Natalie R. Neri
Professor Knapp
English 1A
23, May 2012
The Hollywood Scene to the California
Water Rights after the 1860’s
Today’s society rarely appreciates the
easy access Californians have to clean water. However, there have always been
difficulties and controversies with water throughout the West. In my research
of the history of California Water Rights and contemporary issues in the Los Angeles
area, I will show that without the past water controversies and debates,
“Hollywood” would not exist, as it does today. In relation to common sense, we
know that there would be no “Hollywood” without water, in fact, the earth
wouldn’t be a sustainable place to live, let alone in California. Also, California’s
Water Rights and their amendments, connect to the Owens Valley, and the
separation of water between U.S and Mexico, and the farming lands and rights in
California. Therefore, the abilities of California’s Water Rights in the 1900’s,
and dividing the control of water generally circles and connects to the management
of local history which took place in Los Angeles. Also, The film China Town represents and connects to
Water Rights and industries that show how important water is in the world and
why there was controversy happening. In this paper, I will examine the battle
over California Water Rights by summarizing important scenes and issues from
this film to help explain this complex historical issue.
In 1937, Hollywood was a whole different environment
compared with today’s Hollywood in 2012. Hollywood has become the ultimate
city, with a history and a society only compared to the great New York City.
However, when studying the history of Hollywood, people can barely imagine a
city that big without running water, the way it once was. Furthermore, pipes
and water traveling through the city is what makes our Hollywood so advanced,
resourceful and a truly thriving icon. The movie China Town which stares Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway represents ongoing controversy and manipulation to
land rights and Los Angeles reserves. The Film was set in Los Angeles, and was
inspired by the California Water Wars, in which farming and irrigation improved
and was celebrated in this great time for water advancement during 1910 and
1920.
The movie china town was a very old fashion and classical movie. When it
first arrived into Los Angeles, Hollywood, they were presenting the movie in
black and white. The film China Town is about a man who is involved with
a murder case involving the privatization of water through state, and will face
threats of legal action. China Town
was a very popular movie back in the 1970’s and was a classical and intense
movie which served the purpose of educating the public of the real life
California Water Rights. Also, a man named William Mulholland who was born
September .11, 1855 and died on July.22, 1935 was the head of the L.A department
of water and power. Mulholland allowed and took responsibility for the disputes
and arguments of the California Rights and the structures of the water, along
with the Dams, Rivers and Lakes. Mulholland was also a worker on the Colorado River
which became a huge controversy between the United States and Mexico, when they
had an argument dividing their waters.
The
Owens Valley also was a setting for disagreements and drama concerning water. The
Owens Valley is located near the Sierra Nevada, and is between South Lake Tahoe
and Los Angeles, in Hollywood. The Owens Valley in eastern California represents
incorporation, protest and local culture. The Owens Valley was settled in the
19th century before water became the main connection throughout the
whole world. The eastern United States was developed and watched California
struggle for water. The Owens valley was very bold when it comes to the
landscape in California. The Sierra Nevada Mountains was more toward the
eastern side of the valley floor. According to John Walton, Nevada rises from
the valley floor at 4,000 feet to the granite peaks of Mount Whitney at 14,495
and the east barren White Mountains appear soft by contrast despite their
11,000-foot stature (Walton 3). There is a wide variety of ranges when talking
about mountain peaks and the valley being compacted. A contrast of what makes
the valley comfortable and forbidding. The showings of the mood shifts in the
day are shadows of bringing the bright days and the connection to the
mountains. John Walton states, “The Owens River winding a leisurely course
southward, businesslike towns, and, between todays settlements, the tumbledown
markers of a once dense network of hamlets and farm sites” (Walton 3). Theoretically,
a man named John C. Fremont and his forces, named the Owens Valley currently in
1845, in which belonged to the Indians in the past. Currently, the Owens Valley
belongs to the City of Los Angeles, which gives the valley about two-hundred
and forty miles of supply of irrigation and water to fifteen million people.
There has been a vast improvement in the water distribution and consumption in
the Owens Valley. When the valley was first settled, people did not have any
access to water, no way to water their crops, or even have clean drinking
water. Today, the opposite is true; water is easily accessible for anything
imaginable.
Generations that migrated to the west were
conquering the spirit of manifest destiny. Physical infrastructure and the
wilderness are an example of a symbol toward the settlement of the Owens
Valley. According to John Walton, “It is tempting to suppose, as some do, that
waterworks determined history in the arid American west; but the reverse is
closer to the truth” (5). The human agency and the development of the Americans
show the significance of water and the operation of water. There have been
claims and struggles over dominion and the use of resources such as Land, subsoil,
air, water and generally the environment. These claims affected the American West
in a horrible way, although the resources that were provided helped a lot with
our water cycle.
The U.S history that comes together in
the western development and the different patterns that wrap around the
California Water Rights have evolved in one local society. John Walton explains,
“In the Owens valley, which history developed in a series of critical epochs
and passengers. The Military conquest destroyed Paiute civilization but
incorporated its technology and labor power as essential features of the
frontier economy” (6). Stating that although the Owens Valley has a rough and
tragic history, overall it did benefit the growth and evolution of the Owens Valley.
It was these influences that made California, and specifically the Los Angeles
area, one of the most technological and socially advanced areas in entire world,
as well as a major source of Wealth, prestige, and class. It was amazing that
current day in Hollywood once was just a small farm town with no water at all.
Teddy Roosevelt supported a federal reclamation, which was held in 1902 and
local citizens were convinced that salvation meant progressivism. It took about
four years until the citizens had the support of the federal government to
transfer water to Los Angeles. Eight years later, the Owens Valley had argued
and fought with strategies and focused on rebelling to the political protest,
which connects to law of Water Rights. Certain battles that went on in the
1920’s lost, but eventually the community won in the 1970’s under
environmentalism. Although, the Owens
Valley had experienced three state regimes, emerging of both nature and
duration from the historical evidence, the periods of time were impacted on the
local history.
In my research I am focusing on
California Water Rights, but also looking at an important connection the United
States dealt with concerning water rights throughout the world. A lot of
controversy between the United States and Mexico happened, and therefore lead
to further protest. Protest began with the Rio Grande project having a proposal,
as well as the Colorado River in the United States. The exciting thing for the United
States and Mexico was that they agreed to come to a solution to divide the two
rivers equally. However, it did not end up that simple. Norris Hundley points
out, “Welles said nothing about the Amount of the Colorado river water his
offer entailed, but he thought it would be approximately 1,000,000 acre-feet” (97). Sumner Welles, who was an undersecretary of
state and did not come up with a problem to solve so therefore, he was saying
he thought there was much usage of water and was giving a lot to Mexico but Welles
did not know what his finalization on the figure. Unfortunately, the United
States denied Mexico to the dispute and moreover, in 1940’s the Americans had
lost the fight with the Mexicans and it was a big deal at the time. Overall,
the argument here is the International Rivers, and was a serious and important
affect to the nation. This is a showing of national interest to a solution of a
denser colonization and the construction that leads to population and wealth (Hundley
99). Mexico on the other hand, whom was very frustrated at the time, wanted the
water to make sure it would be used and beneficial, and also to develop
electric energy for upcoming businesses. Their secretary of Foreign affairs
analyzed this idea, and thought it out while she convinced the United States to
finalize water usage on both rivers for future Mexican water uses on the
Colorado River. Eventually, Mexico pressed the state department based on
proposals, but since the United States was refusing a treaty that Mexico
proposed in January of 1941. Mexico became inpatient with the United States,
and no longer wanted to work together to find an agreeable solution.
On the other hand, to find a legal
position between the United States and Mexico, we know that water is a very
important resource in the world and concerns people all over the world. The
International Law was a high and powerful law in the nation and concerns the
use of water for irrigation means, and the two argued over their border
streams. Neither Mexico nor the United States took control on the law because
conflicts would be denied anyways. International Law was influenced and created
by treaties with nations. Treaties are invisible on some certain powers; for an
example, nations deal with their own problems and decide to settle the problem
in their own way, when one nation has their differences, then the other nation
does not need to settle the same. Politics, geography and economics are rules
given to create a treaty. Both the United States and Mexico labeled the International
Law in which was the use of both their rivers. Both nations came to the fact
that once the treaties were argued after the Mexican War, which was right
around the boundaries of the United States. Norris Hundley explains, “Since
settlement in the region was sparse, they gave no thought to the development of
the basins or to any future conflicts that might arise over water” (18). In
brief context, settlement between the two was a problem, so they put no effort
into the situation and had no thought on the matter of water usage. The point
of the International Law was to help come to a conclusion to set boundaries for
the United States and Mexico, and to come to the conditions and solving of the
situation.
Moving forward to the Water Rights
Laws surrounding the 19th century and the Dual Systems and watercourses
that focused on Water Rights. There were two basic rights that surrounded the
use of water in the western course, which was the Doctrine Prior, which lead to
the second duel system, The Riparian Doctrine. These two conflicts between the
doctrines have a huge part in the ideal of the courts, and the history of the
state. The Doctrine Prior explains how to use water and separating and using it,
for beneficial reasons with the guidance of the constitutional law by the
courts. Although, Wells A. Hutchins explains,” The water may be used on or in
connection with lands away from streams, as well as lands contiguous to
streams” (40). Stating the use of water to be used in an appropriate way in
which the watercourses are in good quantity when the water is available.
Furthermore, having the right to water availability for any purpose of a
beneficial reason to dominate how important water is. Determining the Doctrine of Riparian to the
west, in which the owner of the land directed watercourse and the right to use
water. Also, relating the Industrial and Irrigation matters, the water to be
used for the purpose to use the water beneficially and for a purpose, instead
of wasting it. Although, the Doctrine and the Riparian had one over the other,
they were both needed to have the beneficial support for these watercourses.
The Doctrine of Riparian in fact needed to have the same source of supply to be
fair to owners of the lands. With respect toward both watercourses, the must of
having the rights to a same stream of sharing water usage and the amount of
irrigation rights.
Supporting
these two watercourses of the Duel System of Water Rights in California, and is
essential in understanding the history of California and how they were
established in custom back when they were written. Establishing the Appropriation
Doctrine and the way it came about, the development and the association of gold
and water use, to extract the grounds of the mining process in the power of
water was essential. Moreover, the rights to the usage of water became very
important. For an example, the mineral lands in the sierra foothills were a
connection to Mexico at the time the gold was discovered. Also, the treaty that
is explained and mentioned earlier in the research was ceded by the United
States and the gold-bearing lands were open toward the United States. The
Riparian Doctrine is relates to the union of legislature and the passing of the
act, and the law of England. It was revealed that the constitution of the United
States was inconsistent with the constitution of the state. In 1886, The
Riparian Doctrine was taken by the California Legislative as the common law in
England, and denied all the others including Civil Law, and Roman law or
Mexican Law. The Doctrine Riparian was not stable of the common law. Although,
it was the first decision in California and became the major effect on the rule
of the Riparian State. In this case, the rights of the Riparian Owners on the
one hand, the use of water of the Kern River and the irrigation of the land-
after this case was in court for about eight years (Hutchins 52). For an
example, the Kern River in the 1870’s was diverted and had its beneficial of
certain operations. The water diversions which took place from the river have
taken a lot of agreements. The agriculture extensive and the great hold of the
issues of the Kern River were involving the importance of the rapid irrigation.
Overall, these two watercourses of the Doctrines became the laws of Water Rights
in the Duel System and wrapping it into a solution of coming to a fair
conclusion with the rivers and using the water the appropriate way.
In conclusion, California Water Rights in the
1800’s are obviously a lot different than today’s life with water and the
rights in today’s society. The effect of our society in today’s life with water
in Hollywood in Los Angeles makes it clear that there would be no Los Angeles
“Hollywood” if there were not any water, and if there were no conflicts of
being fair with dividing the water in the area. This analysis shows that the
control of water rights and the problems of Civilization and the Constitution
have always been a struggle throughout history.
Jack Nicolson, who is a very famous actor, shows the importance in his
film China Town and how Water Rights
affected people and the life back in the past which connects to society today
and how the present is.
Works Cited
"Chinatown
(1974)." Chinatown (1974).
Web. 22 May 2012. <http://www.filmsite.org/chin.html>.
Hundley, Norris. Dividing the Waters: A Century of
Controversy between the United States and Mexico. Berkeley: University of California,
1966. Print.
Hutchins, Wells A. The California Law of Water Rights.
[California]: State Engineer of California, 1956. Print.
Walton, John. Western
times and Water Wars: State, Culture, and Rebellion in California.
Berkeley: University of California, 1992. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment