Cadillac Desert Response:
Cadillac Desert: “Mulholland’s Dream” chronicled the growth of a thriving civilization in the great American desert, the sometimes violent resistance to this achievement, the abundance it has brought, and the risk it has created home and abroad.
In your response, you will need to chronicle the major events that took place in leading up to/and during the process of this major engineering feat. What do you think were the three most crucial turning points (justify your reasoning)?
Do you think that there is any way L.A. could be somewhat close to how it is today if history had been different, (no aqueduct)? Did the events that took place lay the groundwork for some of societies current views on ecosystem capital usage? Or do you believe these views inevitable?
How did the final events leading up to the powerhouse development of L.A. shape our (societies) views at that time in reference to a “predestination” approach to ecosystem capital?
This is an opinion response with a scaffolding framework of historical facts. There is no specific format that is required. I assume it will take at least a ½ to chronicle events, and the rest to parley your opinion, and justify your reasoning.
I do expect that you cite at least 2 outside sources in your response.
Your response is due Tuenday December 13th by 11:59 pm.
Here's the link. It's kind of a long one. Sorry 'bout that.
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1ObYBVDbi3rp4kNjP-sGE5QhrsdcXcAVgxA41eZ4N14w/edit?usp=sharing
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry it's two posts. It wouldn't let me post one big one.
ReplyDeleteFor Centuries, a majority of California, including the area now known as Los Angeles was a barren and desert like location. Most of the West has been rarely explored until the The Homestead Act of 1862 was put into effect. The act gave settlers 160 acres of land as long as the stayed on the land for a minimum of five years. This, as well as the fashion fur craze that also occurred during this time increased the number of settlers in California. As Southern california started to grow, the city's growth was halted by a lack of water for the number of people looking to migrate to LA. In the early 1900’s LA was one of the most fertile farming lands in the US, however the city had only one main source of water, a river that fell inadequate as the desert city expanded. Once the water ran out, officials began looking for new ways to get water into a city that was in desperate need.
An Irish immigrant, William Mulholland who moved to to L.A. was a hardworking charismatic man prepared to make a name for himself in the US. He became a member of the LA Department of Water and Power and him, along with the superintendent of the department began the quest to increase the amount of water to the growing city. As an intelligent businessman, the two men bought land surrounding Los Angeles and the rights to property in the Owens river Valley and the Owens River. A set of aqueducts were made to transport the vater to Los Angeles. The Owens River was a lush and powerful water source for thousands of towns and farmers who relied on the water to provide them food and an income. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) bought all remaining water rights to the Owens River Valley, leaving hundreds of farmers without water. Once the water was taken away from the farmers, they became outrages and even used explosives to destroy the aqueducts that were stealing their water. After the not-so-peaceful protests by the farmers against the aqueduct, it was shut down since it stole their water rights. In its place a damn was hastily built. The St. Francis Dam, which had obvious signs of decay collapsed killing hundreds of people in nearby communities. Mulholland, now the superintendent of the LADWP, a once beloved man, resigned from his position.
Lacking their main water source, the city looked for new ways to get water. Government officials turned their attention to Mono Lake. In 1941 the LADWP started diverting the fresh water in Mono Lake to the booming city. The amount of water decreased greatly and the salinity doubled. The ecosystem of the lake almost totally collapsed. After outrage from environmentalists surrounding Mono Lake, the environmental effect from importing water into a desert city began to arise .
Los Angeles is one of the largest cities in the United States. As well as being one of the largest cities, it is also sitting in the middle of a desert with no substantial water sources. It is a city that makes truly no since and is an example of humans trying to overpower nature. Without the aqueducts, starting first with the Owens river, Los Angeles would not have been able to grow to the grand size that it currently is. Without the water, more people would not have been able to move to the city. Once the city outgrew the Owens River, Mono Lake became the second source. After this water source became unusable, other resources were used to find more water. Of course this is the Colorado River. Unfortunately this once massive river that fed all the way down to the gulf of Mexico has been destroyed and is the source of water to many desert cities such as LA and Las Vegas.
ReplyDeleteEnvironmentally, I want to believe that we are learning from our mistakes. I want to believe that we would never divert entire rivers and Lakes, destroying the environment, just for money and the prospect of an economy. Although I would hope humans have learned, I believe that in all likelihood an environmental catastrophe like Los Angeles will happen again. In the end, the events that occur naturally take a long time to see rapid prophet from. Although it makes more sense to preserve the environmentally for both economic and moral purposes, humans are naturally greedy. It is much easier to look at how human impacts and decisions will affect the future not in the next five years, not the next 100 years. Through this short term thinking, it makes it easier to let greed overtake a person, and not focus on how doing the right thing, the environmentally conscious thing, will save money in the long run.
Sources:
http://www.history.com/topics/los-angeles-aqueduct
http://www.monolake.org/about/story
http://acapes.weebly.com/cadillac-desert-chapter-summaries.html
http://www.discoverlosangeles.com/blog/historical-timeline-los-angeles
Sometimes ideas get taken too far, and then there is the city of Los Angeles. At one point in time, the city was able to be sustained on the small Los Angeles river. In 1903, the growing city had left the river to a mere trickle. The water did not drain in a few days. Months leading up to the shortage in the water, the city could have made choices to prevent a devastating loss of a river by reducing the amount of consumption and urban growth. Water, nor the environment, was on their mind, only the economic gain from people fleeing to live in the city of LA. With this, some of the most outlandish and devastating decisions were made.
ReplyDeleteThe first turn was when a man named William Mulholland who was incharge of the city water crisis, decided to divert the Owen’s river. The city began a dam project that allowed for the river to be diverted to the city of Los Angeles. When the aquaduct was finished he famously said, “there it is. Take it.” This literally flooded the city with new water. People from everywhere in the country began to come live in Los Angeles. And the city became booming. There was no concept of conservation at this time, water was being used left and right at this time as the city began to expand exponentially. While the Owen’s valley had originally been the breadbasket of the state, it was sucked dry. The water was all moved to Los Angeles for irrigation.
The second turn I believe is when things started to look less like a dream situation and more like a horror movie when the dam that Mulholland had created busted, flooding the city. The city planners began to panic, and they began creating outlandish ideas like bringing down icebergs or diverting rivers from all over the country. The city decided to use Mona lake, a lake several hundred miles away.
I believe that the third turning point is when there was a conscious effort to conserve water. They were forced to give water back to the Owen’s valley and had to Mona Lake, and the ecosystems were restored.
I think that some of the movement and ideas that anything was possible, inspired other money-craving people around the world. This prompted the idea that money was more important than ecosystems, and that it is ok to take anything and stip and area dry for profit. I think L.A. initiated this “predestination” movement. This movement came at great cost, resulting in devastation of ecosystems and surrounding people near those ecosystems. At what cost is money greater than nature? I think that if L.A had not expanded more than what nature would naturally allow them to, that would have been the most. Los Angeles could not be the city it is today without the aquaducts, in the long run they wouldn’t have to be in a constant struggle to get water to L.A if the city had not expanded.
Work cited
"California Water Wars." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 13 Dec. 2016.
“William Mulholland Brings WAter To Los Angeles.” n.d Web. 13 Dec. 2016.
In 1903, a small town needed a new water source. Mulholland then came to the town’s rescue by offering the idea of diverting a river to their little town and have a flowing supply. The capitalists then took over the Indian’s land (1904) and also bought up cheap land from farmers, and convinced the media to support them. The public ended up voting to pay for the water. In 1905, the aqueduct was built across the desert and it took them 5 years to complete it. By 1920, the city grew larger. Sooner than later the ranchers objected to the pipes because, they were destroying farms, and drying up near by cities. In 1924, the aqueducts were seized and opened back to where the river originally was. Soon after, Mulholland’s second idea was to build a dam to store all of the access water. On March 12th, there was a leak found in the dam. Mulholland inspected it and said it was alright. Later that night, the damn broke down killing as many people as the San Fransisco earthquake
ReplyDeleteTo me, the three most important turning events were the need for water, when the pipelines were getting destroyed, and LA started to thrive. The need for water the people were searching for any way to get water. This created a frantic environment to get any water as soon as possible. Therefore the rushed thought process behind finding a source was flawed. When the men and women started to destroy the pipeline was another significant event. This to me was the first time people were reminded that they have the right to control their own lives and fate. This means that people are sticking up for themselves, and learning more about what is going on. When the LA started to thrive, this is important because an important city in the United States has popped up. This means that people feel that it is important to continue the life LA has already established as a major city.
I do not believe LA would not be the same if the historic turning points had not happened/ history. It would not be the same because nobody would want to live there without its water source. LA would not even be LA if the water hadn’t continued the little town in the first place. However, maybe people might have wanted to continue the town's existence, and someone else would have stepped up to look for a water source for the town. However, it is unlikely it would end up the exact same as LA is today.
The events did lay the groundwork for some of society's current view on ecosystem capital usage (resources needed for human survival)and I also believe these views were inevitable. The events that occurred caused a newer opinion to occur; maybe even faster than they would without the aqueducts, pipelines and dams. Over time people’s demand for resources has grown larger, and others would most likely figure new ideas to supply the demand. The events have caused a sort of entitlement to the right of comfy living. Humans feel that they deserve everything that they need in order to survive, and they do not care too much about the affects their entitlement has on other species.
Cadillac Desert. (n.d.). Retrieved December 13, 2016, from http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~martins/hydro/case_studies/cadillac_desert.htm
Cadillac Desert. (2003, February 25). Retrieved December 13, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Desert
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AiX5noA9LXWKGLGHUb-iZ358uVctYloSuUxeLcNfevw/edit?usp=sharing
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1GsCwcMDQVHW3IkBT5Nc0bohve3861vNBoBStHSVZJ7E/pub
ReplyDelete(1/2)
ReplyDeleteIn the early 20th century, Los Angeles was a relatively small city, its growth limited by the surrounding environment. There was a small river called the Los Angeles River that passed through the city, but it was mostly dried up from overuse. A man named William Mulholland, who was the Chief of the Water Bureau, decided that the city either needed to stop growing (an obviously unfavorable option) or that more water needed to be brought to LA. He heard of a place called the Owen’s River Valley and the large river that ran through it. After visiting it, Mulholland decided that the Owen’s River could be brought to LA. It was an extraordinarily long trip from the valley to LA, but Mulholland thought that an aqueduct could be built and he was right. The project started in 1905 and took five years but eventually an aqueduct was built that supplied LA with water from the Owen’s River. This is one of the most significant events in this timeline because this was the action that started it all. The aqueduct caused real estate syndicates to move in and buy up seemingly useless land in the San Fernando valley because they knew that it would soon be irrigated by the aqueduct. This means the property bought for next to nothing would accrue worth by becoming an agricultural and real estate powerhouse. As this process proved to be successful (the real estate companies did not have to pay anything for the aqueduct as the cost was covered by the taxpayers of LA), this pattern persisted to the modern day and has pushed the overconsumption of water.
Ten years after the opening of the aqueduct, and after ten years of unprecedented growth, Los Angeles was again running out of water. This led to the second important event, the resistance of the Owen’s River Valley ranchers against the aqueduct. These ranchers from the now dried up valley At first, the only occupied the aqueduct and turned off the water to LA. However, after their resistance was temporarily quelled by promises of the water being shared with the residents of the valley, when the deal fell through a more violent approach was enacted. The ranchers started dynamiting the pipeline and armed national guardsmen had to be brought in to stop it. This resistance was the first highly publicized and visible consequence of the actions taken by the city of LA and was the first time some started to realize that perhaps a metropolis in the middle of a desert was not such a great idea.
After the failure of Mulholland’s dam, the city looked to Mono Lake as another source of water. The aqueduct was extended to Mono and started draining the lake. Another pipeline was built to drain Mono Lake and supply LA with more water. The lake started to shrink rapidly and enormous dust storms kicked up in the dry lake bed. As an essential stop for water fowl, environmentalist became quite worried about the environmental effects the disappearance of Mono Lake would have in the future. This marked the third major event. As these activists fought to get regulation on the usage of water for LA, was the start of the environmentalist movement in the United States. The environment had not been a major political or social issue in the U.S. before Mono Lake brought forward the idea that humans are using more resources than the earth has to supply us with, and soon these consequences were going to come back to haunt us.
(2/2)
ReplyDeleteI think that there is no way that Los Angeles could be what it is today without the actions it has taken to supply itself with more water. The location of the city is simply not a viable place to support a population like the one seen today without more water brought in. LA would also likely be much less industrialized as fewer real estate conglomerates would have taken an interest in a piece of property that was essentially useless without water. Today, real estate is one of the biggest industries in LA and without water and the aqueduct that could not have happened.
While the events that took place in LA were certainly an important contribution to the generally apathy towards the overuse of ecosystem capital seen today, it was by no means the only factor. All throughout history, people (especially from European cultures) have been taking resources to solely benefit themselves and did not think of the consequences their actions might have. The rapid industrialization of the world during the 1800s had immense effects on the global ecosystem and the rate at which resources were being used was obviously unsustainable, but nothing was done to stop the growth. It seems to be part of human nature that we fight to better only our own lives. In this way, it seems inevitable that the world's modern view of ecosystem capital would be so skewed.
The thought that such a prosperous city could be built in such an inhospitable environment was a real attraction for people to move to Los Angeles. At the time, it seemed logically impossible that such a thing could occur, and yet it did with more success than could ever be expected of it. This led to the idea that perhaps this was a gift from some otherworldly being. Humans were “predestined” to take whatever they wanted and it did not matter in the long run
http://www.monolake.org/mlc/history
http://www.history.com/topics/los-angeles-aqueduct
http://wsoweb.ladwp.com/Aqueduct/historyoflaa/index.htm
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tu7Pu1PGBjVEPmG0Z2lnAwuEXvgvBK9zdrSUetKnZpg/edit?usp=sharing
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1xZw4GvyrqYZeDl27v_R-ATiMPUPo9PRD5DdNzkLlR9A/edit?usp=sharing
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1073macK3LGujV7YMh9_u1D6UvyquX5baLvmPgudj8gE/edit?usp=sharing
ReplyDeleteCalifornia is a largely desert like and arid state, the climate around Los Angeles included. There was a time, before 1903, that they could effectively get enough water from the Los Angeles River. With the city ever growing, this soon became a much too small source for all of the water necessary. Up to this point they hadn’t really foreseen such a devastating water shortage, the only thing they were focused on was promoting Los Angeles as a growing city.
ReplyDeleteThe first turning point was when William Mulholland, an Irish immigrant, came to the United States in 1872, after being a member of the British Merchant Navy. When he arrived in Los Angeles it was a fairly small city, at least in comparison to what it has become since, with a population of 9,000. After a while Mulholland got a job at the Los Angeles City Water Company, where he was recognized as an intelligent visionary, and even though he worked there on and off, he rose quickly through the ranks, and eventually became the superintendent.
Frederick Eaton, mayor of Los Angeles from 1898 to 1900, and Mulholland both had high hopes for a much larger city of Los Angeles, and recognized that what was necessary to realise that hope would be more water. The company Mulholland worked for was converted to the government, renamed the Los Angeles Water Department, and Mulholland remained the superintendent. They began irrigating dry lands as much as possible, in hopes of growing the city, and with no consideration for conservation or the environment.
This strategy worked, the city’s population doubled from 1890 to 1900, which encouraged this mindset. Mulholland began working on much more ambitious projects, which didn’t cause many problems for a while, until, the second turning point, there was a plan to divert so much water from the Owens Valley to the Los Angeles Aqueduct that the valley, a rare fertile spot, began to become as arid as the land around it. This caused massive push back from the residents of this Valley, particularly the ranchers and farmers. In 1924 a group seized the Alabama Gates and used dynamite to destroy enough of the aqueduct to let the water return to Owens River. This spurred the city to halfheartedly return some of the water to Owens Valley.
Although the issue with Owens Valley eventually died, that was not the end of the problems. The plan to divert enough water to Los Angeles to make it a booming city worked, it was larger than ever, and growing quickly. This wasn’t all good news, though, as this meant they had to try to find more water somewhere else. After going through a few ridiculous ideas, like dragging an iceberg down to California, they decided that Mona Lake would be their new source of water.
This didn’t work for very long. The third turning point would be when they realised that this couldn’t be sustained indefinitely. This kind of reckless water usage was only leading to more of it, not to mention the detrimental impacts it has on ecosystems. This was grudgingly realized, conservation efforts came into place and water was returned to Owens Valley and Mona Lake, even though they couldn’t be returned to how they were before.
2/2
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, there is no way Los Angeles could be the powerful city it is today, without this kind of exploitation of water. That is the resource they were lacking, and with it they grew wildly, and there isn’t really any way they couldn’t sustainably acquired that much water. I think these events and their outcome have shown that this kind of exploitation of ecosystem capital is very immediately rewarding to some people, and sadly I don’t see too much consideration of the other side of this, the side where it is clear that this kind of blind usage is impossible to sustain and damaging.
I guess it might be pessimistic, but I am confident that these exact mistakes will be repeated over and over, simply because as our population grows and we exhaust our supplies of immediate water, the need for it will grow as well. I just can’t see a population of thirsty humans putting the environmental consequences that will unfold in the future ahead of their own needs, that isn’t really part of our nature. Especially considering this example, Los Angeles is still a major city, and although they are doing much better conserving water, they are still exploiting this natural resource, and it doesn’t seem that they’ll be able to stop doing this without huge consequences to the city.
Sources:
http://www.dailynews.com/article/LA/20131101/NEWS/131109989
http://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia/william-mulholland
http://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/archives/la-me-william-mulholland-19350723-story.html
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sMddOzjmwgK6uZj0Wcjora1kmUewiDjXNlBCsxLZkwU/edit
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1_NsXw8PmEiCM0KvM6d9AZTHt44OQSF8Lg4kxcNN5MjY/edit
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1MdSuitwTXOLVZVSiIQWCwLsMasv-MTF0YAVF7H1sMcQ/edit?usp=sharing
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of the 1800’s, Los Angeles was nothing more than a small town in Southern California. The town had little issues with water supply because they retrieved it from their very own, Los Angeles River. As the century went on more people moved to Los Angeles and the people outnumbered the water supply. The first significant event in LA’s water system was William Mulholland’s purchase of a section of the Owen’s River in 1905. The aqueduct was built in five years and received much attention across the country. People started moving to Southern California in 1908 for the business opportunity and to purchase the new cheap land for agriculture. Mulholland deemed the Owen’s River as a reliable water source but soon enough the river would begin running dry, uncovering the reality of settling a city in an uninhabitable part of the country. This was L.A.’s first mistake because it was the start of their exploiting addiction. Mulholland saw the investment as the answer to the growing city’s prayers but ever so naively forgetting the deigned farmers living in the Owen’s River Valley.
ReplyDeleteAnother significant turning point was the “Water Wars;” the uproar of opposition from citizens against the aqueduct. Settlers in the Owen’s River Valley protested against the aqueduct with even some attempts of dynamiting the River. The Owen’s River Valley was seeking funding to start a public irrigation project of their own. In retaliation, The L.A. water bureau purchased even more of the river taking more of what was not morally theirs. In 1928 the St. Francis Dam ruptures killing 425 people. Mulholland, the superintendent, was to blame for their lives and he finally steps down after greedy acts on the L.A. water bureau. When people started being affected by the LADWP, that is when people became aware of Los Angeles’ problems.
Once the LADWP was out of the hands of William Mulholland, the bureau turned to other recourses to exploit once another one of their rivers ran into a drought. The last significant event was investing in Mono Lake, located in Yosemite National Park. Mono Lake was an environmental catastrophe because L.A. restricted freshwater sources to enter the lake so the lake halved in size and the salinity levels sky-rocketed. Since the investment, Mono Lake’s ecosystem has completely collapsed. Mono Lake gave people the environmental point of view of their water investments. Currently L.A. gets their water from The Sierra Nevadas and the Colorado River; two unstable resources because of competition.
There are other cities that have also inhabited an area with little viable recourses like Las Vegas. There are also many cities that Russia had started up in the North because there were a lot of places to start fracking industries. But because these towns are so cold, and far away, they have to ship huge amounts of resources like food and water to these places in the middle of nowhere. Investors in current times are extremely greedy and are who to blame for unstable societies. Businessmen like Mulholland (and Trump) solely look at the “now” and throw away the future. These views are not inevitable. I do acknowledge that it is extremely hard to acknowledge that recourses will run out and investments can be detrimental to the environment but there can be a balance of give and take. Perhaps there needs to be incentives (if the drought wasn’t a viable incentive enough) for L.A. citizens to leave their city to alleviate some of the stress of the water bureau serving so many people.
DeleteSociety’s views on predestination approach on ecosystem capital from what I have seen living in a very earthy crunchy city has definitely outraged huge amounts of people. Beside from L.A.’s water battle, The North Dakota Pipeline is another example of people protesting against greedy ecosystem capital. I am not certain which factor; social media, businessmen becoming more powerful, or more activism for our planet are to blame for more victims and evil-doers of ecosystem capital on the frontline. Most-likely in our day and age it is a mix of both although I do know that limiting factors has been a habit throughout all of history because limiting factors and is a natural effect of any living being on our planet.
http://www.monolake.org/about/story
http://www.history.com/topics/los-angeles-aqueduct
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tL4WbmN9aZ22jQs3HHSZ0epTRCQuPYLkNxM8jKnLzNQ/edit
ReplyDeleteAlthough California may be considered a desert (which it is) What we have to remember about these people who were building the Los Angeles pipelines was the mindset of the period. That being exponential industrial growth. My point being that although The city was placed in a very resource scarce place the predominant theory was that the laws of nature were just a suggestion, and that economic profit always come before environmental longevity. And the fact that the city grew exponentially between 1889 to 1900 just furthered the need for more industrial growth. The city of ls Angeles is and economic calamity. Firstly because of the large amounts of water that were imported from other places and namely the fact that without said water the infrastructure of the city would crumble. This is not a problem that is centralized around L.A. for instance Los Vegas is another prime example of exponential industrial growth that is tethered to a resorse that is both nonrenewable and destructive to the environment. And this is nothing new, for instance many ancient city's in Rome relied on long aqueducts to supply a city with water that came from many other places. It is a fact of human nature that many people in history have tried to cut environmental corners and for the most part it rarely works out for the best.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-water-20160622-snap-story.html
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Running-Dry-California-Drought-239603751.html
Up until the early 20th century, Los Angeles was a small city, with the Los Angeles river flowing through providing drinking water for the cities inhabitants. As the city grew, the Los Angeles river was no longer enough to sustain the population. With Los Angeles being so dry, obtaining was important for the growth.
ReplyDeleteIn 1878, an Irish man named William Mulholland, immigrated to the small city of Los Angeles. He worked as a ditch digger for the cities water system. This job served as a stepping stone in becoming the super intendant of the water company. In hopes of population, LA's government new they needed to bring in water. In 1905, Mulholland purchased a part of The Owens River and the production of the aqueduct began. People now began to move to LA. The population grew so drastically that the Owen's River started to dry up.
The aqueduct started a feud with people settled near the Owens River. Farmers now suffered as the water was taken from them to LA. In response, Mulholland then purchased even more of the Owens River. In 1928, a dam bursted causing over 400 deaths and Mulholland was blamed. With this event, Mulholland stepped down.
This event however didn't stop the water department in looking for other sources of water. They looked to Mono lake, wish also proved to not be sustainable as the lake began to dry up.
LA's current state would not be possible without the production of the aqueduct. When the Los Angeles River initially started drying up, people would've left to find a more sustainable place to live, and today LA would be a barren desert.
I think that presently, people are more aware of what is sustainable and what is not, but nowhere near enough. The sort of mindset that we can take whatever we want with no negative repercussion has become a little outdated, which is why it's so silly that we're still doing it to this day. People who don't believe in climate change are so angering and the people who know it's real and are fine with the continuation of burning fossil fuels are annoying as well! I just feel like we should be learning from our mistakes right now rather than being ignorant and continuing to make the same mistakes. Basically, I feel like people in the past didn't really know any better, but we should know better by now.
Sources
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~martins/hydro/case_studies/cadillac_desert.htm
http://www.history.com/topics/los-angeles-aqueduct
http://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia/william-mulholland