by Paul R. Spitzzeri
As a spate of posts on this blog have discussed, the movement to establish a Los Angeles County flood control program in the mid-1910s, following severe flooding in a rapidly urbanizing area causing death, damage and destruction at greater levels than previously, led to a series of reports, plans for dams, reservoirs and other elements that involved the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars, but also engendered controversy.
Among these were the efforts of James W. Reagan to build massive and expensive projects, even as there was enough public support to pass large bond issues, though he resigned under increasing pressure on 28 March 1927 and was succeeded by E. Cortland Eaton, formerly supervisor of state dams. A recent reading of the excellent anthology Land of Sunshine: An Environmental History of Metropolitan Los Angeles, edited by William Deverell and Greg Hise, includes a very informative and interesting essay by Jared Orsi on “Flood Control Engineering in the Urban Ecosystem.”
In this piece, Orsi noted that, even with the best engineering available, the extensive and expensive flood control systems built in certain areas of greater Los Angeles have not been as protective as envisioned, while politics went beyond the scientific in determining what was built and what was not. He wrote that “the seemingly technical aspects of flooding have proved just as unpredictable and messy as politics,” with debris basins and levees not able to stop mud and water flows that belied predictions.
Orsi concluded that the region’s flood control systems are “a failure born of the interaction between unpredictable and messy engineering and unpredictable and messy politics.” Moreover, a significant issue was that “systems for imposing the order of engineering on unruly nature have often failed because both engineering and nature are unruly,” so the attempt to regulate floods turned out to be “an exercise in substituting one disorderly system for another.”
This post features, from the Museum’s collection, a “Map Showing The Location Of A Certain Reservoir For The City Of Los Angeles In The Big Tujunga Canyon,” this notarized on 10 March 1927, just a little more than a couple of weeks before Reagan’s resignation (though he was then appointed a consulting engineer for the Los Angeles County Flood Control District). The Big Tujunga Dam that is nearing a century old went through several iterations before it was built and we’ll look at some of that history here.
Anyone driving along Interstate 210 or Foothill Boulevard through this area below the western portion of the San Gabriel Mountains can appreciate the immense flows of water that occasionally rush out of the range through Big Tujunga Canyon, as the width of the creek of that name, which empties into the Los Angeles River, historically providing much of the flow of that watercourse, and its affected areas is rather impressive. Today, one can look south of the freeway and see Hansen Dam and the aquatic center, lake, wildlife preserve and other elements behind it. To the northeast, the creek goes under the 210 and beyond the Angeles National Golf Club, the canyon winds into the mountains.
It is several miles into the canyon, to the north of Big Tujunga Canyon Road and not far west of Angeles Forest Highway where Big Tujunga Dam and Reservoir are situated. The map was made as part of an effort by the City of Los Angeles, the limits of which extend into a portion of the canyon, to develop a reservoir site, with flood control tied to water capture for needs of Angelenos.
The item has a signed, sworn statement from the powerful William Mulholland, chief engineer of the Bureau of Water Works and Supply of the Department of Water and Power (and prime mover in the Los Angeles Aqueduct, completed in 1913) regarding the survey carried out under his order from 15 November 1926 to 1 March 1927, while it was notarized on the 10th. It also has an affidavit from Board of Water and Power Commissioners President Reginaldo del Valle that the work was under the Board’s auspices and that the map was adopted on the 15th.
Yet, the story of the project goes at least back four years before and then continued four years afterward with respect to a canyon-located dam and reservoir, starting with a report from the 8 January 1923 edition of the Los Angeles Express, which reported,
Actual work on a water improvement program involving the expenditure of approximately $5,000,000 was under way today, according to an announcement made by William Mulholland, chief engineer of the city’s water department.
The plans contemplate the building of additional reservoirs, enlarging of others, the laying of additional trunk lines and increase of water service at Los Angeles harbor, Hollywood and in the northeast and southeast sections of the city.
The last legal obstacle to the construction of the reservoir at Big Tujunga was removed today by the filing of condemnation proceedings. The reservoir will impound 14,000 acre feet of water and will cost $1,646,000.
Also distinctive about the proposed storage facility was that it was to be at the highest elevation, some 1400 feet above seal level, in the area and, therefore, be “capable of supplying water to the highest section of the city by gravity flow.
Over a year later, the Pasadena Star-News of 18 March 1924 noted that, while the county Board of Supervisors approved some $32.3 million for flood control and water conservation with this amount to be placed on a May election ballot and that 16 projects proposed by Reagan were accepted, the reservoir and control element at Big Tujunga, pegged at some $1.6 million, were among those, though a levee in the valley below, diversion dams in the canyon and a tunnel to the Arroyo Seco were rejected.
The 25 April edition of the Los Angeles Times included a pre-election feature by Reagan titled “Flood Control Needs Are Told,” who began by informing readers that “[the] prosperity of Los Angeles city, being controlled by the so-called ‘back country,’ was one of the chief reasons why the water conservation and flood-control plans, as they appear on the primary ballot, were planned to blanket the entire county.”
The biggest of the endeavors proposed by Reagan and the district was a huge $25 million dam in San Gabriel Canyon, while the Puddingstone Dam, another significant one, and “two other huge projects, the Pacoima and Big Tujunga dams and reservoirs” were also mentioned. These, he asserted, “would eliminate the flood hazard in the San Fernando Valley” as well as store water “in the subterranean reservoirs” and in the San Gabriels for agricultural and home use.
Reagan added that,
The Big Tujunga Canyon drainage is second in area only to the San Gabriel. It is a high, mountainous area of some 100 square miles, and produces such a heavy runoff that when its flood peak joins the waters of the other drainages in the San Fernando Valley the volume of the Los Angeles River has in times past equaled that discharged from the San Gabriel Mountains and San Gabriel River.
What the engineer offered to control the waters in this large drainage area was “a rock and fill earth dam . . . near the mouth of the canyon, the dam to have a height of 140 feet above the stream bed and contain a reinforced concrete core wall from bedrock, and the rock in the side of the canyon up to the crest of the dam.” Meanwhile, this latter material was to be used on the “upstream slope of the dam” and the spillway sill would be 15 feet below the dam’s peak, the total acreage being around 270. Additional elements would be included in the central, eastern and western segments of the creek, with the work to cost some $1.6 million.
A visit was made to the site in March 1925, with the Van Nuys News of the 10th stating that a group from the Greater San Fernando Valley Association and chambers of commerce in that section joined Reagan and Harvey Van Norman, Mulholland’s assistant engineer, with the paper remarking that “a fine dinner was enjoyed at the preliminary camp.” It was added, however, that,
It will be remembered that the first dam as proposed was to have been four or five miles below the present site. Visits to the new site is for the purpose of getting leading citizens interested in the new project. Already $1,000,000 from a previous bond issue has been set aside for the building of the dam which before finished will take probably $4,000,000 or $5,000,000. The dam as planned will be 300 feet on the bottom, 800 feet across at top and will impound 57,000 acre feet of water. The present project embraces the question of conservation of water and flood control in single purpose.
This was obviously a much expanded concept from the one advocated by Reagan before the spring 1924 bond election, which passed. Later in the month, the Times commented on the change, though with different information, as it observed that “a movement has been launched to change the site for the building of the Big Tujunga dam, for which bonds in the sum of $1,600,000 were voted last year, from the original site, the old olive orchards tite [sic] to about three miles farther up the canyon,” which, however, was to only add a million dollars to the cost.
Because statutes required that no further bonds could be issued until the $35 million approved were spent, a workaround was planned through a new state law “which will permit of voting additional bonds for the purpose of taking care of the Big Tujunga project.” Some of the aforementioned party came from Glendale, Long Beach and Los Angeles because those areas “would be in the wake of a flood which would come down from the Big Tujunga regions,” while it was noted that “if the flood of 1914,” which launched the planning of the county flood control district and program, “should repeat itself 40,000 people would be rendered homeless by reason of the Big Tujunga.”
As for the reason for moving the dam, the Times commented that “the original site is of alluvial base and easy to break, while the new site has a granite base,” while the water storage would quadruple. The push for the different location included the claim that the repositioned dam “will serve more people than will the San Gabriel Canyon” while it was mentioned that,
The reservoir at the new site will be four and one-half miles in length. The new dam will be 300 feet high, an altitude of sufficient height to permit water being run into the San Fernando reservoirs [renamed after Van Norman]. This would be of great benefit to the valley by reason of water for irrigation in case of water shortage in the Owens Valley [and affects to the Los Angeles Aqueduct].
The 3 June edition of the paper informed readers that “the construction of a high dam in Big Tujunga Canyon, with a storage capacity of 65,000 acre feet, was made possible when Gov. [Friend] Richardson signed Assembly Bill 1085,” sponsored by Assembly member Frank C. Weller. The legislation amended the County Flood Control Act to allow the Board of Supervisors “to provide additional flood control funds before a prevailing bond issue has been entirely expended.”
The Times went on to note that Reagan and the Board developed plans for a dam that could cost up to $10 million and that “surveys for its erection have been completed.” Ontario John Renfrew, secretary of the Greater San Fernando Valley Association, hailed the passage of the legislation and commented,
Major developments in the San Fernando Valley would have been delayed eight or ten years had the bill failed . . . While the Pacoima dam serves its purpose, the waters of the Big Tujunga cause the greatest damage to the valley during a flood year. In addition, flood waters from this source would cause great damage to a large portion of the industrial section of Los Angeles.
The installation of a rapid transit system, sewers, highway construction, establishing of industries and the building of parks and playgrounds in the valley have depended entirely on the control of flood waters.
Repeating that $1.6 million was appropriated from the $35 million bond issue of the prior year, the paper noted that “this project as originally formulated would not answer the purpose” because “investigation showed that a different type of dam would have to be used and put up on a different site than the one figured on” and the cost pegged at between $7 million and $10 million. Thus, the bill was sought to allow the supervisors to ask voters for more bond money before the 1924 funds were spent, though “just when the vote . . . will be held has not been decided by the board as yet.”
The Hollywood Citizen-News of 15 July noted that the Association issued a petition that reinforced the claim that a much larger dam further into the canyon would have tangible results for those downstream all the way to the discharge of the Los Angeles River into the Pacific at Long Beach. Reagan met with Association leaders and it was remarked that “numerous large industrial interests, property owners and residents in the affected area have expressed themselves unanimously in favor of the high dam.”
Reagan provided measurements for the edifice, telling the paper that it would be 300 feet high, 247 feet wide, 300 feet thick at the base and 900 feet wide along the top with some 60,000 acre feet of water stored in the reservoir. The paper also recorded that those working and supporting a “major traffic plan” in the Angel City were also very interested in the dam’s prospects because “the building of Riverside drive will not commence until flood control has been provided.” That thoroughfare “is considered one of the five important traffic arteries of Los Angeles,” while the article concluded that the building of the dam “will make development possible of 4200 acres of wash land in San Fernando valley which is now useless for any purpose.”
The 23 October number of the Times mentioned that Supervisor Henry W. Wright spoke at a dinner held by the Verdugo Hills Associated Chambers of Commerce at the Oakmont Country Club in Glendale and it was stated that,
In discussing the movement to put an $8,000,000 bond issue on the ballot, Mr. Wright expressed the opinion that the earliest election at which such a proposition could be voted upon should be in the August primaries in 1926, provided there are not too many other bond issues on that ballot. It would probably be more desirable, he said, to put the proposition off until the following election in November. What is to be avoided, he said, is bringing up such a proposition too close on the heels of the $35,000,000 flood control bonds voted two years ago.
Wright’s advocacy of the necessity for the dam was seconded by Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission Secretary Hugh Pomeroy, who remarked that “unwise activities in connection with the laying out of subdivisions in that general drainage basin made early flood-control measures necessary to protect many homes that have been built.” In fact, this was a key part of Orsi’s essay.
We’ll return soon with part two carrying some of the early history of Big Tujunga Dam forward towards the creation of the featured map, so look for that soon!