Many cities in California don’t use water sources from where they’re located, but instead pull resources from different regions. This is truer for Los Angeles than most cities. With its large population, location near saltwater, and drought conditions, Los Angeles relies on fresh water from miles away. LA’s use of  outside water sources not only puts people out of their homes, but also takes water from outside areas. Through the study of where water is from and how it changes the landscape, we can further ask the question if it is alright to take water from outside sources to fuel a city.

The original aqueduct built to sustain Los Angeles was the Zanja Madre, in 1781 on the L.A. River. In the 1800s, Judge William Dryden was hired to build a more elaborate water system in the middle of the Los Angeles Plaza. Dryden then became the head of the Los Angeles Water Works Co. and after his water system flooded, the water company got passed on to another private owner, and then eventually to city ownership in 1902 as the L.A. Water Department.

The Los Angeles Aqueduct project began in 1905 and was completed in 1913 diverting the Owens River into a canal that flows into the the Lower San Fernando Reservoir. This effectively destroyed Owens Valley, which was a prospering farming community. The ownership of this land was made through deceptive moves and insider information, which eventually led to the California Water Wars. The water that was being taken from Owens Valley was being fed into Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley, but none was saved for the people living in Owens Valley.

Owen’s Valley post Los Angeles Aqueduct

Currently, Los Angeles gets water from San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta, Colorado River, Eastern Sierra snow melt, local groundwater, and desalination. The only somewhat local resources are local groundwater and desalination. The sad part is that these supply the least amount of water to Los Angeles even though they are the closest to Los Angeles. Snow pack and the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta provides nearly 95% of the water to southern California. The issue is taking water from other places. Other states are affected due to California’s use of the Colorado River and extreme reliance on the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

With Los Angeles’ continual population growth more water is being funneled hundreds of miles to reach the metropolitan area. Luckily for Californians, most of California is out of the drought or in less severe drought levels, but that doesn’t mean they need to stop conserving. As someone from San Diego, we need to keep up initiatives to reduce water consumption and look for alternative water sources. Desalination is becoming an option, but still uses too many resources and money to be viable. If people want to continue consuming large quantities of water, the best answer might be to move out of desert and temperate climates.

Map of California’s drought last week

 Further Readings: http://waterandpower.org/museum/Water_in_Early_Los_Angeles.html, http://www.cadrought.com/southern-california-gets-water/

Sources: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home.aspx, http://www.owensvalleyhistory.com/, http://www.history.com/topics/los-angeles-aqueduct

Image Sources: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?, CAhttp://a.scpr.org/i/9dd3c84ad1a3286fb9d46206d4fa4acb/70909-full.jpg

NAGPRA was a law enacted in 1990 that describes the rights that tribes have regarding human remains and cultural items “with which they can show a relationship of lineal descent or cultural affiliation” (National Park Services). NAGPRA is used in repatriating ancestors and their belongings back into the ground after being kept in museums and universities. The process of reclaiming one’s ancestors includes consultations between organizations and tribes, creating inventories of artifacts, proof of cultural affiliation, and eventually repatriation.

Kaats’ and Brown Bear Totem Pole that is on display at the Peabody Museum in the NAGPRA Gallery.

“‘Cultural affiliation’ means that there is a relationship of shared group identity which can be reasonably traced historically or prehistorically” (National Park Services). Many tribes have a hard time proving lineage. Since many tribes were put into reservations that weren’t their own, they can’t prove that an artifact or ancestor is their own. Present day tribes are different from tribes that these ancestors may have been from. In the 19th century during forced assimilation and removal policies, many tribes were combined or gotten rid of all together. This means that the ancestor’s tribe may no longer exist in its original form. When an ancestor can’t be places into a current tribe, the land where the person or cultural object is found is said to belong to whichever tribe owns that land.

Just because NAGPRA was created, doesn’t mean that all objects and human remains were given back easily. Many times petitions and claims to ancestors can be denied or postponed. Since the burden of proof to show cultural affiliation lies on tribes, the process to prove ancestry can take years and years. Although this law is the first step in helping return what was taken from Native Americans, it is only the first step. University and museum officials don’t always have accurate reports on their inventory and sometimes discredit tribes’ attempts to repatriate their ancestors. Due to the excessive red tape, some tribes won’t officially claim lineage because they want to get their ancestors back where they belong quicker.

I had never thought about the ethical or moral issues with keeping remains and artifacts for scientific study. It seemed to make sense from my point of view. When I look at repatriation through the lens of the people who are being scientifically studied, I immediately recognize ethical issues. This discussion reminds me of the keeping of Ota Benga, a Mbuti pygmy, in a human exhibit in the Bronx Zoo as well as in an anthropological exhibit in the Louisiana Purchase Exhibition in St. Louis, MO. It was justified at the time, because it was seen as furthering knowledge on people from Africa. The issue with this is the idea that there is a distinction between people from Africa and people from European descent that needs to be studied. This is the same with universities and museums holding onto Native American cultural items and ancestors. It was justified because at the time they were seen as an “other” that needed to be studied. Today we can recognize that they are people and studying their remains is unnecessary. Repatriation and NAGPRA is currently not only helping return Native American remains and cultural objects back to the ground, but inherent racism that began when Europeans first arrived to the New World.

Walking repatriated cultural objects and ancestors to the burial ceremony.

Further Reading:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/the-road-to-repatriation-98420522/

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/18/opinion/la-oe-platt-native-american-indian-remains-20130618

Sources:

February 27, 2017 Lecture by Shannon Martin hosted by Vassar College

https://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/nagpra.htm

http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=26120