The LA River and its Uncertain Future

Malcolm Parker
USC News & Media Seminar

The same organization responsible for the management of the Los Angeles River made a decision that supporters of the river say will halt its revitalization.

The LA River was deemed on June 5 as being “non-navigable” by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers because of the instability and lack of depth of the rivers water. This decision makes environmental groups like Friends of the Los Angeles River (FoLAR), FarmLab, as well as the city of Los Angeles feel restricted from revitalizing the river. Apart of getting the river recognition as being a “navigable” source is making the river a more traditional and appealing one, legally and physically. And environmentalists say this requires that some concrete be removed not from the river’s banks but its riverbed.

Groups like FoLAR desire to take the concrete out of its riverbed “to revitalize wetlands and create more green open spaces,” said Alicia Katano FoLAR’s educational programs director. Katano believes that, “Increasing our wetland/green space areas will improve our capacity to capture rain water and replenish our aquifers as well as replenish a much needed natural habitat for riparian plants, birds, insects and fish as well as create green open space for people as well.”

If this process is not carefully handled, it poses severe problems for the rivers future and its “navigability”--the river’s flood control capacity could be placed in disarray, engineers fear.

“The impact could be severe in terms of water quality,” LA City Public Works Commissioner Paula Daniels said. “Concrete removal will bring erosion, which produces silt,” she continued.

“Too much silt makes waters murky…less sunlight impacts oxygen levels in the water which will affect aquatic life and plants,” said Katano.

Silt and the LA River have a history too. Much silt contaminated the river when it was utilized as a drinkable water source in 1800s due to railroad construction.

Silt appears to be posing problems for the river’s recreational future too. People still fish at the Long Beach Harbor, although the cleanliness of the fish caught there is unknown. Most of the fish found are carp, indicators of an unhealthy ecosystem ridden with hazardous sediment.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which finds the river an “untraditional, non-navigable water source”, is currently undergoing a study of how much concrete removal is suitable. Corps’ concerns are about the silt wearing away the concrete side channel of the river, not the riverbed.
“We must maintain flood control capacity if concrete removal is to happen,” LA City council member Jill Soural said.

Revitalization and concrete removal from the riverbed may be achievable for environmentalists if they clearly outline their goals to Corps of Engineers. FoLAR’s Katano said that, “the silt that concrete removal would produce would only be a serious problem if we want the river’s water to be a drinkable water source.”

And according to environmentalists, potable water is not the plan at all. “I’m not sure the L.A. River will ever become a direct source for drinkable water for our city. However, the L.A. River could help lessen the amount of potable water we buy to water our lawns, wash our cars, and by providing an alternate source of water for our non-drinking purposes.” she continued.

Environmentalists do not stand alone on this issue; the Mayor of Long Beach, Bob Foster, praises the goals river’s revitalization. The Long Beach Harbor would be one of the places for concrete removal.

“Because the Long Beach Harbor is the mouth of the Los Angeles River, we inherit its flaws, so we are absolutely on board with creating green spaces by any means possible,” said Bob Foster’s Legislative Aid, Taylor Honrath.

“It deserves our best efforts to restore its water quality, habitat and adjacent wetlands. We work closely with other government agencies--notably the City of Los Angeles--business interests and environmental groups such as FoLAR to determine how to restore the river without compromising its ability to keep our communities safe from flooding. Removing portions of the cement lining is a very promising proposal with many environmental benefits and worthy of continued consideration," said Stephen Cain, executive of the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.

“The City is working with the County and the Corps to examine ways that we can upstream water storage and treatment so that in the future, river water will be cleaner and it will be possible to remove concrete from the channel in order to expand its potential for having ecological value as habitat and open space. I do think that concrete removal is a viable option if we are able to provide the necessary upstream water to transfer some of the flood control capacity that currently exists within the River channel now into its upstream watershed,” Carol Armstrong, Ph.D., project manager Los Angeles’s Bureau of Engineering.

The Los Angeles city government just received a $25-million federal authorization that includes money for an ecosystem restoration study of the LA River undertaken by the Corps of Engineers determine the status of the river. Until then, the concrete stays put. As the Los Angeles Times stated, “There are indeed competing notions of restoration. The river is 51 miles long--and lined with as much possibility as concrete."

Urban Runoff In The LA River

The Los Angeles River has long suffered from a major problem: urban runoff. It affects the river every day, and most of us in Los Angeles County contribute to it unwittingly with a variety of items, everything from a dog’s animal feces to car oil, fertilizers, and many other chemicals located in and around the house.

Water flows into the Los Angeles River from over 830 square miles of land, which can include a lot of dogs, cars, and gardens.

Fertilizers enter the Los Angeles River when fertilized plants are watered and the excess fertilizer enters the storm drains and then into the river. Farmers and residential gardens routinely use chemical fertilizers to make their plants look and grow better, but much of this washes off the land and into storm drains, according to the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

While fertilizers provide essential food nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium, they have negative consequences. Fertilizers can release greenhouse gases, especially when combined with water, as happens when they enter the Los Angeles River.

Nitrates and phosphates are common elements that run off from fertilizers into the storm drains in the watershed area of the Los Angeles River. These chemicals stimulate growth of aquatic plants such as algae. Excessive amounts of algae clog waterways, use oxygen when they break down, and prevent the amount of light that reaches deeper water. All of these effects make life more difficult to sustain when algae is built up.

According to Leslie Laudon, a State Water Resources Control Board manager, “The biggest challenge is fighting diffuse pollution sources,” such as a fertilizer that comes from a lawn in the San Fernando Valley and ends up in the Los Angeles River.

Fertilizer entering the Los Angeles River causes another major problem- weakening fish respiration. With the water polluted, the fish have no choice but to breathe the contaminated water, which ultimately makes it more difficult to breathe after the toxins from the fertilizers have entered their body. According to David Keune, a marine biologist, “Once a fish has breathed fertilizer contaminated water, it will most likely die within 2-3 weeks.”

In addition; fertilizer runoff entering the Los Angeles River lessens terrestrial plant efficiency. Botanist Nadia Oggiano said, “When there’s an excess of algae in a river, the amount of oxygen decreases drastically because the algae use a large sum of oxygen.” Without enough oxygen, the terrestrial plants die because of suffocation. Algae takes away a tremendous amount of oxygen away from other organisms in the river. Also, with an abundance of algae, the depth of the water cannot be perceived because of how dense algae can get.

Fertilizer runoff causes a lowering of the water table and the likelihood of flooding to increase. From 1998 to 2003, the water table level for Los Angeles County dropped four feet, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Board (LARWQCB) officials said. With that dramatic of a drop, the concentration of fertilizers only increased. Also, flooding has a higher chance of occurring, according to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. When fertilizers stay on a surface, they lower the permeability, and thus cause water to not sink into the ground, but to flow across the top of it and increase the likelihood of a flood.

Alicia Katano, education director for Friends of the Los Angeles River (FoLAR) said that urban runoff “is usually the worst a week after a rain storm,” as fertilizers are swept into the storm drains by the rain.

While 26 million gallons of water in the Los Angeles River is treated at the Tillman Reclamation plant per day, in Van Nuys, none of the urban runoff is treated at the Tillman plant, or any other water reclamation plant.

Because the city of Los Angeles has such a high population, it would make sense economically to use the water from the Los Angeles River as a source of drinking water, but because of the effects that fertilizers can have in the runoff, the river becomes polluted to the point where the river water cannot be used as a source of drinking water.

According to the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan, “The Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and some cities have sponsored the stenciling of storm drain inlets to raise awareness of water quality issues.”

Trey Block

Children and the Los Angeles River

By: William Pang



For years, local resident’s opinions of the Los Angeles River were either negative or nonexistent. Various environmental organizations however, are working to change that. Putting up playgrounds and revitalizing disheveled city parks seems like an environmental undertaking, but social progress is to be expected.


As technology is further incorporated into our daily lives, most children now, and in the future will not have the same active, physical upbringing that had been available in the past. More and more green spaces are disappearing in way of more and more silver and gray. We are trading in Mother Nature for more cubic feet of economic opportunity.

In steps F.O.L.A.R. (Friends of the Los Angeles River). Improvements they have made to the river near Griffith Park, be it the new painted gate, or the updated playground, have made living in the Los Feliz area visibly more enjoyable.
“I have children myself, so the way they’ve cleaned up the park, I have no trouble letting them outside.” Los Feliz resident Jennie Kwong said.

When I visited the area myself, last Thursday, various things stood out. A brother and sister flying a kite, a family’s joyous rendezvous, but what stood out the most was the backdrop. Beyond the beautifully restored park was construction, what seemed like a concrete, metal jungle. That’s when the importance of what F.O.L.A.R. was doing, and the possible repercussions of an indifferent world, hit me.

The Department of Recreation and Parks states in their website that their goal is to "provide an atmosphere for children, appropriate for individual and group study, physical activity, and cultural programming in a recreational setting." But numbers are not on their side.

Los Angeles County lacks sufficient parkland and open space for its population of more than nine million. Based on the accepted formula for determining the amount of regional parkland needed in a city (6 acres per 1,000 people), the county falls 13,296 acres, or 20.8 square miles short.

Adults are hardly the victims of this shortcoming. There are ways for adults to occupy their leisure time and stay active. Those 13,296 acres of missing parkland represent thousands of children stuck at home, or even worse, on the streets.



My visit to Taylor Yard showed that to be true. The area was jam-packed with children of different ages and cultural backgrounds, all looking for an escape from the city. It seemed like the sky was clearer and the air much easier to breathe.




The American Lung Association issued its annual “Most Polluted U.S. Cities” list and it was no surprise that Los Angeles topped it once again. We are lucky to be able to recognize pollution. We’ve inhaled a mouthful of clean air. We’ve seen natural beauty. But what about our children, future generations. Will the distinction of a clean and dirtied environment be so diluted that hygiene can only be measured with gadgets and gizmos?

The “Revitalization Master Plan” that was proposed to city hall is expensive, both in the city’s time and money. However, according to the plans website, its goals for the river are to “increase the attractiveness of the City and enhance public health for both residents and visitors as a place to live, work, and visit.”

The plan’s goal is not to create an extraordinary environment for Los Angeles residents, but to raise the below average living conditions for citizens, especially children, to a level that is acceptable compared to other cities.

In a world where technology is making things such as traditional literature and face to face communication obsolete. We have to help lure younger generations out of the living room and into the soccer fields.

LA River Bike Paths

Alex Carmedelle
LA RIVER BIKE PATHS
Current bike paths

Joe Linton left his home in down town Long Beach and began his commute to northern Long Beach as he had done for six years. Joe didn’t get stuck in traffic or listen to the radio. Instead he just breathed in the cool morning air, felt his heart rate grow and watched a flock of egrets take flight.

Joe could enjoy his approximately 4 mile commute because he wasn’t driving. In fact, he was not driving at all. He was riding a bicycle along the Los Angeles River, an activity that in popularity, especially now.

The Los Angeles River is home to a number of bike paths that are used for recreation and commuting, and multiple organizations are attempting to expand the bike path system on the river but are meeting obstacles.

The largest bike path on the Los Angeles River, the Lario Trail, runs about 12 miles from the Century Freeway overpass to Long Beach. Northeast communities such as Downey and El Monte can get access the path via bikeways along the Rio Hondo River. Working class communities such as Compton can also reach the Lario Trail and get to Long Beach by taking Compton Creek bike-paths.
A Cyclist on the Lario Trail

“Long Beach has a great and well-used bike path,” explained Alicia Katano, director of educational programs for Friends of the L.A. River (FoLAR), an environmental organization that supports rejuvenation of rivers.

The South County L.A. River bike trail begins in Vernon and runs about 4.8 miles on the west side of the river and then crosses over to the Lario Trail for access to Long Beach. The path connects commuters from communities such as Maywood and Cudahy with access to Long Beach.

The Glendale Narrows bikeway is located in the middle stretch of the L.A. River and runs alongside a more scenic view because the river is unpaved and more natural at that point.
View of the Glendale Narrows section of the river.


Going west, the first 4.5 miles of the bikeway are paved but have a number of potholes and rough patches. From Fletcher St., the rest of the 3.3 miles is in disrepair and has uneven surfaces. The path ends on riverside drive which people can bike on to get to Lincoln Heights which still leaves commuters about 2.5 miles from downtown.

Riders have also complained about car exhaust due to the proximity of the bike-path to the freeway.

“If you look at the river instead of the freeway, it’s a pretty nice ride,” said an unnamed cyclist.

Some advocacy groups want the L.A. River to be completely bordered by bike paths.

One such group is the Los Angeles Bike Coalition, an organization that advocates safe streets and paths for L.A. cyclists.

“It’s a solution for a lot of L.A. problems such as rising gas prices and traffic,” said Dorothy Kieu Le, director of planning and policy for the coalition. “The task is included in the L.A. Bicycle Master Plan.”

The Master plan was first adopted by the city of Los Angeles in 1996 and then revised in 2002. It seeks to improve and expand bike facilities throughout the county. Included in that plan is a bike lane running the full length of the L.A. River.


The Plan includes a bike path that attaches the L.A. River to downtown L.A. via 1st street. This would open doors for commuters all along the river to bike to work.
Master Plan Bike Paths, LA River is the red path going down the middle.

The bicycle plan is meeting difficulties however. “There is a lack of will in City Hall to implement it as fast as cyclists need it,” explained Kieu Le. “We work to implement it to the fullest extent we can and we push the government to do the same. We go to important meeting in which the path is being talked about, we talk to city council members, and we raise awareness.”

The Master Plan states that it wants 5 percent of the L.A. population to travel by bike by the year 2015, a plan many organizations are skeptical about considering they are not currently building any new paths.

When it comes to completion of a bike path around the L.A. River, both FoLAR and the L.A. Bicycle Coalition do not expect it to be soon.

“At the rate it is going the master plan is probably going to be fully implemented in the next decade,” said Kieu Le.

“We hope it happens soon,” said Katano. “It will probably be done in pieces because doing the whole bike path all at once is a big project.”

Meanwhile current pieces are seeing more use. People are starting to commute more by bicycle due to rising gas prices.


“The pocket book is the greatest motivator for people to commute by bicycle,” said Katano.

“We’ve seen about a 30 percent increase in commuter cyclists nationwide over the last year,” said Andrea White, executive director of Bikestation, a nationwide organization that provides storage and other amenities for commuter cyclists.

Whether or not the city is working towards building new bike paths, more citizens continue to throw on a helmet and petal their way down the L.A. River every day.

“I think that these bike paths help connect the populace with the river in its midst,” mused Linton.

History of the LA River: Life, Death, and a Possible Rebirth

by Hank Greene


In 1769, a group of explorers from Spain came up from modern-day Mexico and settled upon a spot that the leader of the expedition, Gaspar de Portola, called a “good sized, full flowing River” lined with lush greenery.

From 1796 to 1913, that same river was the sole water source for the entire city of Los Angeles, as the community grew from small western settlement to bustling metropolis. The pure, clean water of the river also provided homes for some an array of plants and animals that made their home along the lush wetland.

“For the native [Tongva] peoples and the Spanish, the River was vitally important as the only water source,” said Alicia Katano, the educational director for Friends of the Los Angeles River. “From 1876 to 1880 the population doubled with the transcontinental railroad link to Los Angeles and hundreds of new towns popped up along the river, using it as a water source for their homesteads and farms.”

But take a trip to the Los Angeles River today, and one wonders why anyone would choose to get water from what lies in front of them- a dirty, concrete-lined river.

“Drink from it? That’s disgusting,” said Kevin Mattice, 17, a Los Angeles native. He then added jokingly, “I’m pretty sure all that ocean pollution you keep hearing about is coming from the LA River. It’s kind of sad.”

“I think people living here figure it was nice once, like a thousand years ago,” said Brandon Ioki, 17, also from Los Angeles. “No one really knows what happened.”

What happened to the river was the flood of 1938, which took the lives of 85 people, and forced the federal government to begin a massive project that would lay down billions of dollars worth of concrete on the river bottom. This project was the beginning of the end for the LA River, as people started to see it less as a river and more just as a flood control concreted channel.

And so the LA River faded from the minds of Los Angeles residents, and it just became another place for them to dump their garbage.

Today, the 51 miles it stretches across Los Angeles, only 13 miles have a natural bottom, which allows water to filter into the underground water basin. As far as its role as a free-flowing water source, the LA River has been out of the job that it did for over a century, both because of massive amounts of pollution now in the river itself, and also the creation of the aqueducts that import water from the Owens Valley, the Colorado River and the California Water Project.

But these sources are now being cut back or are at capacity, while Southern California continues to grow.

“This is not a sustainable way to proceed,” said Katano. “We need to start looking at our potential to capture, replenish and conserve water within our aquifers. Instead we are flushing all the natural rainwater out to the ocean, and wetlands where water collects and replenishes aquifers are few and far between.”

Even more than the water contamination issue, and the long-term plan for water in Los Angeles, the LA River is an example for a generation that faces a variety of shortages, including energy, that require an outlook that shifts direction. Mistakes of the past will have to be corrected.

“[With the channelization project] we took one of our first big steps toward controlling and disrupting natural environments in order to live,” said Katano. “This happened all over the world and is still happening today.”

So, is the LA River a symbol of the future? Maybe. Environmentalists argue that the LA River can teach the leaders of tomorrow about just how vulnerable nature is, and how critical change in our lifestyle truly is.

“It would be cool if they do all the revitalization they want to do, it would be good for LA to have,” said Mattice. “But I think that kids in LA see all the air pollution, and the LA River on top of that, and they all think that things have to change, just by taking care of things better.”

It is possible that the future may be looking brighter for the LA River, however, as one of the major goals of the “Master Plan” for revitalization is to improve the water quality of the entire stretch of the LA River. The goal will be to maximize groundwater supplies by filtering the river’s water into the region’s aquifers.

“Agricultural, industrial, and residential development over the past century, along with the use of pesticides, fertilizers, and household chemicals, have resulted in degradation of surface and ground waters within the region,” the Master Plan says. “The Plan proposes a comprehensive system of water quality treatment facilities that includes regional treatment, in-channel treatment, and on-site controls to deal with both runoff reduction and water quality treatment.”

As a step in this direction, the Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to improve the environmental conditions of the car wash industry. This comes on the heels of recent law passed prohibiting car owners to wash cars in their driveway, a practice that allows dangerous chemicals to get into the water that ends up flowing through one of the city’s 2,200 storm drains and into the LA River.

Parks, which help to arrest the flow of runoff, are being created in places that once were without any sort of recreational area, and green space with spreading basins are being created to help filter water into the underground water basin.

The river’s revitalization might be used to help communities understand nature’s importance and, in the process, help to create a more positive future for those living in them.

Our River was once a vibrant natural system that provided substance and maintained a healthy environment,” says the Master Plan. “Restoring and revitalizing the River can breathe new life into neighborhoods and nurture the souls of residents, becoming a springboard for the greater success of the City itself.”

L.A. River Revitalization Master Plan

The Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan: An Economic Waste?

By: Pamela Simmonite

The Los Angeles City Council has designed a plan that will use $2 billion to revitalize the Los Angeles River. Does the city of Los Angeles have that much money to spare in order to renew this concrete waterway?

The goal is appealing and councilmember Jose Huizar sees the benefits. “Imagine flying into Los Angeles and looking out the window to see a continuous greenbelt running through the region”, he said. Shelly Backlar, Executive Director of the Friends of the Los Angeles River (FoLAR) agrees. “Think of what an amazing site...and what a tremendous resource we have just waiting to be utilized," she said.

See just how much potential that you think the L.A. River has with this video source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= xaKrK4shRT4&feature=related

The Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan (LARRMP) was created by the Los Angeles City Council Ad Hoc River Committee, a clearinghouse for river projects in the city. Councilman Ed Reyes led efforts in 2002 to establish the committee in order to encourage community involvement in river improvements and help organize river-related projects within Los Angeles.


The LARRMP is quite a magnificent plan that has high hopes for the L.A. River. Whether or not these hopes can be achieved is a debatable subject.

A few goals of the plan include:
• Improve the environment, enhance water quality, improve water resources, and improve the ecological functioning of the river

• Provide significant recreation space and open space, new trails, and improve natural habitats to support wildlife

• Foster a growth in community awareness of the Los Angeles River, and pride in the Los Angeles River

Despite the plan’s good-natured goals, are they realistic? When the plan was made public in February, 2007, Steve Hymon of the Los Angeles Times pointed out the problem: “After decades of enduring jokes about the city’s concrete-lined waterway, officials today will release an ambitious master plan for restoring the Los Angeles River, a project that reflects lofty dreams and carries a big price tag.”

Revitalization of the L.A. River has always been somewhat of a fantasy. Environmentalists have worked to improve water quality and educate residents about the river, but nothing seemed to work. The Master Plan is the first organized attempt to deal with this neglected resource that has a possibility of success.

Money completely controls the success of the plan. The Master Plan's estimated $2 billion financial obligation for complete river revitalization is a hefty commitment. Despite 2004's Proposition O which raised $3 million for river protection, a huge amount of money remains to be funded. Where the Los Angeles City Council intends to get the rest of the $2 billion remains to be a mystery.


Lina Chung wrote for UCLA's "Daily Bruin" that, "The LARRMP is an ambitious proposal, yet the project faces its biggest challenge ahead: gathering funding from a city that puts traffic and public transportation at the top of its tax-dollar priorities". Her February 2007 article was titled: “Even a concrete jungle deserves an eco-friendly river".


Money is needed just to get the plan off the ground. Alicia Katano, education director for FoLAR explained that not only must funding be raised to do construction, but also for hiring architects to design the actual construction plans. At this point the Master Plan is more of a vision, not something concrete or ready made.

So where will all of this money come from? Backlar of FoLAR said, "I don’t think that a tax – such as increased sales tax – would be the way to go on this." Well, what is the proposed solution to this monetary need? No one seems to be stepping up to suggest a source for funding. Furthermore, should this problem even be on the city's to-do list giving other pressing needs?

Despite the river’s importance in certain Southern California communities, (It runs through 13 different cities), the importance of its revitalization may not be as crucial as environmentalists say. Although environmental health is important and should be addressed by city governments, should it be funded along with the likes of healthcare and education?

Katano says yes. Specifically, she doesn’t believe that environmental problems should trump medical care or education in terms of importance, but that there should be a healthy balance to the city’s budget distribution.

On the other hand, one person’s crucial project is another’s low priority. Although three substantial parks have been created along the river over the last three years, by funds raised, the plan still has a long way to go. If the city has to spend years trying to locate funding for total river revitalization, will that be wise?

The Master Plan has an estimated time table of 20-50 years. Should the Los Angeles City Council spend time rallying for money for a long-range project that may not even affect all of its citizens?

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa thinks so. In a letter addressed to all Los Angeles citizens, the mayor said: “The adoption of this Plan marks an auspicious moment in our collective effort to revitalize the Los Angeles River. Whether you live in a neighborhood adjacent to the River or in a community 20 miles away, I hope that you will celebrate with us.”

While communities next to the river would definitely be opinionated about the revitalization plan, someone living miles away but still in the city of Los Angeles might not be so happy to see tax money going to funding a park project, an elaborate bike path, or enhancing water quality of the river.



Although organizations such as FoLAR would like to think of the L.A. River as a possible recreation destination for all Angelenos, perhaps the locals are just fine without it in their lives.

Catalina Tapia, 17, may have spoken for that constituency. She said, “I’m fine without the L.A. River in my life. Everyone knows that it’s dirty and really ugly with all of that concrete. I don’t even notice it at all living in L.A. The city shouldn’t waste its time or taxpayer money.”

Whether or not the Master Plan will succeed remains to be seen. It is up to the city, communities, and local residents themselves to rally together if they really want to make it work. As of now, however, the economic obligation that needs to be fulfilled is the main aspect controlling the rise or fall of the L.A. River Revitalization Master Plan.

Parks along the LA River

Parks Along The LA River
by Kenny Crone

Most of the greater Los Angeles community seems to have forgotten that the people that first settled here did so because they has a river they could live off of. “Now LA has turned into a concrete jungle, and so has the river,” said a resident of Montebello.

“The LA River is the scar on the face of Los Angeles,” said a long-time resident of Los Angeles . So what does someone put on a scar? Scar Cream. So what does the LA River put on? Parks.

Many parks and recreation areas line the LA River. The parks have natural wildlife habitats in areas such as the Glendale Narrows and near the Long Beach harbor. These parks create green spaces for a county that is lacking green space. The LA River has about 20 parks along its path from the upper San Fernando Valley 51 miles to Long Beach.

But putting a park next to the LA River is a long and difficult process. The organizations that want to put in a park must first buy the land next to the river, then somehow accumulate funding, whether it be by fundraising, or by taxes by a city. Then they must put in the park, which usually takes months and sometimes years, particularly if the site previously had industrial use

Friends of the Los Angeles River, or FoLAR, is the main activist for creating parks next to the LA River. FoLAR’s goal is to create a green space along the 51-mile LA River from its source in the San Fernando Valley to the port in Long Beach.

One of the larger parks next to the LA River is Taylor Yard, or Rio de Los Angeles State Park. The park lies in the Glendale Narrows section of the river is in between the Santa Monica Mountains to the west and Repetto Hills to the east.


Originally the 244-acre site was used for maintenance for railroad operations. Since 1990 the area has been subdivided in various sections for transportation facilities, industrial buildings and commercial uses.

That left 102 acres for habitat restoration, recreation and flood control uses. The park, which opened last year, now has three full-size soccer fields, two baseball diamonds and a play structure and basketball courts. It also has a large area for wildlife habitat.

It took a long time to accumulate the funding for the park, but Alicia Katano, director of educational programs at FoLAR, believes she knows why the general public doesn’t really care about this park next to the river.

“People just don’t know it’s there, that’s the problem with the LA river, if you don’t know it’s there you won’t want to help and protect it.” She said.

On the other hand, some people do not want parks developed because it would attract more people to their neighborhoods. “The extra traffic could affect my daily routine,” said Jim Liebenguth, who lives near the river in the valley.

But some say the parks are great additions to these riverside communities. “I finally have a place to walk with my dog and it’s so nice.” said Spencer Langan, a resident near the river. “It’s fascinating,” said another walker.

Another roadblock to creating these parks is the lack of land for green space in Los Angeles. Industrial and residential development already goes into the flood plain along the River, leaving little open space on which to locate a park.

In 2005, when the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master plan was endorsed by the Los Angeles City Council, the amount of possible parks along the LA River drastically increased. “Creating a green ribbon through the city, with green stands extending the River’s influence into adjacent neighborhoods in order to reconnect communities to the River and each other,” says the master plan.


One new park, Maywood Riverfront Park , already set a precedent by being built on industrial land that was converted to open space. The contaminated soil was removed, and even more opportunities like this are available, FoLAR’s Katano said.
The City Council strongly supported the plan. “For the first time in the City Council’s history, we are bringing a real focus to the LA River. It’s long overdue, particularly for the neighborhoods along the river’s path.” said Councilman Ed Reyes, River Committee Chairman on the city’s website for park acquisition.

Most of the money comes from Proposition 34, which sets aside money for parks. New park acquisitions are expected to come from a combination of funding from local municipalities, state, and federal governments and some private sector funders.
Still, no matter what the Master Plan or the City Council says, it may be difficult to “create a green ribbon through the city.” To do so, might cost, according to the plan, $2 billion or more, but the council is still confident it can be done.

"All of these statements about it being difficult have been made before, and I listen to it and understand it," said Councilman Reyes. "But impossible? I don't believe it is."