Talk:Los Angeles Aqueduct

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: Los Angeles / Southern California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

While the LADWP Web site refers to 3900, I think the historical record should defer to the carefully put together annual reports submitted to city leaders at the time of construction. The 7th annual report was submitted to the city in 1912 stating 3800 workers. Dcoffida (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be spelt with an apostrophe? "Los Angeles' Aqueduct". Robinoke 00:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. -- Gmatsuda 22:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Article on William Mulholland, it states that 2000 workers were employed, as opposed to 100,000 noted here. 100,000 workers in more that the population of Los Angeles at the time

Good catch. The LADWP says the number is 5,000.[1]. I'vechanged it to that number until we can decide if 2,000 is more accurate. -Will Beback · † · 22:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read that it was 100,000 different employees over the course of the entire construction, but never more than a few thousand at a time ~ —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 128.112.89.10 (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

3rd through 7th Annual reports, the last published in 1912 provided employment specifics. 3rd Report (page 135) 2,629. 4th Report, Dec 1908 3,879; Jan 1909 4,150; Feb 4,492; Mar 5,304; April 5,250; May 6,060. 6th Report 3,814 dropping to 1,150 and rising again to 3,200. 7th Report employed ranged from 2,800 to 3,800. Dcoffida (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen pictures of various parts of the aqueduct showing it above ground and mostly below ground in a pipe. There also seem to be surface reservoirs and power stations along the way. Can someone describe or map how this all works out? What steps are necessary to keep the water safe for drinking? Where is it tested and treated? -- Beland 01:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Second (SLAA) Los Angeles Aqueduct is underground and of reinforced concrete box construction. The 'sag pipes' and conduit south of the San Francisquito tunnels is steel pressure pipe. Dcoffida (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 'width' entry on the infobox appears to have been subject to vandalism, but it's been like that since the infobox was added. I looked on the refs cited on the infobox to fill in the proper value, but didn't find any info on those external websites. In the interim, the rubbish value has been removed.

KJBurns (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, there are 103 B&W photographs, and 18 drawings available from the HAER project http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/CA3095 —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just could not make heads or tails of the sections talking about the various land value/payment issues, water price/sale issues and the like. While these things should definitely be talked about, the sections in question were confusing, disconnected and lacked clarity. Rather than leave them there, it's better they be gone and rewritten, rather than languish.

Also fixed a few facts and worked to improve flow and readability.

MrPinks (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a map in this article showing where the aqueduct starts and ends.Avram Primack (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map added Sept 29, 2013 Dcoffida (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the construction section has numerous errors and omissions.

According to the 'Final Report of the Los Angeles Aqueduct 1916':

• The project began in 1905 with a $1.5 million bond for the 'purchase of lands and water and the inauguration of work on the aqueduct' and 'on Septemper 7, 1905..citizens of Los angeles approved the bonds and endorsed the Owens River project ^[1].
• On June 12, 1907 a second bond was passed with a budget of $23 million to begin Construction ^[2]
• The current article states that 5,000 workers were employed on the project, however none of the footnotes in the current article cite this.

Dcoffida (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph of the construction section has numerous errors and omissions.

• The aqueduct consists of 223 mi (359 km) of 12-foot (3.7 m) diameter steel pipe...

The LADWP web site cites just 12 miles of steel and concrete pipe. 'Final Report of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, 1916' breaks this down to 12.05 mi of siphon (steel) and .16 mi of concrete flumes. It does not however cite steel used in penstocks.^[1][2]

• a cement plant..,

The Final Report states the there were 3 cement mills, Monolith, Fairmont, and Haiwee. ^[3]

Insert following paragraph: "In its original construction, the Los Angeles Aqueduct was designed to divert water flowing down the Owens River into a series of man-made conduits that begins 13.8 miles south of Big Pine at the 'Headworks' and ends 233 miles south at the Van Norman Reservoir in the City of Los Angeles."^[1][2]

Dcoffida (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph should have its own section since it was not in the original scope of work cited in the Final Report.

Dcoffida (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To further the reach north for more water for a growing city, In 1930 L.A. voters passed a third $38.8 million bond to fund the Mono Basin extension. The 105 mile extension diverted flows from the Rush, Lee Vining, Walker and Parker Creeks that would have flowed into Mono Lake. The construction of the Mono extension consisted of an intake at Lee Vining, the Lee Vining conduit to the Grant Reservoir (48,000 af) on Rush Creek, the 67,000 ft Mono Craters Tunnel to the Owens River, a second 163,000 af reservoir in Long Valley at the head of the Owens River Gorge and 67,000 ft of tunnel.^[1]

Completed in 1941, the Mono Extension added 123 cfs of flow. The limited downstream capacity of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, however prevented full appropriation of the water until the second aqueduct was completed in 1970. ^[2]

Dcoffida (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]