Andrew Davidson- The Devastation of the Flood of 1938
Massive flooding took
place in the beginning in march of 1938 throughout southern California which was
titled the Flood of 1938. The rains produced from the storms created a massive
amount of flooding that left Los Angeles county, Orange county, and Riverside
county under water. This was worst flood event any of these counties had
experienced due to the high intensity storm and also weaknesses within the
flood control of southern California. The flood displayed the weakness of early
twentieth century flood control which then sparked massive reforms to the control
of southern California water.
Throughout California only a few
areas were spared because of previously built flood control devices that protected
them from the raging waters. Areas such as Claremont as seen in Figure 1 were
heavily damaged with roads destroyed preventing aid from reaching those in need.
After the storm, the storm was determined to have caused “…a toll of known dead
of 113 persons and an estimated damage amounting to forty-five million dollars.”[1] The
numbers of damages increased as reports were collected and the flood became a historic
flooding event in southern California.
Figure 1: “Flood of 1938 in Claremont.” Ella Strong Denison Library, 1938. Claremont Colleges Library. https://calisphere.org/item/c05a9ebb6f689e013090ec22a72ef864/
My research
process consisted of searching through thousands of documents found within
online databases. After finding a few great sources on Jstor by William
Deverell and Blake Gumprecht, I stumbled upon UCR’s
Water Resource Collection. This database led me to hundreds of photos and official
government reports covering the flood. Using the book Water and Los Angeles[1]
as a guide I searched through the database and found sources that provided
stats covering the flood, the government’s position on the flood, and a full
official report covering the flood.
Within these sources there was a
common consensus that the flood devastated all aspects of life within southern
California and the lack of flood control was to be blamed. I have found three
main sources from the different perspectives of the average citizen, the state government,
and the federal government. After the flood there was an argument of who was to
be blamed for the lack of flood control which will be discussed later in this
paper. To conclude this paper Blake Gumprecht’s article gives insight to how
far flood control has come since the flood of 1938 within southern California.[2]
Historical Analysis:
The storm that caused
the Flood of 1938 began in late February and would take place for over a week.
After a series of storm depressions hit southern California, they were met with
a warm front which produced the heavy precipitation. [1]
Before the storms arrived, the soils in southern California were already soaked
with water creating a large run-off during the storm. [2] The
environmental factors that contributed to the severity of the storm would have
caused massive destruction to any well-prepared region. The rain was so severe in
certain locations such as Hoegees Camp where 30 inches of rain fell.[3]
The massive amounts of rain with prime conditions for flooding created the Flood
of 1938. Millions od dollars and hundreds of lives were lost during the
flooding as reports were complied.
In the aftermath many records were
taken of the status of the region throughout the storm. A report created by Harold
C. Troxell presents a detailed account covering the entirety of the event.[4] Troxell
and the other authors represented the engineers of the federal government. They
determined that during the flood, mountain stations had record breaking 24-hour
rain rates.[5]
These government officials acknowledge that much of the flooding in the lower valleys
was not due to direct rain but rain runoff from the higher elevations. The
runoff was so severe because of the lack of proper channeling devices to push
rain in a safe direction. While some areas such as the Tujunga wash[6]
were saved by concrete channels, many other areas did not have this luxury.
Government engineers who determined that
the run-off from higher elevations caused great damages made a critical error
when there was evidence before the flood that this was possible. Towards the
end of Troxell’s report there is a detailed history of flooding events within
southern California. Before the Americans, many Spanish missionaries produced many
reports of how flooding destroyed their own settlements.[7] The
flooding of the past should have served a warning to the federal government that
flood control was vital within southern California. Flooding continued to occur
after the Spanish left and the Americans settled on the land.
The report’s brief introduction of
how Spanish missionaries experienced flooding is followed by a detailed timeline
of flooding events from 1770 to 1938.[8]
There is a common pattern between the occurrence of flooding with flood
droughts from 1868 to 1884 and 1916 to 1938.[9] These
periods without flooding have nearly no flooding and the period before 1938 may
have led engineers to assume that flood control was not needed immediately in
California. The events that took place after the drought in 1884 should have
been enough warning that an absence of flooding is typically followed by intense
flooding.
The previous flood drought consists
of many similarities to the conditions of the Flood of 1938. From 1868 to 1884
there was a 16-year flood drought which was followed by “…a series of wet
years, with floods in 1885, 1886, 1889, and 1891.”[10] Americans
within the area may have thought flooding was not an issue anymore, but were
proved wrong in 1884. The flood of 1884 was nearly identical to the flood of
1938 where it “…ranks among the major floods…” in California.[11]
The flooding in 1938 and 1884 both had a flooding drought prior to their arrival.
Flood control could have been increased to mitigate the damages of the Flood of
1938, if the federal government had paid close attention to this pattern.
The state government of California announced
that the lack of flood control was not their fault and that they advocated for
its construction. Before 1936, the state served as the main agent to control
flood control but this changed with the Flood Control Act of 1936.[12]
The policy in 1936 stated “…flood control was a proper activity of the Federal Government…”[13]
The federal government after the founding of the act solely dealt with flood
control for the entire nation. It quickly became apparent that they lost focus
on southern California because of the flooding drought before 1938. The state
of California should have been given full control of water politics in the
region, for they were aware of how important flood control was at the time.
California officials often were frustrated
with the policies from Washington and this led them to develop many criticisms of
politicians over time. Within Edward Hyatt’s report he makes it very clear that
the state is angered with the policies from Washington D.C. which do not
address all aspects of their situation.[14] The
politicians did not make clear guidelines because they were ignored the history
of floods in California and directly contributed to the massive damages in
1938. The state makes it clear for California citizens that “no state flood
control policy has been declared since Federal flood control policies were so
radically changed in recent years.”[15] The
state of California blames the federal government for the damages because of
their adherence to increase flood control in southern California. Many people
within southern California were angered and in distress after the flood and began
to question the flood control system similarly to the state.
Through the experiences of people
present during the flood they made conclusions that more concrete devices were
needed in different regions. Within a newspaper clipping covering the storm, there
is already a comparison of areas who had flood control and areas that did not.[16]
In the Tujunga community there were damages reported but the reporter makes it
clear that the Haines Canyon channel helped mitigate the damages. [17] While
this community was saved, others who did not have concrete structures were
quickly overwhelmed with rain and flooding. Reporters and many citizens saw how
helpful flood control was to certain areas and became angered that flooding
devices were not more widespread. The federal government became the source of
their anger who needed to quickly make reforms in the California flood control
system.
The Flood of 1938 was a rare and
destructive flooding event that attacked California when it was at its weakest.
Found in many federal reports there was evidence that a flood was going to
occur soon, but the ignorance of federal politicians led to the lack of
attention on flood control. The state of California reinforces this as they
mention how they had full support for the increase of flood control prior to the
Flood of 1938. The citizens who experienced the flooding quickly agreed with
the state and called for reforms within California policies.
Image Analysis:
Figure 2: United States Army Corps of Engineers, “Map of Types of Channel Improvement Prior to 1938 Flood, LA River.”
Figure 3: Watson Airfotos, “Flood of 1938,
Aerial View of Homes in the Santa Ana River Break. [Graphic].”
Figure 4: United States Army Corps of Engineers, “Los Angeles River - Flood
of 1938 - Confluence of Tujunga Wash and LA River.”
The images above demonstrate how
flood control was present in some areas of southern California compared to another
region with nearly no protections. Figure 2 is map of some of the concrete
canals that were established along the rivers throughout Los Angeles and Orange
county.[1]
These canals that were emplaced before the flood were seen as experiments to
see how effective flood control was. An example of these concrete structures
can be seen in figure 4. Within figure 4, the man-made canal took damage but held
up enough to prevent the area from flooding.[2] As
shown in the map the canals built prior to the flood were established in the
center of highly populated zones leaving many outer territories unprepared.
The unwillingness of the Army Corps
of engineers to expand flood control prior to the Flood of 1938 left other
areas of southern California underwater. Figure 3 displays properties near the
Santa Ana river which had little defenses.[3] The
lack of flood control combined with the rare flooding event caused entire communities
to look similarly to the image in figure 3. The flooded areas created massive amounts
of damages and which was directly contributed by the low level of flood
mitigation in southern California.
The map and canal shown in figures 2 and 4 is evidence that the Army Corps of Engineers was aware that flooding was an issue, yet they decided to only focus on select areas. This low level of focus should not have occurred because of the rich history of flooding within the area. The ignorance of the Engineers and politicians who handled flood control is the main contributing factor to the amount of devastation caused during the catastrophe.
Conclusion:
The Flood of 1938
was a landmark event within southern California that displayed many weaknesses within
flood protections. The federal government’s monopoly on flood control and their
lack of attention on it helped influence the destruction during the flood. The state
of California and its citizens blamed the politicians and engineers who failed
to protect their homes and lives from such an event
After the catastrophe, there were
many changes and reforms within flood control. The Los Angeles river after 1938
was transformed “…from a tiny stream with willows on its banks to a 51-mile
cement ditch whose primary purpose is the rapid delivery of flood waters.”[1]
The Flood of 1938 caused the river to become a concrete skeleton compared to
what it was before. The concrete structures now emplaced have helped decrease
the chances of flooding but have now left much of Californian rivers to be flickers
of their previous forms. The size of the population within southern California calls
for this flood control at any cost for another flooding event similar to the
one in 1938 would prove to be even more destructive.
Bibliography
“Flood of 1938 in Claremont.” Ella Strong Denison Library, 1938. Claremont Colleges Library. https://calisphere.org/item/c05a9ebb6f689e013090ec22a72ef864/.
“Flood, March 1938: Newspaper Clippings, Volume 13,” 1938. Water Resources Collection. https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/collection/cwd/id/14236.
Daingerfield, Lawrence H. “SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAIN AND FLOOD, FEBRUARY 27 TO MARCH 4, 1938.” Monthly Weather Review 66, no. 5 (May 1, 1938): 139–43. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1938)66<139:SCRAFF>2.0.CO;2.
Deverell, William, and Tom Sitton. “Rivers in Nature.” In Water and Los Angeles, 117–38. A Tale of Three Rivers, 1900-1941. University of California Press, 2017. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1kc6k05.7.
Gumprecht, Blake. “51 Miles of Concrete: The Exploitation and Transformation of the Los Angeles River.” Southern California Quarterly 79, no. 4 (1997): 431–86. https://doi.org/10.2307/41171869.
Hyatt, Edward. “The State’s Position in Regard to Flood Control.” California State Engineering Department, December 17, 1938. Edward Hyatt papers. https://calisphere.org/item/ark:/86086/n2jw8cw4/.
Troxell, Harold C., and Others. “Floods of March 1938 in Southern California.” Water Supply Paper. Government Printing Office, 1942. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp844.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. “Map of Types of Channel Improvement Prior to 1938 Flood, LA River.” California State University, Northridge, March 1938. San Fernando Valley History. https://calisphere.org/item/90ce5b188150bd498592b0ea7967c0e9/.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. “Los Angeles River - Flood of 1938 - Confluence of Tujunga Wash and LA River,” March 4, 1938. San Fernando Valley History. https://calisphere.org/item/ed7eca19c60936dcc677ca7ddb265154/.
Watson Airfotos. “Flood of 1938, Aerial View of Homes in the Santa Ana River Break. [Graphic].” Anaheim Public Library, March 3, 1938. Anaheim Public Library photograph collection on Anaheim local history. https://calisphere.org/item/ark:/13030/kt3m3nc4c2/.
[1] Blake Gumprecht, “51 Miles of Concrete: The Exploitation and
Transformation of the Los Angeles River,” Southern California Quarterly
79, no. 4 (1997): 431, https://doi.org/10.2307/41171869.
[1] United States Army Corps of Engineers, “Map of Types of Channel
Improvement Prior to 1938 Flood, LA River” (California State University,
Northridge, March 1938), San Fernando Valley History, https://calisphere.org/item/90ce5b188150bd498592b0ea7967c0e9/.
[2] United States Army Corps of Engineers, “Los Angeles River - Flood
of 1938 - Confluence of Tujunga Wash and LA River,” March 4, 1938, San Fernando
Valley History, https://calisphere.org/item/ed7eca19c60936dcc677ca7ddb265154/.
[3] Watson Airfotos, “Flood of 1938, Aerial View of Homes in the Santa
Ana River Break. [Graphic]” (Anaheim Public Library, March 3, 1938), Anaheim
Public Library photograph collection on Anaheim local history, https://calisphere.org/item/ark:/13030/kt3m3nc4c2/.
[1] Lawrence H. Daingerfield, “SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAIN AND FLOOD,
FEBRUARY 27 TO MARCH 4, 1938,” Monthly Weather Review 66, no. 5 (May 1,
1938): 139, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1938)66<139:SCRAFF>2.0.CO;2.
[2] Daingerfield, “SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAIN AND FLOOD, FEBRUARY 27 TO
MARCH 4, 1938,” 139.
[3] Daingerfield, “SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAIN AND FLOOD, FEBRUARY 27 TO
MARCH 4, 1938,” 139.
[4] Harold C. Troxell and Others, “Floods of March 1938 in Southern
California,” Water Supply Paper (Government Printing Office, 1942), https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wsp844.
[6] “Flood, March 1938: Newspaper Clippings, Volume 13,” 1938, Water
Resources Collection, https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/collection/cwd/id/14236.
[7] Troxell and Others, “Floods of March 1938 in Southern California,” 385.
[8] Troxell and Others, “Floods of March 1938 in Southern California,” 385-394.
[9] Troxell and Others, “Floods of March 1938 in Southern California,” 385,
394.
[10] Troxell and Others, “Floods of March 1938 in Southern California,” 391.
[11] Troxell and Others, “Floods of March 1938 in Southern California,” 391
[12] Edward Hyatt, “The State’s Position in Regard to Flood Control”
(California State Engineering Department, December 17, 1938), Edward Hyatt
papers: 7, https://calisphere.org/item/ark:/86086/n2jw8cw4/.
[14] Hyatt, “The State’s Position in Regard to Flood Control,” 12.
[15] Hyatt, “The State’s Position in Regard to Flood Control,” 12.
[16] “Flood, March 1938: Newspaper Clippings, Volume 13.”
[17] “Flood, March 1938: Newspaper Clippings, Volume 13.”
[1] William Deverell and Tom Sitton, “Rivers in Nature,” in Water
and Los Angeles, A Tale of Three Rivers, 1900-1941.
[2] Blake Gumprecht,
“51 Miles of Concrete: The Exploitation and Transformation of the Los Angeles
River,” Southern California Quarterly 79, no. 4 (1997): 431–86, https://doi.org/10.2307/41171869.
Comments
Post a Comment