annual discharge of 17,330,000 acre feet at Hoover Dam. But between Hoover Dam and the entry of the Gila River, the inflow is insufficient to offset evaporation losses in the desert region and the estimated annual flow of the river under natural conditions drops to 16,450,000 acre feet. The addition of Gila discharge of 1,270,000 47 U.S. Geological Survey, op. cit., p. 94. 48 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, op. cit., p. 36. 49 U.S. Geological Survey, op. cit., p. 94. 50 Ibid., p. 95. 51 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, op. cit., p. 284. 23 acre feet yields an estimated annual virgin discharge of 17,720,000 acre feet of water into Mexico at the international boundary.52 The Colorado River Basin is one of the most arid regions of the United States. The annual precipitation for the entire basin averages less than fifteen inches, the lowest for any of the major river basins of America. Most of the water crop comes from the high mountain ranges of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah where the precipitation, largely in crystaline form, averages forty inches of moisture annually. Nearly ninety per cent of the precipitation returns again to the atmosphere by evaporation or transpiration. The other ten per cent collected over the vast area of its watershed produces the mighty Colorado River.53 From the mountains and the mountain valleys, the tributaries and the main stream of the Colorado enter a great plateau province, extending to above the juncture of the Green and the Colorado Rivers. The surface of this plateau generally exceeds 5,000 feet in elevation. The streams have out channels which have formed deep canyons much lower than the surface of the plateau.54 From its juncture with the Green, the Colorado River flows into the Cataract Canyon, through Glen Canyon with its many tributary canyons, past Lee’s Ferry, through Marble Canyon on through the awesome Grand Canyon, Bridge Canyon, where Hoover Dam now interrupts its flow after a journey of more than a thousand miles through its majestic charms. Emerging from the canyon country, the Colorado River passes onto the broad desert valleys bordered by mesas, with mountains interrupting the river desert plains on the Arizona side. On the California side the river runs in a channel confined by natural levees above the Colorado desert or Salton Basin. Below, in the center of this basin, is the Salton Sea, 241 feet 52 Ibid., p. 55. 53 Ibid., p. 41. 54 Ibid., p. 31-34. 24 below sea level.55 In this channel the river moves slowly over the plains through its great delta area in Mexico to the Gulf of California. Except for the high mountain elevations the entire basin is arid, becoming extremely so in the lower reaches of the watershed. As is generally characteristic of sub humid regions, his precipitation and discharge of the Colorado River Basin is subject to extreme variations. The estimated average annual flow of he Colorado River at Lee’s Ferry has ranged from a maximum of 25,255,000 acre foot to a minimum of 5,501,000 acre feet with an average annual flow since 1897 of 16,270,000 acre feet.56 But from 1931 to 1940 the discharge for only two years exceeded the long term average, and the mean flow for the ten-year period was only 12,213,600 acre feet. Some of the tributaries in the lower basin are subject to even more extreme variations than the main stream. The extreme barrenness of the lower Colorado River basin has been picturesquely descried by LaRue: The plains and valleys are low, arid, hot, and naked, and the mountains scattered here and there are lone and desolate. The springs are so few that their names are household words in every Indian rancherim and every settler’s home, and there are no streams but the trunk of the Colorado and the trunk of the Gila. On the mountains a few junipers and pinons are found, and cactuses, agava, and yuccas, fleshy plants with bayonet and thorns. There are no forests, no meadows, plants armed with stilettos and bearing gorgeous flowers.57 The barren characteristic of the watershed, the erratic behavior of lower tributaries and the great erosion in the river channel produces enormous quantities of silt which enters Lake Mead at the estimated rate of 137,000 acre feet annually.58 Most of this sediment enters the main stream from the San Juan River and lower tributaries. It is estimated that the San Juan River 55 Ibid., p. 38. 56 Ibid., p. 55. 57 U. S. Geological Survey, op. cit., p. 14. 58 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, op. cit., p. 163. 25 produces twenty-five per cent and the Little Colorado seventeen per cent of the silt entering Lake Mead. 59 Taking all of the available factors into consideration the feasibility of importing water from the Colorado River to the cities of the coastal basin of Southern California was soon established. With an adequate storage reservoir in Boulder Canyon it would be possible to conserve the flood waters to be released in a regulated flow to meet consumptive demands. The reservoir would also serve the function of desilting the water. By cheap power generated from the falling waters at the Hoover Dam it would be possible to pump the river water over the mountains onto the coastal plain. On June 28, 1924, the City of Los Angeles filed an application with the State Bureau of Water Rights for an appropriation of a maximum flow of 1,500 cubic feet per second or an average annual flow of 1,100,000 acre feet from the Colorado River in Riverside County between Parker and Blythe.60 Preliminary Developments. A tremendous job of human engineering had to be accomplished before the construction of the Colorado River Aqueduct could begin. It was necessary to secure finances to initiate the surveys preliminary to construction. The works on the Colorado River including Hoover Dam had to be authorized by the United States Congress to create the first multiple purpose river to control project inaugurated by the federal government. Adequate water rights had to be perfected through the agencies of both the federal and state governments. A new political institution to permit the coordination of the efforts of the several coastal cities requiring Colorado River water had to be organized to build and administer the aqueduct and its distribution system. A bond issue of $220,000,000 had to be authorized to provide funds for the construction of the aqueduct and its appurtenant works. 59 Loc. cit. 60 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, op. cit., p. 326. 26 While the organization of the Metropolitan Water District was being formed and finances were being arranged, surveys and estimates were made of fifty-four different routes for the aqueduct to bring Colorado River water to the coastal plain either by gravity flow or by pumping over the mountains. After thorough consideration the Parker route, located entirely in California, was selected as more economical for the construction and operation of the Colorado River Aqueduct than any other route. Early in 1933 the mammoth construction job was started with the first excavations at Fargo adit and on the Thousand Palms section of the Coachella tunnels. More than six years later the 242 mile aqueduct was completed to the terminal reservoir at Lake Mathews from with the distribution system carried the Colorado River water to the various member cities on the Southern California coastal plan. The first deliveries of Colorado River water for domestic consumption were made to Pasadena on June 17, 1941.61 The Colorado River Aqueduct. Colorado River water is diverted from Lake Havasu, a reservoir behind Parker Dam, on the Colorado River near the juncture of the Bill Williams River.62 At an elevation of 450 feet above sea level the water is pumped from the reservoir and raised 594 feet in two lifts to a tunnel through the Whipple Mountains. From the Whipple Mountains the water flows by gravity through lined canals, conduits and siphon pipe lines to the Iron Mountains where it is lifted 144 feet to flow through the Iron Mountain tunnel. The water continues to move by gravity flow through open canals, siphons and the Coxcomb tunnel to the Eagle Mountain pumping station where it is lifted 438 feet to flow through the Eagle Mountain tunnels and open canal to the Hayfield reservoir, a regulating reservoir with an 87,500 acre foot capacity. From the Hayfield reservoir, the water is lifted 441 feet to flow through the Hayfield 61 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Report for the Fiscal Year July 1, 1940 to June 30, 1941 (Los Angeles, 1941), pp. 6-7. 62 For general description of the Colorado River Aqueduct see Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, The Great Aqueduct the Story of the Planning and Building of the Colorado River Aqueduct (Los Angeles, 1941), 68 pp. 27 tunnels beneath Shavers Summit. These tunnels represent the high point on the Colorado River Aqueduct with an elevation of 1,807 feet above sea level. This net increase in elevation of 13,057 feet above the level of the intake requires a total lift of 1,617 feet. [Map of Colorado River Aqueduct here] From Shavers Summit, the Colorado River Aqueduct cuts through the southern flank of the Little San Bernardino Mountains in a series of tunnels known as the Coachella tunnels in the San Jacinto Mountains across the San Jacinto Valley and through the Valverdo tunnel to Lake Mathews the terminal reservoir of the main aqueduct. This reservoir, 242 miles from the intake on the Colorado River has an initial storage capacity of 107,000 acre feet, to regulate the flow to the Colorado River Aqueduct distributing system which extends through most of the South Coastal Basin to supply twenty-eight incorporated cities and several irrigation districts in the South Coastal Basin and the San Diego area with Colorado River water to supplement the local water resources. Although some of the member cities such as Santa Monica secure substantially all of their domestic water supply from the Colorado River Aqueduct, Los Angeles has relied upon this source for only a small fraction of its total supply. New Source of Supply: Mono Basin While cooperating with neighboring cities to import Colorado River water to the coastal plain, the City of Los Angeles proceeded on its own initiative to acquire the water resources of the Mono basin through an extension of the Owens River supply system. The Mono extension, authorized by a bond issue approved at a special municipal election on May 20, 1930, was to insure the future water supply of the city against any possible exigency that might arise from a delay in the construction of the Colorado River Aqueduct. 28 The Mono Basin Watershed. Mono Basin is an independent inland watershed located immediately north of Owens Valley along the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevadas in a latitude slightly north of San Francisco. A series of volcanic formations, obsidian domes and coulees, separate this basin from Owens Valley. The basin is slightly elongated, saucer-like in a shape measuring forty-seven miles in length and twenty-two miles in width from crest at the most distant points.63 In many ways its hydrographic characteristics are similar to Owen Valley. The rugged High Sierra provides the bulk of the water crop from precipitation in the higher elevations of their eastern slopes. At the base of small glaciers high on the most lofty peaks, streams from and flow down the mountain side to discharge into a large land-locked body of saline water, Mono Lake.64 Mt. Lyell, the highest peak in the watershed area, exceeds 13,000 feet and several of the peaks exceed 12,000 feet in elevation. The surface of Mono Lake near the center of the basin has an elevation of 6,400 feet above sea level. The highest peak among the Mono craters has an altitude of 9,137 feet. To the east, mountains similar to the Inyo Mountains of Owens Valley reach an elevation of 11,127 feet at the summit of Glass Mountain. These mountains continue around the north of the basin to the base of the Sierra.65 In contrast to the rather plentiful supply of water on the western slope of the watershed, the eastern area is extremely arid. As Israel C. Russell, the leading authority on Mono Basin, once observed, 63 H.A. Van Norman, “The Mono Basin Project. Aqueduct to Supply Los Angeles with Additional Water Now Under Construction,” Civil Engineering, VI (May, 1936), p. 306. 64 Israel C. Russell, “Quaternary History of Mono Valley, California,” in U.S. Geological Survey, Eighth Annual Report, 1886-87 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1889), Part I, p. 321. 65 Ibid., p. 270. 29 The eastern and western portions of this single hydrographic basin are fragments of two distinct geographic provinces. One has the desolation and solitude of the Sahara, the other the rugged grandeur of the Pyrenees.66 The important streams, in decreasing order of magnitude are Rush Creek, Leevining Creek, Mill Creek, and Gibba Canyon Creek. From their glacial sources each of these creeks descends narrow valleys formed by glaciations in channels worn in granite and metamorphosed sediments. Rush creek, the principal stream in the Mono Basin is formed on the eastern slope of Mt. Lyell. The south fork of the Tuolumne River, with its source on the western slope of this same peak, provides water for the city of San Francisco.67 Lakes, in depressions eroded by glacial action, occur along the course of each of the creeks.68 In addition to the surface run-off, there are a number of springs located near the shores of the lake or in the bottom of the lake. After the streams have been fully diverted it is estimated that the flow of these springs will be sufficient to maintain Mono Lake at about one-third of its previous area.69 These four streams in the Mono Basin have a total average annual flow since 1906 of about 225 cubic feet per second of which 195 second feet could be diverted. The minimum average annual flow for the dry cycle of 1923-33 was only 150 second feet of which 140 second feet could have been diverted. This represents what is considered to be the minimum safe yield of the Mono Basin.70 Hydrographic Puzzle. While accurate hydrographic measurements of the Mono Basin have been made only since 1906, earlier known variations in the level of the lake form the basis 66 Loc. cit. 67 “Developing A New Water Supply For Los Angeles,” Engineering News-Record CXVIII (February, 1937), p. 286. 68 Russell, op. cit., p. 324. 69 Van Norman, op. cit., p. 307. 70 Ibid., pp. 306-07. 30 of interesting speculation about the long range climatic behavior of the West. In 1865, the California state geologist reporting on the first surveys of the Mono Basin noted the existence of terraces which indicated the ancient shores of a much larger body of water. The highest “well defined” terrace was 630 feet above the level of the lake while another “very distinct” terrace was noted at 385 feet above the water.71 This great body of water is explained by Russell as the result of climatic oscillations in which the mean annual temperature was increased a few degrees causing the vast glaciers on the Sierra Nevada to melt, greatly expanding the area of the lake.72 However, since it was first measured in 1860, the level of Mono Lake rose fifty feet by 1920.73 By 1887 Russell reported that, …on the north side of the smaller of the two main islands in the center of the lake a cabin was built in 1861, which is now wholly submerged. This would indicate a recent rise of twenty or twenty-five feet in the lake surface had taken place or else the island had undergone subsidence to that extent. This conclusion is also sustained by the occurrence of dead stumps of trees and sage brush in the margin of the water two to three hundred feet from the land.74 The submergence of sage brush and dead trees would indicate that the rise in the lake level took place after this vegetation had taken root and matured on arid soil. This phenomenon had led to the conclusion “… that Mono Lake area experienced a drier cycle of more than a hundred years prior to 1860 than anything since that date.”75 The possibilities of long-term oscillations in the annual mean temperature affecting the flow of water from the High Sierra snow fields and century long cyclical variations in precipitation present unfathomed mysteries to hydrographers who seek to predict the adequacy of a future water supply for a new region with such “inadequate records of basic weather data.” 71 California, State Geologist, Geological Survey of California, Geology I, Report of Progress and Synopsis of the Fieldwork from 1860-1865 (Philadelphia: Carton Press, 1865), p. 451. 72 Russell, op. cit., p. 390. 73 Samuel B. Morris, “The Water Problem,” Proceedings of the Institute of Economics and Finance, Fifth Conference (Los Angeles: Occidental College, 1948), p. 80. 74 Russell, op. cit., p. 298. 75 Morris, op. cit., p. 85. 31 The Mono Extension. The Mono diversion system begins with a canal heading in Leevining Creek, intercepting two tributaries or Rush Creek and emptying into Grant Lake Reservoir. This reservoir formed by increasing the capacity of Grant Lake to 48,000 acre feet with a seventy-two foot dam at the lake outlet, will serve to store and regulate the flow of the diversion canal and the main stream of Rush Creek. From Grant Lake the water passes through a 5,450 foot tunnel, three miles of covered conduit and through the Mono Craters in an eleven mile tunnel discharging into head waters of the Owens River.76 The combined flow of the Mono diversion and the upper Owens River are stored and regulated by a reservoir in Long Valley, known as Lake Crowley, formed by a dam at the head of the Owens River Gorge. This reservoir with a capacity of 183,000 acre feet will equate the seasonal variations in stream run-off to provide for the maximum utilization of the water for future power developments as well as to equate variations in annual flow to provide a more stable water supply. With the Mono extension, the Los Angeles Aqueduct works extend a distance of 350 miles. Present and Future Water Supply With a population of slightly more than two million persons, the City of Los Angeles is consuming water at the rate of nearly 550 cubic feet per second to meet all of its various needs. To satisfy this demand, Los Angeles is utilizing each of its water sources in varying degrees. Tables I and II show the quantities of water supplied from the various sources and the quantities consumed.77 76 Van Norman, op. cit., pp. 307-08. 77 Supra, p. 48. Information supplied from the records of the Hydrographic Division of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. 32 TABLE I LOS ANGELES WATER SUPPLY 1920-1948 Annual Mean Flow in Cubic Second Feet (a) Total water supply from Los Angeles River basin above the Narrows. (b) Including wells on the coastal plain. (c) Mono Basin supply measured at the east portal of Mono tunnels. (d) Owens Valley well production including normal artesian flow. (e) As measured at Cartago station near intake of Haiwee reservoir. (f) Colorado River water supplied by Metropolitan Water District to meet special demands. Date L.A. Basin (a) Total Local (b) Mono Basin (c) Gwens Wells (d) Total Owens- Mode (e) M.W.D. (f) 1920 55.82 68 19.2 283.3 1921 63.72 78 19 262.3 1922 73.72 86 14.4 346.2 1923 74.32 93 16.1 269.3 1924 78.55 98 26.4 198.8 1925 97.1 122 46.2 269.9 1926 87.28 107 43.2 250.6 1927 73.2 93 13.3 367.3 1928 84.78 101 52.3 296.9 1929 94.76 116 73.2 268.3 1930 73.69 97 171.3 347 1931 83.05 102 197.3 342.4 1932 52.88 65 4 346.7 1933 53.99 66 8.5 341 1934 90.81 102 56.1 326 1935 69.98 80 9.1 357 1936 78.49 80 3.6 7.1 306 1937 69.85 72 12.1 376 1938 66.05 67 8.6 23.3 398 1939 63.91 64 9.5 25.6 360 1940 71.2 71 26.8 13.8 341 1941 60.46 61 70.8 10.5 353 0.46 1942 63.32 64 33 15.7 442 0.71 1943 77.28 79 36.8 14.3 409 0.06 1944 82.58 85 92.8 14.7 398 0.48 1945 111.4 118 25.6 15.5 401 2.25 1946 105.14 112 19 16.3 458 9.75 1947 114.5 123 61.2 15.4 457 13 1948 119 138.5 12.1 440 24.2 33 TABLE II LOS ANGELES WATER CONSUMPTION 1920-1948 Annual Mean Flow in Cubic Second Feet Date Domestic (a) Irrigation Total 1920 126 106 232 1921 139 104 243 1922 152 100 252 1923 169 118 287 1924 189 78 267 1925 203 77 280 1926 214 89 303 1927 217 78 295 1928 231 106 337 1929 255 123 378 1930 249 108 356 1931 243 105 348 1932 234 85 320 1933 227 87 314 1934 220 88 308 1935 225 87 310 1936 249 110 359 1937 260 96 356 1938 265 82 347 1939 269 81 350 1940 272 75 347 1941 272 63 334 1942 293 95 388 1943 326 98 424 1944 352 88 440 1945 381 101 482 1946 398 97 495 1947 423 104 527 1948 434 108 542 (a) Including commercial and industrial use. 34 Except for the Colorado River supply, each of the other sources of supply is presently being utilized at nearly the maximum production for a long-term safe yield. The water supply from the Owens-Mono system is limited bye the net capacity of the aqueduct to approximately 440 cubic feet per second.78 Supplementing the surface run-off by pumping wells during dry years, the Owens-Mono area can maintain the aqueduct at capacity flow indefinitely. Some 110 wells in Owens Valley are capable of producing rate at the rate of 300 cubic feet per second.79 The present estimated average safe yield of the Los Angeles River and San Fernando Valley wells of eighty cubic feet per second80 might be increased by another forty cubic feet per second by eliminating all other diversions by other municipalities such as Glendale, Burbank and San Fernando and irrigators using private wells. But this displacement would have to be met by these users from some other source. On the coastal plain six different well fields are capable of yielding an average safe yield of fifty second feet. Since the quality of the water is relatively poor, these wells are kept on a standby basis to meet emergency requirement rather than to produce a stable water crop.81 Altogether these sources of supply are approximately sufficient to meet the present requirements of the City of Los Angeles. Future developments depend upon water from the Colorado River to satisfy any expansion in the demand for water. On the basis of the original Metropolitan Water District claim to 1,500 cubic feet per second of Colorado River water,82 Los Angeles is entitled to more than 750 cubic feet per second, assuming that Los Angeles will 78 The operating capacity of the Los Angeles Aqueduct is 475 to 480 cubic feet per second but an allowance for non- operation for repair and maintenance of disrupted service reduces the net capacity to a flow of approximately 440 cubic feet per second. 79 Ford, Bacon & Davis, Report. Department of Water and Power, City of Los Angeles, California. Water System (New York: Ford, Bacon & Davis, 1948), Vol. III, p. 22. 80 Ibid., p. 19. 81 Ibid., p. 21. 82 With the admission of San Diego to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the water rights of the district were increased by 112,000 acre feet annually. However, the capacity of the aqueduct will probably prevent the delivery of more than 1,500 cubic feet of water per second. 35 represent at least half of the assessed valuation of the Metropolitan Water District. This would be adequate to support a population of at least five million people in the City of Los Angeles, with other present supplies. However, the controversy over rights to Colorado River water between Arizona and California has cast doubt upon the future water supply available to the municipalities on the Southern California coastal plain.83 Arizona’s proposal for the diversion of 1,200,000 acre feet of Colorado River water for the irrigation of lands as a part of the Central Arizona Project has led to the following conclusion: Now the actual shortage of water on the Lower Colorado River results in substantially this: If California’s contention and interpretation of the Colorado River Compact and its related documents are correct, Arizona will receive no water for the Central Arizona Project; if Arizona’s contentions are sustained, California will have substantially no water for the Colorado River aqueduct of the metropolitan water district.84 Both the conversion of ocean water and the transportation of Columbia River water have been proposed as means to alleviate the future water needs of Southern California. Neither proposal is demonstrable as a practical alternative to serve as the basis for consideration by responsible public officials who must maintain an adequate water supply to meet the needs of a community in an arid region. When existing water supplies, with their related water works, involving substantial capital investment, have been fully utilized, a final additional supply of water can be secured by the reclamation of sewage effluent. Sewage reclamation is feasible both from a technical and economic point of view although many problems of public policy, water rights, and cultural 83 For a consideration of the Arizona-California controversy, Infra., p. 84 Samuel B. Morris, “Southern California’s Future in the Colorado River,” in U.S. Congressional Record. 80th Cong., 2nd. Sess., XCIV: A2510. 36 adjustment are involved.85 More than half of the water delivered through the water distributing system is discharged through the sewer system in an urban community. Sewage reclamation would thus expand existing water supplies by approximately fifty per cent. Without Colorado River water the reclamation of sewage might meet the needs of Los Angeles and its surrounding communities for a few years, but the rapid growth of Southern California would soon exhaust this supply. With the full utilization of its claims to the Colorado River and subsequent reclamation of sewage effluent, Los Angeles and its metropolitan area should have an adequate water supply to meets its requirements for decades to come. 85 For a consideration of the problem of sewage reclamation in Southern California see R.P. Goudy, “Sewage Reclamation For West Basin District,” Appendix IV in Harold Conkling, Report to West Basin Association On Imported Water Supply for West Basin, Los Angeles County, California, 1946, pp. 23-30. Samuel A. Greeley, Charles G. Hyde, Franklin Thomas, A Report Upon A Program of Sewerage and Sewage Treatment and Disposal for the City of Los Angeles, California and Certain of Its Environs, 1939, 53 pp. A.M. Rawn, Charles G. Hyde and Franklin Thomas, Orange County Sewerage Survey 1946-47. Report Upon the Collection, Treatment and Disposal of Sewage and Industrial Wastes of Orange County, California (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Edwards Brothers, Inc., 1947), 470 pp. 37 An adequate and pure water supply is everywhere a problem. Even in Eastern communities where rainfall is abundant it presents enormous difficulties. In the West where the desert encroaches, where many regions always must languish in the thirst, situations are more dramatic. In the West the desert is the common enemy. A united front must consider the common advantage, must act with a broad intelligence, must fight as does a disciplined army, if those victories over the desert which are possible are to be won. Ray Lyman Wilbur, 1930 CHAPTER II THE EVOLUTION OF THE POLICY OF COMMUNITY CONTROL OF WATER RESOURCES The Spanish Tradition In no other phase of modern life has the impact of the Spanish origin of Los Angeles been so great as in the establishment of the general policy of community control of water resources. From the Spanish pueblo rights Los Angeles derived prior claim to the waters of the Los Angeles River to secure a vital advantage in forging ahead to pre-eminence in Southern California. In part the Spanish tradition of communal enterprise provided the foundation of the later institutional pattern for the administration of water resources. Los Angeles, founded in 1781 as El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora la Reina de Los Angeles, was the second civil pueblo to be organized in the Spanish domain that now constitutes the state of California. It was founded under provision of a decree, providing elaborate regulations for the government and colonization of the province of California, issued by Don Felipe de Neve, Governor of California, June 1, 1779. King Carlos III of Spain by royal order gave his approval to the regulation on October 24, 1781.86 86 Felipe de Neve, “Reglamento Para el Govierno de la Provincia de Californias, Aprobado por S.N. en Real Orden d