**4. Comparing policy history – The evolution of regional dominion**

While Los Angeles and New York developed along different trajectories, especially early on (i.e., New York grew at a faster rate much earlier), in regards to water supply they followed two strikingly comparable patterns of development. First, both sought to fully exploit

(Westchester County Department of Planning, 2009). Later, sewage plant outfalls and nonpoint pollution around these same reservoirs released contaminants into the city's water supply which generated further, less popular land acquisition measures to avert pollution through eminent domain and condemnation suits - a strategy that continued through the early 1990s (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2010a, 2010b).

Finally, although these cities have very different hydrological features, New York and Los Angeles share *two* remarkably similar water problems. First, both cities have experienced an outracing of available supply as a result of locally-generated demands. Second, while the former is located in a wet and humid region, while the other is dry and semi-arid, both cities have needed to look outside their political boundaries for additional supply. They have also employed similar strategies to acquire water and land rights to ensure control over the watersheds from whence their water comes. By their wide range of conditions, we might suggest that these cities bound the impacts faced by most of the world's large urban centers. That both cities share these problems in common underscores an important point about water stress: the traditional distinction between arid and semiarid regions on the one hand and more humid areas on the other, as a means of maintaining that arid regions' water problems mostly revolved around inadequate water quantity while humid areas' problems are water quality related, is not a valid claim. Water scarcity can occur in any *urbanized* 

Los Angeles is located in a flat, triangular-shaped semi-arid basin bounded on its north and east by mountains and on the west by the Pacific. Its Mediterranean climate experiences some 39.54 cm (15.58") of average annual precipitation, all in the form of rain, which is collected by two major streams that rise in the San Gabriel portion of the Transverse Range dividing Southern from central California - the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers. The Los Angeles River was the city's major source of water for nearly a century, providing drinking water and serving as the irrigation source for local vineyards and orange groves - both through an elaborate system of ditches and channels called *zanjas* (Gumprecht, 2001: 3; Los

New York City, by contrast is located on the Atlantic Coastal Plain in a slender portion of land bounded by the outfall of the Hudson and East Rivers, and referred to as the Atlantic slope drainage. The humid continental climate, fed by the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic weather systems, produces some 127 cm (50") of precipitation per year, some 63.5 - 76.2 cm (25 - 30") of which falls as snow. In its initial period of settlement, local water supplies were provided through ponds, streams, and springs located on the island of Manhattan (American Museum of Natural History, 2011; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2010b). These hydrological differences help explain how both cities initially managed water supply, while their phenomenal demographic growth helps us understand the remarkably similar path both took in seeking hegemony over regional supplies. Table 1

depicts major features of the water supply systems of New York and Los Angeles.

While Los Angeles and New York developed along different trajectories, especially early on (i.e., New York grew at a faster rate much earlier), in regards to water supply they followed two strikingly comparable patterns of development. First, both sought to fully exploit

**4. Comparing policy history – The evolution of regional dominion** 

region if demands cannot be attenuated (Feldman, 2009).

Angeles Department of Water and Power, 2010b).

locally-available resources through collective effort. Second, when these sources proved insufficient to support further growth, they acquired more distant sources. Acquisition of these sources was predicated on concerns with water security, safety, and plentifulness.


\*In recent years, the LA Aqueduct from Owens Valley has supplied upwards of 35% of the city's water supply. However, mandated restoration of Mono and Owens Lakes has resulted in a reduction of supply of approximately half that annual delivery.

1 New York charges a flat water rate while Los Angeles has a "tiered" or increasing block rate system wherein customers are charged a lower "base" if they stay within a designated conservation allotment. If they exceed that allotment (typically 79,287 liters or 2800 cubic feet/month), they are charged at the higher rate (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (2009b).

Table 1. Water Supply Systems of Los Angeles and New York City

In the event, there is one major way their quest for regional dominion *differed*: Los Angeles sought external sources of supply mostly because its regional access to water was always precarious. After its first full century of settlement (c. 1880) the city suddenly aspired to grow, but found that its semi- arid region simply had few ground or surface water supplies available nearby. By contrast, New York was impelled toward the Croton Watershed in Westchester County, some 64.4 km (40 miles) to its north, by the poor quality and inadequate volume of its local supplies. A cholera epidemic in 1832, caused in part by degraded water quality and poor waste disposal, drove efforts to build a Croton Aqueduct. Declining well levels, which made fire fighting capacity inadequate, was also a factor (Koeppel, 2000: 6). Each city's respective quest for regional dominion reveals these intricate patterns.
