by Paul R. Spitzzeri
The effort to build a dam in Big Tujunga Canyon, with the creek of that name historically providing significant flow to the Los Angeles River but also delivering major floodwaters when heavy storms hit the steep, granitic San Gabriel Mountains, continued to accelerate into the wet winter of 1926, with Los Angeles City Council member Charles H. Randall was paraphrased in the Los Angeles Illustrated Daily News of 16 February as arguing,
The need for a flood-control dam in Big Tujunga Canyon was emphasized by storm damage in the San Fernando Valley . . . Such a dam would have held back the waters, which swept down the Tujunga wash last Saturday, washing out the Southern Pacific and San Fernando road bridges.
Another issue, though, was excavation of sand and gravel for construction purposes, as “below the bridges there was a hole more than 100 feet deep” that filled with floodwater and then its sides eroded which weakened the bridge supports. At the end of March, reported the Los Angeles Times of the 30th, Los Angeles County Supervisor Henry W. Wright at a regular meeting of the governing body asked that flood control district Chief Engineer James W. Reagan provide “an estimate of what it will cost to complete the county’s full flood control program.”
Specifically, it was noted, “the big item that will come under the new estimate is said to be one for $7,000,000 or more for the Big Tujunga dam and reservoir.” Moreover, the piece went on, because of San Fernando Valley lobbying, relocation further into the canyon and significantly expanding the size of the dam meant that the original estimate of $1.6 million was thought to grow to from $8.5 to $9 million.
An early April advertisement in the Van Nuys News of 9 April by the Greater San Fernando Valley Association under the heading of “FLOOD CONTROL” and “Water Conservation” informed residents that among its ten achievements of the past year, after having successfully lobbied for a state law that allowed the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to seek more voter-approved bond funding for flood control projects beyond the 1924 appropriation mention in part one, was that it “secured assurance of permanent flood control of [the] Los Angeles River and [the] construction of Tujunga Dam and water run-off channels.” For the upcoming year, goal #1 was “a high dam for Big Tujunga Canyon” among other flood control work.
A letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Record by W.J. Farrow, however, expressed dissatisfaction with the situation as it was noted that there was the 1924 appropriation and Farrow continued that “this dam is certainly greatly needed,” although “nothing has been done so far on building it except a little surveying.” This led the correspondent to add,
It is probable that this money already appropriated has been squandered by the supervisors. Where you find a bunch of men like the supervisors all agreed so well on all transactions, without opposition or dissensions, it looks as if the wheels were pretty well oiled.
I say put the whole bunch out of office and have the legislature pass a law allowing only a two-year term of office. Then vote in a new bunch. The chance to graft would be lessened.
In September, ahead of a county election a couple of months later, the News, in its edition of the 10th, informed readers that the supervisors agreed to place a $12 million bond issue, some $6 million less than prior estimates, on the ballot and it was added that representatives of 17 Valley cities and communities endorsed the idea.
Notably, it was remarked that “special engineers recently engaged in a flood control survey of the valley propose reducing the Big Tujunga Dam project from 400 to 240 feet [high], which they say will be sufficient to impound 30,000 acre feet of water,” while the smaller dam was enough to handle flood waters in the canyon. Reagan pegged the revised cost at $7.5 million saying “that work would be started as soon as funds were available.”
In its number of the 21st, the Times remarked upon “an exhaustive report” from Reagan to the supervisors, outlining 21 flood control and water conservation projects totaling over $21 million, and the paper observed that,
The most expensive project, and one in which public interest will probably be paramount, is the construction of a dam and reservoir in Big Tujunga Canyon at an estimated cost of $7,693,500.
[The earlier, much cheaper dam was briefly discussed] This idea was later discarded after long consideration and it has been deemed wiser by Reagan and his associates to build a larger dam and reservoir higher up in the canyon. It will be possible to cancel the original bond item of $1,600,000, leaving the approximate cost of the new project [as] $6,000,000.
The Times of the last day of the month reported that the supervisors had a ballot measure for some $27 million in flood control bonds to fund two dozen projects, with Supervisor Prescott F. Cogswell stating that “flood control and conservation of water is a problem which has long faced Los Angeles county” and, with $25 million of the $35 million from 1924 earmarked for the massive San Gabriel Canyon dam project, a successful vote on 2 November would be one “which benefits, more directly, other portions of the county . . . but it affects, as well, the prosperity of the entire county.”
Cogswell concluded that, “flood losses have, in the past, mounted into many more millions than the cost of controlling them.” Chair Reuben F. McClellan added that water was a core issue for the county and was quoted as stating that “when we can combine conservation . . . with the control of floods, its economic value can readily be seen.”
As the election neared, the Times of 24 October devoted some space to the Big Tujunga project, commenting that “its size and capacity of the resevoir [sic] are left undetermined until due consideration has been given the opinion of William Mulholland, chief engineer of the Los Angeles City Water Department.” Moreover, it was remarked that “there are several sites available . . . the estimate . . . being based upon [that location] which now seems the most favorable.”
In an attempt to demonstrate that there was widespread support for the bond issue, the Times of the following day cited reports to be given at a meeting of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce that “indicate that Los Angeles county will adopt” the measure, while it was noted that city and county civic groups were lining up behind it. Leo Lesperance of Van Nuys added that “Los Angeles city receives the greater benefit . . . [and] will receive the 30,000 acre feet of water which can be impounded in the Big Tujunga dam.”
On the last day of October, the paper, citing the fact that the projects to be funded by the new bond issue “will afford all parts of the county adequate protection from the menace of flood waters,” informed readers that “the Times recommends a ‘Yes’ vote on this bond issue to carry to a successful conclusion the great and necessary flood-control program to which we are committed.”
Yet, when the matter came before the voters a few days later, with almost 335,000 persons casting their ballots, the flood control bond measure failed with 53% voting against it. The Illustrated Daily News of 19 November reported on a new tack taken by local leaders:
Proposed construction of a joint city and county dam in the Big Tujunga canyon will be discussed this week by representatives of the city and county flood control organizations . . . The type of dam contemplated would cost approximately $10,000,000, of which the [county] flood control district would supply $8,000,000 and the city $2,000,000. Canyon water rights are owned by the city. County supervisors are anxious that the flow be impounded as a flood prevention measure.
Four days prior to the article and after Reagan’s 28 March resignation, the survey for the featured map for this post was undertaken by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power under the supervision of the Bureau of Water Works and Supply and its Chief Engineer Mulholland. That work continued until the 1st of March 1927, which was just days after another series of devastating floods hit the region.
In its edition of 8 April, the News published a short piece in which it was stated that “negotiations for the construction of a dam in the Big Tujunga Canyon by William Mulholland, chief engineer of the Los Angeles water department, have been opened by San Fernando Valley interests in conferences with the board of supervisors.”
The article continued that the idea was floated by “Van Nuys and Lankershim [North Hollywood, ] men” and that the concept envisioned that “the dam be financed with funds available from other bond issues and be completed with appropriations from official funds of the city and county.” Lastly, it was observed that,
According to Chief Engineer Mulholland, the proposed $8,000,000 dam in Big Tujunga Canyon is larger than is needed to cope with the excess storm waters. He has suggested that a dam of 30,000 acre feet storage will be large enough to control the situation, and according to his estimates, such a structure can be built for less than $3,000,000. The dam will also be used during the summer as a storage basin, if the present plans mature.
The Pasadena Post of 31 May cited an Associated Press report that “early construction of the Big Tujunga dam of the Los Angeles river to control floods which last February wreaked havoc on the San Fernando valley, has been made possible by the recent signing of a flood control bill by Governor (Clement C.) Young.”
The Crown City paper’s account added that “the bill provides that the county flood control officials may cooperate with city officials in the raising of joint funds for the building of the dam, estimated to cost $4,000,000. It was concluded that the undertaking by both entities was previously impossible because of existing conditions “which held up the project because the dam site lies in the limits of Los Angeles city.” This is not, however, the case with the existing dam.
The News of 5 August brought up a new wrinkle in the dam plans as it recorded that,
Construction of the Big Tujunga flood control dam will be held up until the flood control district has negotiated for certain water rights in the canyon . . .
Arrangements had practically been completed whereby the city water department would stand a portion of the cost and early launching of the project seemed assured when word was received from Washington [D.C.] that prior rights had been granted to the Tujunga Water & Power Co. in a part of the canyon.
Nothing, of course, could be undertaken until rights were obtained and it was thought that condemnation (eminent domain) of the land in question was necessary. It was reiterated that $1.6 million from the 1924 appropriation was dedicated to the project, while the Angel City committed to contributing to what was stated here to be a $3 million effort.
In its coverage two days later, the Times commented that the federally-issued permit meant a temporary halt to work that was “destined to protect Lankershim, Van Nuys and other portions of the San Fernando Valley from floods.” The paper added that the Tujunga Water and Power claim, dating back 15 years, only came up because of an engineering report from contractor Peter R. Gadd and that this came just after a formal application from the county for the reservoir site.
The paper continued that “between $50,000 and $100,000 was at one time said to be expended upon the reservoir, but in recent years few improvements are reported to have been made.” County lawyers were in talks with Tujunga Water and Power “to straighten out the tangle” and “it is expected the present difficulty will not prove a serious stumbling block though it probably will entail a delay in the construction plans.”
With respect to the state law passed in the previous legislative session, the Times remarked that “the structure . . . will be the first financed jointly by the county flood control commission and the city,” and that previously the former could only work with the federal government on such projects. The article then ended with,
This action was made necessary by a defeat last fall of a bond issue which was relied upon to supply the necessary funds. At the time, the county had only about $1,600,000 appropriated for the construction of the project. Plans for the raising of the remainder of the amount required are said to have been worked out at a series of conferences held between [county] flood control officials and municipal water and power commissioners under the authority provided by the newly enacted measure.
The question of prior rights to the site led to yet another move of the dam and reservoir and it would be another four years in the tangled history of the project, so we’ll return with a concluding third part, carrying the story of the Big Tujunga effort through the remainder of the Roaring Twenties and into the early Great Depression years. Check back for that!