**4.3 Public works and urban triumphalism – The aqueduct age in both cities**

After weighing various alternatives for additional water supply Los Angeles and New York expropriated distant sources. The contentious history of Los Angeles' efforts to acquire the Owens Valley, in contrast to those of New York in its Croton and Catskill watersheds, has been well documented (Walton, 1992; Davis, 1993; Mulholland, 2002). In a later section we will discuss why reactions differed. At this juncture, the important point is that neither city pursued much consultation with regional decision-makers in undertaking these efforts.

After exploring various options for increasing supply to keep up with growing demands, New York officials sought to impound water from the Croton River, in today's Westchester

Cities and Water – Dilemmas of Collaboration in Los Angeles and New York City 327

Apportionment for the development of the upper portion of the Rondout watershed and tributaries of the Delaware within New York State. This project was approved in 1928. Work was subsequently delayed by an action brought by the State of New Jersey in the U.S. Supreme Court to enjoin the City and State of New York from using the waters of any Delaware River tributary (New York City, 2011). This case underscores the regional

In May 1931 the Supreme Court upheld the City's right to augment its water supply from the Delaware's headwaters. However, a second Supreme Court ruling, in 1954, was required to adjudicate riparian allocation of the Delaware between New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (Derthick, 1974: 48, 54). Construction of the Delaware System was begun in March 1937 and entered service in stages: the Delaware Aqueduct was completed in 1944, Rondout Reservoir in 1950, Neversink Reservoir in 1954, Pepacton Reservoir in 1955 and Cannonsville Reservoir in 1964. Figure 1 depicts the current New York water supply system. Los Angeles took much longer, but followed a similar path in its efforts to build a major supply conduit from the Owens Valley. As the city's population rapidly grew after 1880, it became apparent that the Los Angeles River was simply was not large enough to support the city's transformation into a large metropolis. Its population doubled during the 1890s, from 50,000 to 100,000, and more than doubled again within five years (to over 250,000), all but depleting local groundwater. Moreover, the city's incorporated area doubled between 1890 and 1900 as many basin communities embraced annexation to ensure water supply.

Fred Eaton, one-time city engineer during the 1890s, mayor from 1899-1901, and superintendent of Los Angeles' municipal water system conceived of an Owens River aqueduct in the early 1900s (Davis, 1993: 5-9). Initial challenges proved to be fiscal, not logistical. The city - which had long sought to rationalize management and maintenance of the zanjas system – succeeded, under Eaton, in persuading voters to acquire public ownership of the vast, fragmented, and poorly maintained private network of water providers in 1902. Following consolidation of legal control over water in its immediate

After an unusually harsh drought in the summer of 1904, William Mulholland – a protégé of Eaton and now city engineer – asked his mentor to "show me this water supply" in the Owens Valley about which Eaton had often spoke. Following an intrepid journey both took through the region, which included a preliminary survey of an aqueduct route, events moved quickly. In September 1905, voters approved by a 10-1 margin a \$1.5 million project to acquire right-of-way, and to build an aqueduct that would stretch from north of Independence some 376 km (234 miles) southeast to the San Fernando Valley – a recently

At precisely the moment political forces in Los Angeles maneuvered to acquire Owens Valley water rights, the newly-formed U.S. Reclamation Service drafted a plan to irrigate the Owens Valley by constructing one or more dams in the vicinity of Long Valley. As a federal agency mandated to promote irrigation, the Service was inclined to support the people of the valley against those of a large city seeking to augment its water supply. However, the Reclamation Service's southwestern regional chief, Joseph P. Lippincott served (secretly) as a paid consultant to Los Angeles – abetting the city's plans, since Lippincott advocated for the city's interests in Washington, DC, not those of the Owens Valley. Lippincott also helped

animosity brought about by the City's effort to seek water hegemony.

vicinity, the Owens Valley project was pursued.

incorporated area of the city.

County, and to build an aqueduct to carry water from what became known as the "Old" Croton Reservoir to the City. In contrast to Los Angeles, the urgency of an aqueduct was not as readily apparent to many local residents, and initial political support was far from unanimous. According to one writer, a major fire in 1835 which consumed a sizeable portion of what is now lower Manhattan, convinced many wavering citizens of the need for an aqueduct (Koeppel, 2001). Moreover, even after the aqueduct was completed – in 1842 – not all city water users chose to connect themselves to the system, preferring to rely upon less reliable, but still cheaper, local supplies from wells and cisterns (Koeppel, 2000).

New York city's original aqueduct, known today as the *Old Croton Aqueduct*, had an initial capacity of about 90 million gallons per day and was placed into service in 1842. Distribution reservoirs were first located in Manhattan at 42nd Street (discontinued in 1890 at the site where the present-day New York Public Library is located) and in Central Park, south of 86th Street (discontinued in 1925). Newer reservoirs were subsequently constructed to increase supply: Boyds Corner in 1873 and Middle Branch in 1878 (New York City, 2011).

In 1883, as the city's continued growth and commercialization taxed this supply source, a commission was formed to build a *second* aqueduct from the Croton watershed together with additional storage reservoirs. This conduit, known as the *New Croton Aqueduct*, was built between 1885-1893 and first placed in service in 1890, while still under construction. One of the biggest land use issues was the need to acquire land and right-of-way for the New Croton Dam and Aqueduct System – an effort begun in 1880 when seven thousand acres were acquired to harness the Croton River's three branches, while a twenty square mile area was needed by the city on which to build the New Croton Dam. Twenty-one dwellings and barns, one and a half dozen stores, churches, schools, grist mills, flour mills, saw mills, four towns, and over four hundred farms were condemned and taken over to build the dam – and some 1500 bodies were removed from six cemeteries and relocated along with their stones and fences. One local historical account states that "protests, lawsuits and some confusion preceded payment of claims" (Village of Croton, 2010).

At the same time, the present municipal system was consolidated from the various water systems in the communities now consisting of the Boroughs of Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. An important parallel with Los Angeles, here, is how water system consolidation became an important first step toward *municipal* annexation. For Los Angeles, completion of the first Owens Valley Aqueduct in 1913 leveraged the city's ability to force smaller communities coveting water (e.g., Hollywood) to accede to annexation as a condition for becoming connected to the distribution system.

A third phase development occurred after the turn of the century. In 1905, a Board of Water Supply established by the New York State Legislature cooperated with the city in developing the Catskill region as an additional water source – with the former planning and constructing facilities to impound Esopus Creek, and to deliver the water to the city via the Ashokan Reservoir and Catskill Aqueduct. This project was completed in 1915. It was subsequently turned over to the City's Department of Water Supply, Gas and Electricity for operation and maintenance. The remaining development of the Catskill System, involving the construction of the Schoharie Reservoir and Shandaken Tunnel, was completed in 1928.

A fourth and final effort to acquire water was the effort to allocate the Delaware River. In 1927 the Board of Water Supply submitted a plan to the state Board of Estimate and

County, and to build an aqueduct to carry water from what became known as the "Old" Croton Reservoir to the City. In contrast to Los Angeles, the urgency of an aqueduct was not as readily apparent to many local residents, and initial political support was far from unanimous. According to one writer, a major fire in 1835 which consumed a sizeable portion of what is now lower Manhattan, convinced many wavering citizens of the need for an aqueduct (Koeppel, 2001). Moreover, even after the aqueduct was completed – in 1842 – not all city water users chose to connect themselves to the system, preferring to rely upon less

New York city's original aqueduct, known today as the *Old Croton Aqueduct*, had an initial capacity of about 90 million gallons per day and was placed into service in 1842. Distribution reservoirs were first located in Manhattan at 42nd Street (discontinued in 1890 at the site where the present-day New York Public Library is located) and in Central Park, south of 86th Street (discontinued in 1925). Newer reservoirs were subsequently constructed to increase supply: Boyds Corner in 1873 and Middle Branch in 1878 (New York City, 2011). In 1883, as the city's continued growth and commercialization taxed this supply source, a commission was formed to build a *second* aqueduct from the Croton watershed together with additional storage reservoirs. This conduit, known as the *New Croton Aqueduct*, was built between 1885-1893 and first placed in service in 1890, while still under construction. One of the biggest land use issues was the need to acquire land and right-of-way for the New Croton Dam and Aqueduct System – an effort begun in 1880 when seven thousand acres were acquired to harness the Croton River's three branches, while a twenty square mile area was needed by the city on which to build the New Croton Dam. Twenty-one dwellings and barns, one and a half dozen stores, churches, schools, grist mills, flour mills, saw mills, four towns, and over four hundred farms were condemned and taken over to build the dam – and some 1500 bodies were removed from six cemeteries and relocated along with their stones and fences. One local historical account states that "protests, lawsuits

reliable, but still cheaper, local supplies from wells and cisterns (Koeppel, 2000).

and some confusion preceded payment of claims" (Village of Croton, 2010).

annexation as a condition for becoming connected to the distribution system.

At the same time, the present municipal system was consolidated from the various water systems in the communities now consisting of the Boroughs of Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. An important parallel with Los Angeles, here, is how water system consolidation became an important first step toward *municipal* annexation. For Los Angeles, completion of the first Owens Valley Aqueduct in 1913 leveraged the city's ability to force smaller communities coveting water (e.g., Hollywood) to accede to

A third phase development occurred after the turn of the century. In 1905, a Board of Water Supply established by the New York State Legislature cooperated with the city in developing the Catskill region as an additional water source – with the former planning and constructing facilities to impound Esopus Creek, and to deliver the water to the city via the Ashokan Reservoir and Catskill Aqueduct. This project was completed in 1915. It was subsequently turned over to the City's Department of Water Supply, Gas and Electricity for operation and maintenance. The remaining development of the Catskill System, involving the construction of the Schoharie Reservoir and Shandaken Tunnel, was completed in 1928. A fourth and final effort to acquire water was the effort to allocate the Delaware River. In 1927 the Board of Water Supply submitted a plan to the state Board of Estimate and Apportionment for the development of the upper portion of the Rondout watershed and tributaries of the Delaware within New York State. This project was approved in 1928. Work was subsequently delayed by an action brought by the State of New Jersey in the U.S. Supreme Court to enjoin the City and State of New York from using the waters of any Delaware River tributary (New York City, 2011). This case underscores the regional animosity brought about by the City's effort to seek water hegemony.

In May 1931 the Supreme Court upheld the City's right to augment its water supply from the Delaware's headwaters. However, a second Supreme Court ruling, in 1954, was required to adjudicate riparian allocation of the Delaware between New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (Derthick, 1974: 48, 54). Construction of the Delaware System was begun in March 1937 and entered service in stages: the Delaware Aqueduct was completed in 1944, Rondout Reservoir in 1950, Neversink Reservoir in 1954, Pepacton Reservoir in 1955 and Cannonsville Reservoir in 1964. Figure 1 depicts the current New York water supply system.

Los Angeles took much longer, but followed a similar path in its efforts to build a major supply conduit from the Owens Valley. As the city's population rapidly grew after 1880, it became apparent that the Los Angeles River was simply was not large enough to support the city's transformation into a large metropolis. Its population doubled during the 1890s, from 50,000 to 100,000, and more than doubled again within five years (to over 250,000), all but depleting local groundwater. Moreover, the city's incorporated area doubled between 1890 and 1900 as many basin communities embraced annexation to ensure water supply.

Fred Eaton, one-time city engineer during the 1890s, mayor from 1899-1901, and superintendent of Los Angeles' municipal water system conceived of an Owens River aqueduct in the early 1900s (Davis, 1993: 5-9). Initial challenges proved to be fiscal, not logistical. The city - which had long sought to rationalize management and maintenance of the zanjas system – succeeded, under Eaton, in persuading voters to acquire public ownership of the vast, fragmented, and poorly maintained private network of water providers in 1902. Following consolidation of legal control over water in its immediate vicinity, the Owens Valley project was pursued.

After an unusually harsh drought in the summer of 1904, William Mulholland – a protégé of Eaton and now city engineer – asked his mentor to "show me this water supply" in the Owens Valley about which Eaton had often spoke. Following an intrepid journey both took through the region, which included a preliminary survey of an aqueduct route, events moved quickly. In September 1905, voters approved by a 10-1 margin a \$1.5 million project to acquire right-of-way, and to build an aqueduct that would stretch from north of Independence some 376 km (234 miles) southeast to the San Fernando Valley – a recently incorporated area of the city.

At precisely the moment political forces in Los Angeles maneuvered to acquire Owens Valley water rights, the newly-formed U.S. Reclamation Service drafted a plan to irrigate the Owens Valley by constructing one or more dams in the vicinity of Long Valley. As a federal agency mandated to promote irrigation, the Service was inclined to support the people of the valley against those of a large city seeking to augment its water supply. However, the Reclamation Service's southwestern regional chief, Joseph P. Lippincott served (secretly) as a paid consultant to Los Angeles – abetting the city's plans, since Lippincott advocated for the city's interests in Washington, DC, not those of the Owens Valley. Lippincott also helped

Cities and Water – Dilemmas of Collaboration in Los Angeles and New York City 329

was effectuated in June 1906; while in 1907, Los Angeles voters approved a second bond measure authorizing \$23 million for aqueduct construction. Construction began in 1908 and

Like New York City, the Owens Valley was one phase in the city's water supply expansion. By the early 1920s, the Board of Public Service commissioners (the overseers of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power or LADWP), became aware that the city would exceed the Owens Valley's supply by 1940 (thus, a second aqueduct was built in the Owens Valley all the way to Mono Lake - a project approved by voters in 1930 and completed in

A third phase was symbolized by the efforts of Mulholland to acquire water from the Colorado River. A four-year series of surveys began in 1923 to find an alignment that would bring the water of the Colorado River to Los Angeles. In 1925 the Department of Water and Power (LADWP) was established, and the voters of Los Angeles approved a \$2 million bond issue to perform the engineering for the Colorado River Aqueduct. While the sixcooperating states of the basin sought a means to allocate the Colorado's flow - an effort that began with the 1922 Colorado River Compact and required Congressional passage of the Boulder Canyon Dam Act in 1928 - Los Angeles proactively sought to move events forward. Needing allies in Washington, and help from neighboring Southern California cities who also coveted this water, in 1928 the city and LADWP got the state legislature to create the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California or MWD (Fogelman, 1993: 101-3; Erie, 2006). In 1931, voters approved a \$220 million bond issue for construction, and work began on the ten-year 300 mile long project which now supplies 60% of Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego Counties'water. In the 1970s the regional cooperative also began importing water from Northern California via the State Water

Project and the California Aqueduct. Figure 2 depicts Los Angeles' water system.

economic realities brought to the fore by a severe federal regulatory challenge.

second and larger aqueduct worsened the problem – igniting further protest.

Subsequent to completion of their respective aqueduct systems, both cities began to face a series of water-related environmental quality challenges which, unlike the efforts to initially acquire water, required unprecedented levels of regional collaboration to resolve. In Los Angeles' case, this collaboration emerged after a series of litigious actions resulting from adverse ecological and tribal-equity issues. In New York, they came about through harsh

As far back as 1913, the virtual draining of Owens Lake as a result of the opening of the first Los Angeles Aqueduct exposed the alkali lake bed to winds that lofted toxic dust clouds containing selenium, cadmium, arsenic and other elements throughout the region. Airborne particulates were often suspended for days during excessively dry periods – and have long posed a health hazard to local residents. They have even posed risks to communities further to the South. In the 1970s, the siphoning off of additional flows following completion of a

These environmental impacts to Owens Lake - and to other, smaller watersheds within the Owens Basin (e.g., Lee Vining, Walker, and Parker Creeks) - dovetailed with concerns

**4.4 Post-aqueduct policies – Collaboration with external regions** 

the project was completed in November 1913.

1940).

ensure that, while valley lands would be set aside for public purpose, no land rights would be secured: an action that abetted Eaton's efforts to set about buying up options on lands for aqueduct construction (Kahrl, 1982).

Within two years, two other efforts were completed in the city's favor: a successful campaign to obtain Congressional approval of the City's application to build the aqueduct

Fig. 1. New York City's Water Supply System

ensure that, while valley lands would be set aside for public purpose, no land rights would be secured: an action that abetted Eaton's efforts to set about buying up options on lands for

Within two years, two other efforts were completed in the city's favor: a successful campaign to obtain Congressional approval of the City's application to build the aqueduct

aqueduct construction (Kahrl, 1982).

Fig. 1. New York City's Water Supply System

was effectuated in June 1906; while in 1907, Los Angeles voters approved a second bond measure authorizing \$23 million for aqueduct construction. Construction began in 1908 and the project was completed in November 1913.

Like New York City, the Owens Valley was one phase in the city's water supply expansion. By the early 1920s, the Board of Public Service commissioners (the overseers of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power or LADWP), became aware that the city would exceed the Owens Valley's supply by 1940 (thus, a second aqueduct was built in the Owens Valley all the way to Mono Lake - a project approved by voters in 1930 and completed in 1940).

A third phase was symbolized by the efforts of Mulholland to acquire water from the Colorado River. A four-year series of surveys began in 1923 to find an alignment that would bring the water of the Colorado River to Los Angeles. In 1925 the Department of Water and Power (LADWP) was established, and the voters of Los Angeles approved a \$2 million bond issue to perform the engineering for the Colorado River Aqueduct. While the sixcooperating states of the basin sought a means to allocate the Colorado's flow - an effort that began with the 1922 Colorado River Compact and required Congressional passage of the Boulder Canyon Dam Act in 1928 - Los Angeles proactively sought to move events forward.

Needing allies in Washington, and help from neighboring Southern California cities who also coveted this water, in 1928 the city and LADWP got the state legislature to create the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California or MWD (Fogelman, 1993: 101-3; Erie, 2006). In 1931, voters approved a \$220 million bond issue for construction, and work began on the ten-year 300 mile long project which now supplies 60% of Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego Counties'water. In the 1970s the regional cooperative also began importing water from Northern California via the State Water Project and the California Aqueduct. Figure 2 depicts Los Angeles' water system.
