by Paul R. Spitzzeri
The push to construct a dam and reservoir in Big Tujunga Canyon, part of an ambitions plan by Los Angeles County and its flood control district developed after intense floods in 1914, basically inaugurated in 1923 and went through challenges with relocations, insufficient funding and a rejection by voters of a second bond issue after $35 million was appropriated for several projects in 1924.
Legislation passed by state solons at Sacramento aimed to allow for additional funding sources beyond that dedicated amount and, as 1927 came to a close, a new issue arose after county officials partnered with the City of Los Angeles and, specifically, William Mulholland, who headed the bureau of water and power supply, to jointly conclude the project.
When it was revealed, however, that the second site was on land given a federal permit (much of the San Gabriel Mountains area around the proposed site was part of the Angeles National Forest) to a private water and power company in the early Teens, it was back to the drawing board (literally, because the map from the Museum’s collection featured for this post was done under Mulholland’s supervision) to chose a third location.
Yet, in early 1928, there were still hopes of working out an arrangement with the private firm, as reported by the Van Nuys News of 7 February, when it told readers,
Actual work on the proposed Big Tujunga Canyon flood control dam may be started in three months, it became known today, with the city and county of Los Angeles cooperating in the financing of the project.
Agreement has virtually been reached between the city and county and between the governmental agencies and private interests involved in the matter of rights-of-way and water rights in Tujunga Canyon, it is understood, and details of the plan under which the dam will be erected are now being worked out.
If the Tujunga dam can be built at this time, virtually all major flood control problems of San Fernando Valley will be solved with but little difficulty.
After explaining that a cut would be created in Van Nuys to divert waters to better distribute water from Pacoima Creek to Tujunga Creek, the paper added that “the Tujunga project is also vital to North Hollywood, Universal City and portions of Los Angeles which are adjacent to the Los Angeles River into which the Tujunga flows.”
An agreement would mean that the second biggest flood control project in the county, though dwarfed by the San Gabriel Canyon Dam pegged at a cost of $25 million, several times higher, would be funded by $1.6 million from the 1924 appropriation and “augmented by Los Angeles city water department funds.” The municipality then would “use the reservoir for water storage purposes” while it held the water right for most of the canyon.
It was added, though, that, if the project was carried out solely by the county, its flood control department would control impounded water. Moreover, its policy was not to keep water in a reservoir for long periods “but simply to regulate its flow during peak flood periods, releasing the impounded water as soon after the rains as possible.” Lastly, it was stated that the private company negotiating over property and water rights was the Hansen Heights Land & Water Company, whereas previously it was identified as Tujunga Water and Power Company, so a transfer likely took place.
Three days later, the News ran a banner headline of “Change Location of Big Tujunga Dam Site” as county flood control engineer Eugene C. Eaton announced that “selection of a new site for the city and county flood control and water conservation dam in Big Tujunga Canyon, which will afford a maximum storage capacity of 55,000 acre feet as compared with 14,000 acre feet at the old site.” The new spot was two miles further in the canyon and, naturally, solved the problem of the Hansen Heights firm’s ownership of land, as “no private rights are involved” with the new site, while it was added that the location “has an exceptionally fine solid rock foundation.”
Another advantage was that the dam would be 250 feet high, instead of 140, and be closer to that of Pacoima, which was approaching completion and was 385 feet, making it “the highest water wall in the world.” Pacoima, however, only had a water storage capacity of 12,000 acre feet. The News continued that the city water department “is in full accord with plans as now outlined” and that it would “participate in a financial way” with the larger and costlier dam. Eaton concluded that several designs were under review and an actual cost would obviously be determined after selection of one of those.
A little over a couple of months later, however, a broader problem arose with respect to the management of many millions of dollars earmarked under county stewardship through the flood control district. The Los Angeles Record of 19 April reported,
With an investigation of all county flood control dams, whether built, in process of construction or proposed, under way, the flood control district’s board of consulting engineers was expected today to decide shortly the fate of the Pacoima and Big Dalton dams.
The board included former district chief engineer James W. Reagan, who stepped down from that position a year prior and he and his fellow members “asked for additional help to assist them in their probe,” though the paper remarked that “skeptics . . . were inclined to doubt whether the consulting board, of which Reagan, father of the county’s $35,000,000 ‘political’ flood control program, is a member, will deal harshly with his child.”
Notably, a signal question at this point concerned whether to lower the height (and, therefore, the water storage capacity) of the Pacoima Dam because of concerns that “a wing of the structure [was] over a ridge of apparently untrustworthy foundation material.” This issue was foremost in people’s minds because of the terrible recent failure of the St. Francis Dam, not far to the north, in which hundreds of persons were killed and which brought the end of Mulholland’s long and previously illustrious career. It was added, though, that “the base of the Pacoima dam is imbedded in impervious and hard rock,” while this was found to be the case at Big Dalton above Glendora at the eastern end of the San Gabriel Valley.
Supervisor Sidney T. Graves was adamant that the other consulting engineers should “‘stand on their own feet’ and will not be domineered by Reagan, but those who know the latter’s ‘political power’ were not so sure.” Graves’ colleague, Jack Bean, was blunt in asserting that “Regan [sic] saddled an outrage on the people in his $35,000,000 bond issue” and added that he “fought submission of that bond issue to the people because it was not based on careful study. The proposed sites were not carefully examined.” He also expressed satisfaction that his dissent was being mirrored by other supervisors with respect to ” a real investigation of all the projects before any more dams are built.”
In all, 14 projects were involved, including Big Tujunga, of which the estimated cost was cited as $8 million, substantially higher than the most recent version, though closer to Reagan’s original estimate and the Record remarked that “there is only $1,000,000 left available for the project in bond issue funds.” It was not known when a new report would be ready, while one of the consultants lived in Oregon “and has to make special trips to Los Angeles to participate in the investigation,” while piecemeal reporting was though to be likely “as they complete portions of their work.”
The 4 May edition of the Record informed its readers that,
Partly to provide water storage which the city of Los Angeles lost when the St. Francis dam went out, the board of supervisors is considering the construction of a big dam in the Big Tujunga wash.
Eaton told the paper that the new site “would provide vast storage at the low cost of $70 an acre foot” with the current thinking that there would be “two or three dams with the big storage dam farthest up the wash.” Supervisor Bean, clearly satisfied with the latest development, offered that “he would favor levying the necessary tax to provide additional funds” and remarked that “the city of Los Angeles is badly in need of storage since the failure of the St. Francis dam and the Big Tujunga would provide it.”
He added that “since the people of this city, who are paying the major part of the cost of the county dams, would benefit from this dam I am in favor of providing the money through taxation” though he was against using this source for any other project covered by the 1924 appropriation. The board of supervisors also assured the public that “if the Big Tujunga dam is built . . . it would not be until the best engineers in the country had passed on the project and approved it—as safe.”
It was early 1929 before the next major news came with the Hollywood Citizen-News briefly observing that Eaton announced that “plans for comprehensive flood control in San Fernando Valley are now 90 per cent finished “following the completion of plans for diverting water from the east wash of the Big Tujunga . . . to the west wash as soon as the Big Tujunga dam is finished.”
$200,000 was to be used for work similar to what was done with the Los Angeles River in terms of shoring up the walls of the watercourse “as an important step to eliminating the east wash, which will be improved as a city park if a bond issue, soon to be voted upon, is successful.” It is not known if the park, to include sports fields and playgrounds, went beyond concept or design stages.
The 23 April number of the News published Eaton’s next announcement that “the first dam to be built in Big Tujunga Canyon by the County Flood Control department will be located on what is known as ‘the upper site,’ about one-half mile from Hansen Lodge” and that “it is expected that work on the project will start by June 1.”
The dam was to be 600 feet in length at the crest, 60 at the base and 200 feet high, a reduction from what was previously stated, and the cost was pegged at $1 million, “which is available in flood control funds,” though three other dams were planned for the future and involving $5 million in expenditures. It was concluded that “work is not to start until a permit is obtained from the Federal forestry department and all plans are approved by the state engineering department.”
The Los Angeles Times of 6 June reported that,
Scientific approval of the first of four dam sites in the Big Tujunga Canyon was contained in Prof. F.L. Ransome’s report to the Board of Supervisors yesterday, and E.C. Eaton, country flood control engineer, expressed satisfaction that work on construction plans can proceed uninterruptedly.
In its edition of 20 September, the News observed that “all details concerning plans and specifications . . . are being rushed to completion today” for presentation to the supervisors, after which it was anticipated that bids could be advertised. Because approvals were obtained by the flood control district engineers, as well as those from the state and the United States Forestry Service, “the matter of approval by the Board of Supervisors is expected to be but a formality.”
Not quite a month later, on 15 October, the Times provided the news that the project was to cost $200,000 less than engineer estimates because the low bid from Edwards, Wildey & Dixon was under $720,000, while three others ranged from $736,000 to $757,000. The report added that “the dam will be of the varying radius arch type, will be 250 feet high, and impound 7500 acre feet of water . . . a great quantity of water conserved for pumping from underground basins” and comparisons to earlier proposals are notable in this regard.
There was another small delay, as the News of the 22nd observed that “despite the fact that a low bid for the construction . . . was offered . . . the supervisors Monday did not let the contract” to Edwards, Dixon and Wildey. This was because Supervisor Graves called for the withholding of a decision “until a report could be received from Chief Engineer E.C. Eaton of the County Flood Control District as to the foundation conditions of the dam.” Obviously, the specter of the St. Francis Dam disaster loomed largely over the final approvals.
Six days later came Black Monday and the onset of the crash of the stock market that ushered in the Great Depression. Following Graves’ motion, further analysis was conducted for the dam location and the Times, in its 26 November issue, reported that the “site . . . is perfectly safe, according to the report of two geologists, Robert T. Hill and Allen Sedgwick,” whose work followed that of Professor F.L. Ranson during the summer.
The paper added that there would still be a million dollars spent because of “cement and other materials to be furnished on separate contract by the county,” while construction materials were to be taken through the property of Dr. Homer Hansen,” who camped in Big Tujunga Canyon as a teenager, returned to file a homestead claim of not far under 100 acres where he established a ranch (with the floods of 1926 and 1938 doing enormous damage.) Hansen also developed the Hansen Heights tract noted above, in what is now Shadow Hills and is the namesake of the dam in the area.
At the dawn of 1930, after another short delay because of the state engineer wanting further, though minor, changes, word came from Sacramento that those adjustments were acceptable and, as noted by the News of 7 January, “the next step will be the procuring of the right of way through the Hanson [sic] mountain resort property for a road over which materials may be hauled to the dam site.”
A week later, the paper reported the awarding of the construction contract to Edwards, Wildey and Dixon, while it was added that the board of supervisors “authorized the purchase of the Hansen ranch property, the location of the dam site, for $85,000.” The contractors anticipated work would begin in about ten days and it was added that, while Dr. Hansen offered a right-of-way through his ranch for $15,000, Supervisor Henry W. Wright recommended that, given three more dams were to be built in the future, the county might as well buy the whole property, especially if values were to increase on the 93-acre ranch (the Depression, however, countered that supposition!), which was to be submerged under the reservoir of a future dam.
The Los Angeles Illustrated Daily News of 26 February briefly remarked that,
The first shovelful of dirt was turned by Supervisor Wright yesterday, marking the beginning of construction on the Hansen [sic—the actual Hansen Dam downstream was completed in 1940 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which assumed responsibility for regional flood control projects from the county] flood control dam on the Big Tujunga river [creek]. Officials and chamber of commerce members from the communities affected by the project were on hand to witness the ceremony.
On 26 May 1931, Big Tujunga Dam was dedicated following inspection of county engineers and officials and, when Hansen Dam was finished not quite a decade later, the former became less important for flood control, though it played an important part in protecting downstream areas from the massive 1938 floods, while its impoundment of water obviously has been a benefit to the City of Los Angeles. Moreover, Hansen’s completion obviated the need for the other three proposed dams within the canyon.
In recent decades, concerns about its stability in the event of a major earthquake (a “Big One” has not taken place in our region since 1857, so we are overdue for one), so the water level in the reservoir was reduced significantly. In 2008, a major renovation including thickening the dam arch with more concrete, the spillway widened and a new one built and a valve installed to release some water for habitat conservation.
This map represents an interesting early component to the Big Tujunga Dam project specifically and to the widespread, though rocky, efforts at flood control efforts in Los Angeles County broadly and we are glad to have it in our collection to help interpret this vital aspect of our region’s history.