Sitting on the bank of a river, listening to the sound of running water and the soft chatter of birds while watching an osprey hunt for food. Small bugs swim on the surface of the water, moving towards the variety of plants growing from the side. However beneath the surface of this soft bottom waterway, tensions have been brewing for years between environmentalists, developers and politicians. Each in a struggle for control and preservation.

The Los Angeles river used to be a great ecosystem that was industrialized in the mid-20th century after an annual river flood caused 10 million dollars worth of damage to the developing city. The project was finally finished in 1960 resulting in a fifty-one mile engineered waterway. Today, most of the river is still trapped under layers of concrete, except for three areas where nature broke through. These areas are called soft bottom basins and are located in three main areas: the Sepulveda Flood Control Basin in the San Fernando Valley, the Elysian Valley near Griffith Park and at the River Estuary in Long Beach where the river finally empties to the ocean.

With the exception of those three areas and during rainstorms, the river is predominately dry. And instead of being a beautiful ecosystem, it’s instead a paved monstrosity. In the 1990s congress was having some issues with the flood channel not doing its job, so the Los Angeles River Master Plan was created. They had seventeen potential goals and as of 2023, two have been completed. One project created a small park and the other created a 36 acre area into wetlands. At this current time, two projects are in progress with no current end date.

The new LA river master plan has very different goals from the old plan, advertising more concrete and gentrification. Their plans offer more trails, safe parks, and other goals offering things not previously agreed upon or prioritized by the community advocates.

The primary goal of the original project was restoration of the LA river to more soft bottom and natural areas, so when it was time to update the master plan again, it was important that local communities had their voices heard. One of the original advocates for the Los Angeles river, called ‘Friends of the Los Angeles River’ or FOLAR, was asked to give their insight into what their goals would be for the future of the river.

My class was able to talk to Mireya Valencia, a director of education at FOLAR about this. She expressed that

they dropped their support of the new master plan because their focus was no longer restoration.

Instead, the new LA river master plan advertised more concrete and gentrification. Their plans offer more trails, safe parks, and other goals offering things not previously agreed upon or prioritized by the community advocates.

Upon reviewing other la river advocates viewpoints it was found that the center of biological diversity and the LA Waterkeeper filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles County. This lawsuit focused on an apparent failure to disclose impacts to disadvantaged communities along the river, which violates the California Environmental Quality Act. They are asking for the county to rescind the approval of the plan and create one that was better thought out.

There are concerns over the master plans’ lack of environmental restoration and community engagement. Some of the key issues that stirred the withdrawal are the increasing amounts of commercial development instead of environmental consideration.

When my class took a field trip to the los angeles river with FOLAR, we briefly discussed the Los Angeles master plan and their concerns. Expressing some of their concerns and frustration with excessive real estate development along the riverside, creating a higher likelihood of jeopardizing habitat restoration efforts. They also expressed concern over a lack of information on those that call the river’s edge home. Those who have been forced to live in areas along the river will now be displaced with no plans for them to be given supplemental housing.

Furthermore, there has been a lack of inclusivity in the new master plan. Marginalized communities like the residents who live in these areas were left out of the decision making process. Because of this there has been a loss of trust in the communities that have put their needs in the hands of those environmental advocates.

Moving forward, environmental advocates are wanting a change in the master plans goals and priorities. They want policymakers to care more about restoring the river to what it once was, or at least to the point where water can flow. There also need to be more points focusing on social equity and community, not tourism.

The street then ends and you reach a trail wide enough to only walk single file. The trees are wide with leaves that hang down and create patches of shade, beneath them lie a variety of flowers and small shrubs happy to be protected from the sun. Along the trail itself there are small flowers and shrubbery brushing against your ankles. As you look further into the hills of Worsham Canyon you can see the green sprinkled in with the gray, a potential fire hazard. This is one of the more immersive trails in this area as you are in between hills blocking the views of the city however there were a couple man made structures that found their way into this area. Among those objects this trail was also on a flight path to the airport and about every five minutes a plane would pass overhead again pulling you from the environment.

Los Angeles is known for its bright lights, access to beaches and potential celebrity sightings. For those who live here, those novelties wore off quickly. Surrounded by large buildings, homes and apartments many people have begun to miss access to parks, grass and open space. In going on this hike I was able to experience a feeling I had not felt since being in the city. You see grass and plants on a daily basis but they are manicured, and most likely not native to California. In an article, they discuss the relationship between access to parks /green space and quality of life. In said article they discuss a score that the Trust for Public Land gives out each year to 100 cities. These cities are given a number ranking based on the amount of parks they have and their quality. Los Angeles was ranked 74th out of 100 with a parks score of 41 out of 100. It has nothing to do with the location either as Long Beach ranks 24th out of the 100 cities. If Los Angeles city officials had set their priorities on bettering the lives of their average and below average income citizens.

In Los Angeles there are countless areas that could be converted into parks, especially along the LA river. In a article by Yvonna Smith, they make GIS maps that identify areas along the LA river that have great potential to become green spaces. Adding greenspaces or parks to residential areas is known to improve mental health and bring families to the area. While a park and a hike are not the same, a park could add back in native species that have since been removed from this area.

Taking part in the environment is an easy task. One just needs to open their eyes to understand what they’re stepping on. California is home to hundreds of different plant species that were here before we were. Creating new landscapes that don’t highlight what this state has to offer can be extremely harmful and potentially deadly to other species. California has an invasive species problem, and while I did not take inventory of which plants were present on the hike, it’s almost guaranteed they were not all native. As non-native species invade, organisms that rely on those species to live are also affected. In the sand county almanac by Aldo Leopold, he wrote that a large amount of the damage we’ve done to the land is invisible to the average person. This directly applies to invasive species. The hike and photos below may appear green and the flowers are pretty, however it’s very possible they are also destroying the ecosystem that has lived in those hills for as long as they have existed.

To enjoy the environment does not necessarily mean a person needs to be immersed. The organisms in this environment however experience human interactions everyday. It may be through finding discarded pieces of cement or finding a way to live off our landfills but both examples don’t respect what said community needs. Aldo Lepold wrote in his Land Ethic that a community should involve soil, water, plants and animals. By leaving our trash whenever and wherever it’s convenient, we do not respect this idea of community. Corporate America has made being an environmentalist a choice. You can either support the environment or support convenience. While many don’t see this as a choice, everytime we consume something from Amazon for example, we also throw something out that probably can’t be recycled. We have moved backwards from what Leopold has expressed, we believe we are green when we recycle but then consume convenient items that hurt our environment. We will be unable to create community with the earth if we have killed it off.