Letters to the Editor: Concrete channels won’t save L.A. in a mega-flood. What was paved over might be paved over again
It was a warm and sunny day at the State Capitol while I sat down with Sen. Bill Morrow, D-Los Angeles, and Rep. Larry Walz, D-St. Louis, on the steps of the Capitol awaiting a vote on the proposed federal flood bill.
A warm and sunny day at the State Capitol, while I sat down with Senators, House members, and several lobbyists, including two of the lobbyists for the construction of concrete channels around Los Angeles’ West River.
A warm and sunny day at the State Capitol, while I sat down with Senators, House members, and several lobbyists, including two of the lobbyists for the construction of concrete channels around Los Angeles’ West River.
The purpose of the proposed law, SB 1265, is to reduce the chances that the City of Los Angeles will have to face this fate: “flooding.”
My guess is that most people reading this have never experienced it.
They do their summer business in their yard, their lawn, their backyard, their back yard. Their houses are just a few inches above the sidewalk line, and the water is at that level.
And the water has to go somewhere before it starts entering storm sewer channels, which then carry it to the Los Angeles River.
The city’s channels were first built in the late 1960s. They were originally designed for the city’s original size, when Los Angeles was the state’s largest city and it had the largest number of people of any city in the country.
In the early 1980s, the city was forced to build a series of channels to handle water that became unsafe to drink and, of course, to dispose of.
In the early 1990s, the city was forced to build even more channels to handle water that became unsafe to drink and, of course, to dispose of.
The need to build these channels continues today and the number of buildings with water collecting on the second floor has grown dramatically.
While, in the case of Los Angeles,