California without LA

The vast metropolis that is modern LA was only possible because of the actions of Joseph Lippincott, William Mullohand, and Fred Eaton and their combined effort to create the LA-Owens River Aqueduct. Lippincott as an agent of the US Reclamation Service was supposed to build a reservoir in the Long Valley that would supply the burgeoning farming community in the Owen's Valley with water. Lippincott however had no interest in this as he ran his own corporation whose biggest customer was the city of LA. Lippincott's conflict of interests would eventually become public knowlodge and he would resign from his office in disgrace. Eaton was responsible for buying up the water rights of many of the farmers in the Owens Valley under the false pretense that these farmers would be the main benefactors. Mullohand was Eaton's disciple and the LADWP, without his support the Aqueduct would not have been possible.

Though Mullohand would end up becoming the most important figure in the construction of the Aqueduct, he was initially against the project thinking it too costly. What if some misfortune befalls Fred Eaton before he is able to convince Mullohand resulting in Mullohand never supporting the idea and Eaton never buying up the water rights and Lippincott's conflict of interest was discovered earlier?

The Owens Valley community was growing, and quickly, in a few more years the region would have become a second San Joaquin Valley and it would have been impossible for LA to get it's water from region. Without the water LA would have been unable to sustain its growth.

LA is still going to be important as it's the end point of two transcontinental railroads, but it won't be the giant of OTL and it certainly won't be as inviting a destination. What would the politics of a California where LA is considerably smaller than its OTL counterpart be like? Would the state be more conservative as a whole? What city might take LA's place as the largest city in the West?

Traffic would be better...

California is gonna get a major city someplace, and the huge port of Los Angeles is still gonna get a lot of business. Without LA having that adequate water supply (and I would not put it past that they would build the aqueducts anyways even if it wasn't Mulholland who did it) there is still gonna be people moving to California. You might just be keeping San Francisco and the Bay Area as California's megacity, or you could just be delaying the inevitable.

LA might remain much smaller and less developed than OTL. Aside from notable beach communities we might see a less developed LA Basin, so maybe more rural with agriculture still being big there, this would also mean that we don't see the big development boom in the Inland Empire and San Fernando Valley, again this probably means more agriculture. Without the tourism and possibly entertainment factor (Hollywood in San Diego?) maybe LA becomes more industrial as a result, SoCal was to become a big aerospace hub, couple this with the ports, maybe some shipbuilding, petroleum industry, and automotive/defense manufacturing.

I would be happy for the Owen's Valley in this scenario, it will be less arid without the draining of Owen's Lake and the diversion of the all the water to LA, so it could develop into a smaller analogue of the Central Valley with better weather, this would mean increased population. Bishop and the other small towns more than likely become large towns if not small cities and the money from agriculture would alleviate some of the poverty there.

Who says that the LA basin needs to develop an aerospace industry????? The Antelope Valley and Mojave Desert have better flying weather and as much water as OTL LA Valley. Sam Diego county has most pleasant climate in the continental USA. If you just want clear winter flying weather, built air bases in Arizona and Nevada.
Point being, there are a dozen other counties that could support auld-climate aerospace industry.

The Owens Valley Aquaduct is indeed the key. San Jose and Long Beach would be there, and even Los Angeles, but they would be relatively minor towns not much different than Bakersfield or Santa Maria. Water is everything in southern California (as is becoming painfully obvious the last few years). No water, and your land is worthless desert much like the Antelope Valley.

Having seen and spent hours stuck in San Diego traffic, I can't say that I see much improvement if San Diego became the mecca instead of the City of Angels.

On the plus side, there actually being water in the Owens Valley and Mono Lake would mean a lot less pollution in China Lake, which would be nice. Closest thing to hell I think I have ever seen, except possibly Baker.

Hollywood in some form would still exist though.. fleeing to avoid Edison's army of private goons is why the film industry fled to California to begin with. Most likely it would operate out of San Diego or Santa Barbara (both pretty, had water, and had cheap land back when land in Southern California was cheap).

Having seen both, I would like to think Santa Barbara would be nicer.

Without cheap water, LA becomes more like Taft or Bakersfield because of all the oil fields (which are still there and still producing).

read the "Cadillac Desert" if you haven't already ... that aquaduct was just a much the responsibility of Teddy Roosevelt as the efforts of LA Power and Water and the Bureau of Reclamation. He wanted a major city in Southern California as a base for the fleet to keep an eye on Japan, and the farmers in the Owens Valley lost out because of that.

Have Blue-117 said:

LA might remain much smaller and less developed than OTL. Aside from notable beach communities we might see a less developed LA Basin, so maybe more rural with agriculture still being big there, this would also mean that we don't see the big development boom in the Inland Empire and San Fernando Valley, again this probably means more agriculture. Without the tourism and possibly entertainment factor (Hollywood in San Diego?) maybe LA becomes more industrial as a result, SoCal was to become a big aerospace hub, couple this with the ports, maybe some shipbuilding, petroleum industry, and automotive/defense manufacturing.

I would be happy for the Owen's Valley in this scenario, it will be less arid without the draining of Owen's Lake and the diversion of the all the water to LA, so it could develop into a smaller analogue of the Central Valley with better weather, this would mean increased population. Bishop and the other small towns more than likely become large towns if not small cities and the money from agriculture would alleviate some of the poverty there.

Click to expand...

the problem with big development in the Owens Valley is its distance from anywhere. It has only one significant highway, and no rail access existed at the time. That highway came later too. There aren't year round passes in the Sierras to shorten the trip (not to mention all that Federal land and those really valuable National Parks) into the rest of California, so you have only two exits... one way up north to Reno or Donner Pass into the Sacramento area, or all the way south where it is still nearly 200 miles to the relatively minor port of San Pedro or Long Beach in this scenario or another 100 miles to San Diego.

Still, i always felt sorry for those people in the Owens Valley. They got screwed in the name of 'progress'. An old story in the American West.