The Not-So-Mighty (but Vital) L.A. River

The announcement last week that the Los Angeles River, a trash-strewn, graffiti-blighted concrete channel, is listed among the nation’s most important but vulnerable waterways at first may seem like the stuff of a late-night comedy monologue. But the condition of the L.A. River is no joke. And the parallels between it and the mighty Mississippi and Missouri rivers, also on the list, are clear and ominous.

At the request of local conservationists, the Washington-based American Rivers organization included the Los Angeles River on its list of 30 endangered or threatened rivers. The 58-mile-long waterway runs from the San Gabriel Mountains into the Pacific at Long Beach Harbor. Much of the riverbed is sealed in concrete, and between South Gate and Long Beach high walls flank it to protect downstream residents against floods. A river in name only through dense urban neighborhoods, the Los Angeles is most often used, illegally, as a garbage dump and as impromptu shelter for the homeless.

“We weren’t afraid about being laughed at,” Kevin Coyle, president of American Rivers, said of his group’s decision to include the river on its annual list. “There’s a chance that a lot of the Los Angeles River can be restored to its natural state.”

Restoration can mean far more than just cleaning up one of Los Angeles’ most glaring eyesores. It could provide much-needed recreational and open space. Nearly every plan drawn for use of the river and adjacent land in recent years involves creation of greenbelts along the banks.

Restoration can also appreciably supplement this region’s scarce natural water supply during dry years. Flood control officials originally paved the riverbed to divert storm runoff and protect the region against flooding. But the system of storm drains and flood control channels is so efficient that only 15% of rainfall in the river’s watershed is conserved. That’s a far lower percentage than in areas with aggressive conservation programs in place, among them places with far more rainfall than here.

However, instead of un-paving the river (as many urge), restoring its watershed and encouraging its recreational use, we seem headed in the opposite direction. County and federal officials are poised to build even higher concrete walls along the river--at a cost of $346 million--to protect against flood damage predicted to occur in a worst-case regional flood. Construction could begin as soon as this summer.

Yet last summer’s disastrous Midwestern floods argue strongly for less concrete here, not more. Levees along the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, although designed to accommodate heavy runoff, broke under the strain of enormous volumes of fast-moving water, inundating homes, farms, entire towns. This summer, instead of mixing more cement, we here in Los Angeles would be wise to heed the lessons of last summer.