Los Angeles River Revitalization

Kevin Teasdale

Dr. Wilson & Dr. Warshawsky

The Water Planet

27 October, 2015

The Revitalization of the Los Angeles River

Throughout history the 51-mile-long Los Angeles River has played a significant role in shaping the culture and environment in the surrounding area. The area which we know call Los Angeles was originally occupied by the Gabrielino Indians who thrived off the ecological bounty of the River (“History of Los Angeles”). In the 18th century, Spanish explorers came through and established missions. This proved to be a turning point in the history of European settlement in California. A terrific flood in the early 19th century caused great destruction to the limited infrastructure in the area (“History of Los Angeles”). The almost

River has provided protection from flooding but not from the dangers of an inefficient water cycle and a lack of ecological diversity (see figure 2). Pouring concrete into the bed and banks of rivers allows for the water to flow at a much faster rate. The ability for water to infiltrate the ground is non-existent when there is concrete surrounding the water. Without the ability to penetrate the ground, the amount of runoff is increased dramatically. A large decrease in one area of the water cycle only leads to a large increase in another. The controlling of the river should take this idea into account if and when it’s revamped. When the plan to cement the L.A. River was completed in the mid-1900’s, the idea of reducing the risk of flood was the only thing people were thinking about. While the risk of floods are reduced, the surrounding habitats are also reduced in size and quality. The introduction of unnatural physical barriers such as concrete prevent the river’s habitat growing and diversifying (“Los Angeles River”). Plant and wildlife have very little chance to survive in such a disconnected habitat. Having a diverse habitat is crucial for a balanced ecological system. The dangers of an unbalanced ecological system could include huge negative effects on our daily lives. With these dangers of our current L.A. River system, the need for an alternative plan is necessary. While several plans have been proposed, three plans in particular are

The first plan named Alternative 10 is the cheapest of the three plans and fittingly, has the least amount of restoration. Estimated at $347 million, Alternative 10 involves connecting riparian corridors and river reaches with an “increase in habitat of 93 percent over without project conditions” and “hydrologic connectivity through daylighted streams by restoring 528 acres” (“Los Angeles River”). An increase in habitat of of 93 percent is impressive and necessary for the flora and fauna surrounding the L.A. River. The use of daylighted streams is crucial in allowing the River to return to a more normal state. The second plan proposed is Alternative 16 and has a higher estimated cost. At a cost of $774 million, Alternative 16 accomplishes everything Alternative 10 does while creating more freshwater marshes and increasing the extent of restoration (“Los Angeles River”). The freshwater marshes are conducive for vegetation growth that is crucial to fish and their breeding habits. An increase in restoration efforts would allow the Los Angeles river to have an increase in access to floodplains, benefiting the hydrological cycle. The final plan proposal is Alternative 20 and has the highest estimated cost to implement. With a cost of $1.04 billion, Alternative 20 includes everything in Alternative 16 while widening the riverbed of the River and