The Ethics of Environmental Infrastructure
This semester, our class has been discussing environmental justice in Los Angeles. Just within the last week, we created maps and graphs that illustrate the relationships between the environment and the human population of Pasadena. My group chose to map all of the public parks in Pasadena, and in doing so, I was able to reflect on the recreational use of green space. I subsequently spent some time thinking about the Los Angeles River and how its channelization from 1938 to 1960 completely changed the environmental landscape of LA.
The LA River was channelized as a response to the devastating floods that took place in the 1930s. After some further research, I realized that just 10 years earlier, Devil’s Gate Dam, the oldest dam to be built by Los Angeles County, was erected in an attempt to control flooding in Pasadena and the surrounding cities.
Devil’s Gate Dam sits above and feeds into the Arroyo Seco Watershed that stretches all the way from the San Gabriel Mountains to Downtown Los Angeles. A watershed is a “drainage basin where precipitation collects and drains off into a common outlet.” In this case, the Arroyo Seco drains into the Los Angeles River. Devil’s Gate Dam is also responsible for the creation of Hahamongna Watershed Park. As water flowed out of the mountains and through the basin, it left behind soil and sediment. This deposit of natural materials created a thriving ecosystem and one of the most prominent public and recreationally used green spaces in Pasadena. Recently, however, the volume of sediment that had settled in the basin had complicated the dam’s function. A large portion of the space that was allotted to hold water is now filled with sediment and as a result, the volume of water that the basin is able to hold before overflowing is vastly diminished. This raises issues of flooding and public safety. In an effort to ensure the safety of the residents of Pasadena, La Canada, South Pasadena, and Altadena from flooding, the City of Pasadena has proposed a “Master Plan” to reverse the effects of the settled sediment. This master plan includes removing some of the natural materials from the region. However, this plan has been met with some community resistance as Hahamongna Watershed Park has become a natural reserve that offers myriad outdoor and recreational opportunities for LA County.
I was hoping that y’all might help me to think about how infrastructural projects (LA River, Devil’s Gate Dam, etc.) impact the environment of Los Angeles. The following are just some things I have been thinking about. Feel free to take it in any direction you would like. I also understand that none of us are engineers, nor can I expect you to have solutions to public safety issues. I am interested in the principal and the philosophy behind some of these projects.
These rivers and watershed basins existed long before Los Angeles was the urban city it is now, was it ethical to block natural features in favor of building metropolitan areas? Is it worth it to undo the damage? Could we? Would we want to?
Is there any way to maintain the natural landscape and create a thriving city. Can Los Angeles even be considered a habitable landscape? Was it ever? Is it our job to create a concrete landscape that makes the region more habitable? Is that ethical?
If any of y’all would like to learn more, below are a few links that have some great information.
The Arroyo Seco Foundation website which gives some basic information on the Arroyo as well as environmental issues in Pasadena.
This is the link to the full report published by the City of Pasadena that outlines the “Master Plan” for the Arroyo. It is pretty dense so I would recommend reading Part 1 (Introduction) and Part 3 (Hahamongna Watershed Park Master Plan) for the most relevant information.
https://www.cityofpasadena.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/Hahamongna-Watershed-Park-Master-Plan.pdf
Hahamongna Watershed is one of the largest tributaries to the LA River. The friends of the Los Angeles River (FoLAR) website gives a relatively comprehensive history of the LA River and the channelization project it underwent.
Thinking back to the creation story of Los Angeles as we know it, I'm confident ethics were not at play. The whole point of the ~Wild West~ was to escape East Coast ethicality. This was a story of conquering (land, people groups, the odds, logic, weather, "barbarism," etc.). As we know, the local environment of the Los Angeles basin, with its lack of water and fertile soil, was screaming "I cannot and will not meet the demands of a metropolitan city" as Los Angeles' colonial forefathers drove stakes into the sand. Furthermore, this organized defiance went on to define the boastful personality of this city. Today we continue to face, maybe more urgently than ever, the environmental impracticality of Los Angeles. I have no idea if, logistically or ecologically, we could reverse the environmental wrangling city planners have done to force Los Angeles into pleasantness, but there are clear ways us citizens can live in tandem with our natural surroundings rather than in denial of it (i.e. planting and preserving native plant specific in parks and in our yards, using less water, using less electricity, growing gardens, etc.). I'm also not sure that this should be our absolute priority. If more concrete means more low income housing/temporary housing for homeless/healthcare facilities than maybe more concrete is justifiable. This is where I really don't know what I'm talking about, but I'd assume there are also ways of achieving both goals of support for the homeless and environmental activism. The short term-long term bargain of this conversation seems now like a question of ethics. Given what we know about the impending climate crisis and the immediate need for more development and for industry, do we look to the future, (where, if we do things right, there could be no homeless population) or do we address the immediate situations of people (immigrants, homeless, working class)? I also know that more is not always better.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, it doesn't matter if Los Angeles was or is a habitable city, because the spirit of defiance did and continues to win out. It is boastful and proud to set up shop where you are not supposed to find business. Now, as the potential for environmental self-destruction looms, it seems like the only path of avoidance is to shift Los Angeles' most foundational personality traits (inspired by colonialism and conquering) to those of an inclusive team player.
Los Angeles was created as a healthy escape to those trapped in the smog and dirt of the East Coast, so I find it ironic that we have been interfering with the nature that once made LA so desirable. When creating the dams and man-made rivers, I believe the contractors had good intentions in mind. They wanted to protect the new settlers from the floods because the floods had already devastated the slowly growing population. However, they did not keep in mind some crucial pieces: nature and what came before the settlers. A popular topic of today and especially of today’s political climate is acknowledging who came before the white settlers. This is extremely important in recognizing the wrongs committed by the European settlers, but we also need to recognize what was here before anyone and what allows us to live here now. I do not believe it was ethical to block natural features to create a large city because you aren’t supposed to take what isn’t yours, and if building a grand city means messing with the natural environment, then it might be wise to move to build the city elsewhere. I realize that wherever you build a city, you will be interfering with the natural environment, but I feel like there must be ways to limit the interference. I’m not really sure if it would be worth it to undo the damage because I’m not sure if undoing the damage would cause more damage. If the environment has shifted because of the man-made infrastructure, would it be able to shift back to where it was before if we undid the damage? I think one way to maintain a natural landscape and create a thriving city is to actively maintain lots of green space. The LA State Historic Park is great, but we need more parks like it. One big park in an even bigger city is not nearly enough to maintain a natural landscape.
ReplyDeleteWhen we look at the people and policies that have influenced environmental infrastructure in Los Angeles throughout its history, we can of course assess it with 20/20 vision. When these decisions were having to be made, an entirely different set of considerations and contraindications were present. Society did not understand nor appreciate the importance of the interconnected ecosystem as we do today, and not enough emphasis was placed on preserving important natural features of our land. For these reasons, early engineers and urban planners made decisions largely based on the needs of the human population, without much consideration of animals and the rest of the ecosystem. Now, the question before us is whether we ought to undue some of the environmental damage that we have caused to the LA area. To an extent, I believe we should correct some of the errors of our predecessors. However, I think our impact on this infrastructure will be minimal since much of it is necessary to ensure either public safety or preservation of private property. I agree with the firefighting rule of first saving lives, then preserving property, then worrying about environmental considerations when handling smaller scale issues such as traffic collisions, house fires and vegetation fires. I believe this can also apply to larger scale issues such as dams and artificial irrigation and water transport. We should only make changes as long as no lives are endangered and no private property is unjustly seized by the government.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that it was ethical to block the natural features of Los Angeles in favor of building metropolitan areas due to the time period. I do not think that at that time people were considering the wellness of the environment to the extent that environmentalists do today. They were just concerned about protecting the settlers from the river, and the mentality was man vs. environment. In a perfect world, the city planners would have chosen a more ideal spot, with better environmental conditions and less obstacles. However, I do not think it is worth it to undo the damage, and I don’t even know how we would undo the damage. We need to take into account sunk costs and accept what has already been lost; we just need to preserve what we have. I have no doubt that there is a way to maintain the natural landscape and create a thriving city. A small example that I can think of is Polytechnic. We recently learned about how the science/math building was built around the big tree, and I think that idea could be applied in a bigger setting. Yes, it would be difficult, but I definitely think it’s possible. I think Los Angeles can be considered a habitable landscape, but I’m pretty sure we are essentially living in a desert. The environment does not provide ideal conditions, but they are adequate. I don’t think it’s our responsibility to create a concrete landscape that makes the region more habitable; rather, it is the right thing to do and will most definitely prove to be beneficial in the long run.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it was ethical to build metropolitan spaces on top of natural environments because favoring one environment (urban) destroys what was previously there. The land that is now LA county was not naturally abundant with the resources nor the environment to be home to all the people it currently houses. The decision to hand-make LA out of a desert essentially set Angelenos up for having to manipulate the natural environment consistently until the city was livable. Now, too much has been done to completely reverse without putting people out of their homes, jobs, etc. Also the previous environment will never be able to be fully restored. In most cases, irreversible damage has been done. Now that the city has been built and the environment has been adjusted, I do think it is possible to maintain the environment we have left while keeping a well functioning metropolitan area, but in order to do so we as humans need to be more aware of our relationship with nature and work harder to preserve what we have left.
ReplyDeleteDisclaimer: I missed a lot (all) of the discussion last week about any of this so I'm sorry if I say stuff already covered.
ReplyDeleteI feel like ethical is a tricky way to think about environmental changes. While I firmly believe that greenspace and being aware of how infrastructural changes will affect the environment, it's difficult for me to decide the ethicality of the dam or the channelization of the river when it ultimately meant to help the surrounding community. With the way that Los Angeles, and many other cities, was beginning to grow, I think it would have been a hard sell to convince any policymakers that controlling the LA River was something to be avoided. If we wanted to play ethical with the environment, we never should have built a metropolis in the first place. At this point, I think it is worth it to be aware of the impact that changing geographical elements has, but is futile to attempt to stop altogether so long as it benefits the human population (now I feel like I sound like the villain in The Lorax). It's a tough line to walk. I don't think it's our job to create a "concrete jungle" more than we already have, but I do think at this point, the city and the people who live in and around it are the top priority. I'm not sure the landscape around here was ever designed to be perfectly habitable, but we've done it. I'm alarmed to think about what it would take for people to decide that we need to undo everything. And I'm not sure it would even be possible now. Basically, now that we've already done the stuff, the best thing I think we can do is keep in mind the effects it has had and ensure we make appropriate decisions going forward.
The decision to block natural features to create metropolitan areas may not be considered the ethical decision, but it was the necessary decision. With populations in California growing rapidly, metropolitan areas were a necessity. Also, I do not think that the people who decided to block the natural features had any foresight on the damages their actions could have in the future, thus I don't know if you can decide if their decision was ethical or not. I don’t think it possible to undo the damage, and therefore I don’t think it is worth it. There is so much infrastructure revolving around the damming of rivers that I don’t think the state of California can reverse what has happened. Even if we decided to undo everything, what would change? I don't think the changes would help the drought that much, and the city would lose a huge resource of energy. I don’t know enough to say if it was worth doing in the first place, but I don’t think it would be worth undoing. I do think it is possible to build large metropolitan areas and maintain natural landscapes, but I also believe that wherever there is a high population of people that the natural landscape will be altered in some way.
ReplyDeleteI think there needs to be many regulations before people just start lawlessly tearing down nature. Nature is a vital, important part of our world. It gives us peace, air, beauty, and lots of other essential things. We cannot change the past; however, we can learn from history in order to make sure that horrible decisions in the past don’t repeat themselves. Policies should be implemented with the intention of preserving nature and placing restrictions on where developers can build. Now that people have already destroyed aspects of nature to build houses, apartments, or office buildings, we also need to think of the safety and well-being of the humans living near nature. For example, if there is a tree that is about to fall on a person’s house, potentially hurting people, I think the tree would need to be taken out.
ReplyDeleteI think that we can maintain parts of the natural landscape and create a thriving city. One way I can think of to do this is to force companies in LA to have eco-friendly policies. For example, if there is a building in LA emitting a ton of dangerous toxins in the air, that can have a severe, negative impact on nature. LA government should restrict and regulate these companies and their not eco-friendly policies. Once there is more regulation, among an array of other things, nature in LA will be more protected and safe.
I’m really interested in one particular question that Kate posed in her blog post: “Is there any way to maintain the natural landscape and create a thriving city?” My initial, gut answer would be no. I think that this response comes from the fact that the very action of building a city in the first place (even as little as one road or one building) requires -- at the very least on a microscopic level — some form of damage to the environment. I would argue pretty confidently that it is impossible for a city to exist without some environmental disruption or disturbance of the natural world. I’m starting to think of the iconic camping phrase “leave no trace” and whether or not the ideology behind that phrase could be applied to urban planning and development. No matter what we do, we certainly are going to leave some sort of trace, but I think a really important guiding principle should be to mitigate the amount of “trace” left by a city. Moreover, looking at Kate’s original question in a more realistic, much less nitpicky way, humankind’s respectful coexistence with nature (in the realm of urbanity) is of course possible — and, I might add, necessary.
ReplyDeleteSomething that I think is interesting about this discussion of the moral implications surrounding environmental decision-making is the prioritization of people over humans or vice versa. When something is done to the environment to better the lives of humans (i.e. a dam is constructed on a river), for the vast majority of times, the lives and happiness of humans are prioritized over the lives and happiness of the environment. Going forward in the progression/trajectory of Los Angeles as an urban space, I wonder whether or not the environment will be prioritized more frequently when it comes to making these kinds of important environmental decisions.
Obviously, if there is a way to preserve the natural landscape while also building new and progressive means of dealing with Los Angeles’s built up problems, that would be ideal. However, it sounds like that isn’t an option (although I really wouldn’t know). I would say it's more important to stop the damage from continuing and preserve the natural landscape that is left than it would be to start a whole new system. If there is a way to stop the sediment from building up, then the city can preserve the natural landscape that Angelenos enjoy and focus on starting new initiatives to save the environment in other ways. I think destroying what is left of Los Angeles’s natural environment would be a horrible decision; trees and natural life have been growing in Los Angeles’s forests for hundreds of years, and removing that natural life is an decision that could really never be justified. I think Los Angeles can definitely be, as Mr. Yamaoka said, an urban forest. Los Angeles is one of the most famous cities in the country (and maybe in the world), and the 4 million person population is sparsely spread out over about 500 square miles. Unlike in New York City where everyone lives in apartments, the Los Angeles stereotype involves living in large houses on large properties with large laws. Because green space is inherently a part of the Los Angeles stereotype, I think Los Angeles definitely has the potential to continue including green spaces in its urban planning.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThese rivers and watershed basins existed long before Los Angeles was the urban city it is now, was it ethical to block natural features in favor of building metropolitan areas? Is it worth it to undo the damage?:
DeleteI think it would be worth it to undo the damage and especially now in the 21st century we're able to complete major feats of engineering never thought possible, and by doing so we'd be bringing back the environment in LA to a more natural state. I think Los Angeles can be considered a habitable landscape today just as any major metropolitan area is, but the lacking in green space is an issue for quality of life. A long time ago it was not a habitable place, but because of the string of lies and promises that the people who made LA what it is today made they had to construct a city out of steel and concrete in a place where there was no good reason to have a city.
I have spent what would be considered by many to be an inordinate amount of time in Hahamonga Watershed Park, and have thus been able to directly see the effects of different projects, both official and unofficial, on the landscape of the area. From the ages of 3 to 15 I spent 6 weeks every summer in the park at camp, and I can clearly remember times when both the landscape and our attitudes towards the landscape changed. The most profound change was the use of language surrounding areas of the park - there was no longer a "desert", but instead a more environmentally conscious and accurate "watershed". An area that was once seen by all of us as being excitingly barren, full of opportunities for roughing it and exploring, now seemed like something we needed to cradle or coddle, something that needed a little more attention and protection. Granted, this is about the language used to describe an environment, but even mandatory changes in how we speak about the park (made mandatory by directors and then by counselors as I learned through working there) seemingly changed the environment for those who were in it. Additionally, up until around 3rd or 4th grade there was a river that trickled through the entire desert, where there were for sure more frogs than there were campers - but one year the river was just totally gone. Was this hand in hand with the drought? Was it a manmade issue? I'm not sure. But whatever the cause was, something so small as the disappearance of a minuscule stream completely changed an ecosystem that was home to a coveted population: the infamous desert frogs that we all knew and loved. In all seriousness, I've seen changes happen in Hahamonga that I can trace back pretty directly to changes in how we address our environment and our resources, and I think it's interesting to have such a visible means of doing so through the lens of the park itself.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I fear that it is too late to undo the damage to the Los Angeles landscape as we have already destroyed so much of it. Along with this, I do not think that the majority of people would be in favor of this. In modern times, I can not think of a city as big as Los Angeles that is both thriving economically and eco-friendly. However, there are ways to minimize the damage to the environment and I hope that Los Angeles attempts to do this. Along with finding a balance between a thriving city and an environmentally friendly city, I do not think that Los Angeles has ever been a habitable landscape. Los Angeles is a dessert oasis that lacks the basic necessities to life so due to this, I think it was silly for the original settlers of Los Angeles to settle here.
ReplyDelete