The Los Angeles River: Restoration, (Re)Invention? The Politics of Nature in L.A.
Plans are pending for a project to restore the Los Angeles River and return it to life. But is this restoration or the (re)invention of the river?
Timothy Beatley and Peter Newman were in Los Angeles the week of Jan 13th, 2009, talking about their new book(s) and what it will take to make cities more sustainable. They complimented Los Angeles on its project to restore the Los Angeles River with little critical understanding about what is being proposed and what the results will imply for sustainability in Los Angeles.
In the early 1980s, Louis McAdams, a performance artist, had a vision that the Los Angeles River could be restored and returned to life, extricated from its concrete confines, and allowed to flow naturally. This vision, at first ridiculed and trivialized, has become the city’s own. Plans are a-foot to create parks along its long trajectory from the San Fernando Valley to the sea, to build new river-oriented housing and commercial developments along the river, and to remove the concrete lining where feasible, balancing public safety from flooding, cost and ecological considerations. It is also a plan that claims to bring much needed open space to underserved communities.
But is this restoration or the(re) invention of the Los Angeles River? The river’s flow today is tertiary treated sewage from the Tillman Sewage Treatment Plant and dry weather run-off from urban irrigation. Most of the River’s own indigenous flow is captured by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power for the city’s drinking water supply and kept in underground aquifers. Only when it rains does the river have true flow, and since the river is channelized to prevent flooding, most of the rainflow is directed to the sea.
In its natural state, the river was usually dry in the summer months, its flow fluctuated dramatically with seasonal rainfall, meandered through the basin, and changed course over time. It provided a rich riparian corridor for fauna and flora, and supplied groundwater basins all year round, including by sub-surface summer flows.
But the visions of the river’s restoration involve a year-round above ground flow and a permanent channel, decoratively revegetated, with manicured access and open spaces. Such plans are necessarily predicated on a reliable, permanent supply of water that never before existed: the Tillman sewage treatment plant tertiary treated water. It is also not a restored nature, it is an invented nature.
Several questions emerge.
- Under climate change, is the best use of the Tillman treated water supplying the Los Angeles River with water? Or should the treated water be reinjected into the ground water for reuse?
- Under climate change, should dry-weather run-off (excess water from watering urban lawns flowing into the river) continue to exist, or should outdoor irrigation be curbed to reflect reduced water supply? If so, there would be less water to supply the Los Angeles River flow, especially in summer.
- If the goal is to restore the Los Angeles River, should it not be allowed to go dry in the summer?
- Is this a restoration project, or a project that invents a new river, serving new needs – scenery, recreation and urban development?
- Will this plan provide much needed open space to underserved communities, or cost so much that no funds will be left to build dispersed small parks that are geographically distributed?
There is a good argument to be made that the Los Angeles River restoration project is in reality the creation of a new recreation infrastructure that might, also, provide co-benefits, like new housing and commercial opportunities. This is a fine enterprise, but is not restoration, it is invention and an economic development project.
The Politics of Nature
Louis McAdams’ artistic dream inspired a generation of activists concerned about the lack of green space in Los Angeles. Los Angeles is one of the most park poor cities of its size, and access to parks is unequal – low income neighborhoods have far fewer parks per acre than the more affluent White neighborhoods. The Los Angeles River channel runs through some of the most park poor parts of the city. It seemed like a great vision – restore the city, create access to the restored area, and voila, more parks and a beautiful new recreation amenity. It then became an opportunity to provide new housing, and new commercial opportunities along with the housing. Overtime, it has become a redevelopment project beyond a river restoration project, promising to provide tax revenues for the city, and economic opportunities for business. The politics of restoration are the politics of redevelopment in this instance.
And what of the restoration of the river? There is a truly dirty secret about the commercial enterprise that is the restoration of the Los Angeles River. Many sections of the River are freeway adjacent and therefore exposed to high levels of air pollution. Yet they are seen as optimal opportunities to provide more recreational open space and needed housing, putting people deliberately in harms’ way.
The Plan has also attracted a great deal of park bond funding through the smart and aggressive efforts of supporters in writing funding applications. Yet the thin band of green that is being promoted will only serve those near the river. Does this ambitious project risk funneling substantial park bond funding into this one project, depriving less adjacent, but equally deprived communities, from funding to build dispersed open spaces throughout a broader geographical area?
Finally, if we were truly restoring, then it would be ok to leave the river dry in the summer, and the aim would be renaturalization to provide habitat for fauna and flora, and a wild swath through the city. Housing and commercial development would not be part of the project for two reasons. The first, as explained above, is the potential negative health impacts on residents and recreationists. The second is that development and year round water are likely to negatively impact fauna and flora, creating unnaturally mesic conditions in seasons where native plants are conditioned to go dormant and need to do so for their health, and such intense development would likely reduce the ability of animals in particular, to move freely about.
In the end, the restoration of the Los Angeles River is a redevelopment project that provides great political and economic benefits for those involved. For human health impacts, for fauna and flora, for restoration values, and for greater geographical equity of access to open space, the benefits are less clear.
Date Posted: 1/21/2009