Dear Feds -- turns out the L.A. River is navigable after all

Last spring, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ruled that the L.A. River isn't actually a river because it's not navigable. On Friday, a group of river activists set off on a three-day paddle trip to prove a real and navigable river actually exists.

According to the Corp's findings, only a two-mile portion of the lower river merits the designation of "traditional navigable water." Though this offers clean water protections to that stretch of the channel, environmentalists say feeder channels further upstream could see less stringent water quality standards.

Meanwhile, back at the river, our photographer, Brian Vander Brug, joined the kayakers as they hauled their boats across Owensmouth Avenue in Canoga Park, held a press conference, then entered the river for a 51-mile trip downstream.

Tom Andrews, photographer for LAist, stuck with the group all week long and was there when they reached Long Beach. There they are on Sunday afternoon, pulling their boats from the channel with the Queen Mary in the background.

Seems like a real river does run through it after all. Will the Army Corps of Engineers ever agree?

-- Veronique de Turenne

Photo at top right: Ken Hively / Los Angeles Times; Photo at left: Tom Andrews

Comments

[Jon K.]

It sure would be nice if the L.A. River wasn't such an eyesore. The whole river should be transformed like the stretch in the Burbank/Glendale region. Break up the concrete floor! Keep the sides for flood control.

[LongBeachRiver]

Isn't that trespassing?

[tomsm]

Count your blessings and pick your battles -- if the Army Corp of Engineers classification means that the LA River isn't subject to federal environmental regulation, then isn't the state free to regulate and ensure environmental protection w/o fear of the federal government "preempting" the field with non-existence "protection"? Does any sane person in California honestly prefer the Bush Administration to state oversight of our environment and natural resources? Wouldn't it be great if the EPA would classify our air as "non navigable" so that our reasonable state regulations against emissions could be carried out?

[Bad Planning]

The Los Angeles "Channel" is definitely a potential for all los angeles county residents..... The potential on this little strip of property is so huge that i don't see why the county does not allow for its improvement. Imagine having residential, commercial and recreational developments along the river. Now that is some heavy planning

[chuck]

my friends and i made a raft and floated from franklin fields baaseball complex to the dam. that is a river. with fish and plants and wildlife. we thought we were sawyer and finn on the mississippi. this was in 1971...save the river

[Tom R]

I wish I had time to waste like these bozos!

[Jeffrey Tipton]

Hi,

I did the full trip - I'm the guy with the hat in the back - and I agree with the posted comments.Angelenos need to reclaim the LA River. It is our river and does not belong to any entitiy. It needs the full protection of the Clean Water Act. Enough is enough. We turned the thing that gave us life into a sewer. It is time to reclaim the LA River.

[On higher ground]

Wow, just when I think Darwin was smokin' something, along comes this and I guess he was right - there is something to natural selection. Go ahead, take out the flood control - I hope you all are really, really, really good swimmers. But for the sake of the other sane people that evidently have real jobs and can't take inflatable toys and float down irrigation runoff for a couple of days, please leave it alone. And as for the comment about taking out the concrete bottom - please burn your engineering degree. The concrete bottom IS the support for the side walls - and prevents scour from undermining them. Do we need a Katrina-style disaster to clear the "I wish the world was the way it used to be" stuff out of your heads? 20 million people live comparatively good(to the 2nd and 3rd worlds) lives around this river basin. Why do we have to lose people and homes because you don't think the LA River is pretty enough or has enough fish in it? And by the way, navigable waters means by a boat with a keel on it - not a pool toy. Evidently, the common sense gene is not being reproduced in a portion of the population...

[BonBon]

Higher Ground makes a good point about the degree to which the structural integrity of the concrete would be adversely affected if portions of the river bottom, or even the whole river bottom, were taken out. That's a valid question for engineers to ponder. No one is saying that the river shouldn't have proper flood control measures; people are exploring ways to get some greenscaping back in the river and to rethink our insane water mangement methods -- all without losing the fundamental flood control aspects. Higher Ground's credibility is undermined by ranting: who is s/he to dictate what people can or can't do on the weekend? who is s/he to presume that these people don't have real jobs, too? who is s/he to assume that the whitewater kayaks and keeled canoes used in the expedition were "pool toys"? That's just innacurate and mean-spirited.

[Stuart]

Politically, I am on the absolute other side of the spectrum from all of the participants. Having said that, I would not call them "Bozos," nor would I call it a "waste of time." The participants proved something that the Army Corps of Engineers was either unwillling to confirm (the LA River IS navigable) or did not have the assets or mandate to confirm. George, the organizer, is an accomplished kyaker and canoeist and only wants a local venue in which to enjoy an outing. I'll be willing to bet that others in the LA area would want the opportunity to do so also. If he is successful, it is a win for the Los Angeles area.

[BonBon]

Navigability (or, "navigable-in-fact") is just one of the criteria used in the Corps' determination of whether a river is a "traditional navigable water" (which is a new terminology established by the likes of Scalia at the Supreme Court in the decision "Rapanos vs. US" in 2006. In short, any portions of the LA River that get TNW status would grant it more serious protection under the Clean Water Act.

[BonBon]

The Environmental Protection Agency could exercise its power to influence Corps determinations re: TNW status for the LA River. If you'd like the EPA to take a stronger stand, contact Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, US EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20460. Can someone post his email or phone #?

[BonBon]

Locally, if you want to have a say in the degree of water protection for (and access to) the LA River, contact Colonel Thomas Magness at 213.452.3961. You can also voice your opinions to Jay Field, Chief of Public Affairs, LA District 213.452-3920 or send an email to: thomas.j.field@usace.army.mil

[Keith]

I think a few corrections are in order, Veronique:

1st paragraph should be more like: ...the Corps ruled that the L.A. River isn't actually a river because it's not a "traditonally navigable waterway (TNW)."
...a group of river activists set off to prove a real still exists amidst all that concrete, and that the a successful navigation is one test that shows the LA river is indeed a "traditionally navigable waterway (TNW)."

2nd paragraph should be more like: ...only two two-mile portions of the 52-mile river merit the designation of "traditional navigable water."

[neal]

I grew up near the L.A. river and agree that it is a waste to leave it like it is. At the same time, we can never go back to the purity of what it once was. Why not slowly turn it into a modern urban river -- parkland in some stretches, a "riverwalk" commercial district in others. My point is to make it a better place for the people of LA, and more of the people will cherish it and protect it.