What do you think?
Rate this book
Water to the Angels: William Mulholland, His Monumental Aqueduct, and the Rise of Los Angeles – A History of Engineering Ingenuity, Hubris, and California Transformation
The author of Last Train to Paradise tells the story of the largest public water project ever created—William Mulholland’s Los Angeles aqueduct—a story of Gilded Age ambition, hubris, greed, and one determined man who's vision shaped the future and continues to impact us today. In 1907, Irish immigrant William Mulholland conceived and built one of the greatest civil engineering feats in the aqueduct that carried water 223 miles from the Sierra Nevada mountains to Los Angeles—allowing this small, resource-challenged desert city to grow into a modern global metropolis. Drawing on new research, Les Standiford vividly captures the larger-then-life engineer and the breathtaking scope of his six-year, $23 million project that would transform a region, a state, and a nation at the dawn of its greatest century. With energy and colorful detail, Water to the Angels brings to life the personalities, politics, and power—including bribery, deception, force, and bicoastal financial warfare—behind this dramatic event. At a time when the importance of water is being recognized as never before—considered by many experts to be the essential resource of the twenty-first century— Water to the Angels brings into focus the vigor of a fabled era, the might of a larger than life individual, and the scale of a priceless construction project, and sheds critical light on a past that offers insights for our future. Water to the Angels includes 8 pages of photographs.
336 pages, Paperback
First published March 30, 2015
283 people are currently reading
1065 people want to read
About the author
Les Standiford
41 books159 followersLes Standiford is a historian and author and has since 1985 been the Director of the Florida International University Creative Writing Program. Standiford has been awarded the Frank O'Connor Award for Short Fiction, a Florida Individual Artist Fellowship in Fiction, and a National Endowment for the Arts Fellowship in Fiction, and belongs to the Associated Writing Programs, Mystery Writers of America, and the Writers Guild.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 115 reviews
June 16, 2015
With California's drought in the news recently it's good to remember that Los Angeles was facing a similar problem 115 years ago. William Mulholland, superintendent of the Los Angeles Water Department at that time responded by designing a massive aqueduct plan to transport water over 200 miles from the Sierra Nevada mountain range to Los Angeles. The plan was constructed under his supervision and finished under budget in November 1913. Some of the technology developed under Molholland's direction was used in the building of the Panama Canal.
It's a fact that Los Angeles would have remained a small desert town if it weren't for Mulholland's initiative. It could be argued that the aqueduct would have been constructed by others if it weren't for Mulholland, but it's hard to imagine that anyone else could have completed the job in such an efficient manner free of graft and corruption. He was always on the lookout for the best interests of his employer, the City of Los Angeles. He was the model civil servant.
There are some people who consider Mulholland to be an evil person. Their enmity is misdirected because really what they are saying is that Los Angeles is an evil city. Mulholland was simply doing his job. The fact that he did his job well is held against him by these people. This anger is based on the fact that the city took (i.e. stole) water from the Owens Valley which as a consequence became a ghost of its former self. The defenders of the project counter that it's a situation where a water resource was used for the greater good.
This book's portrayal of Mulholland is that of an engineer/public servant extraordinaire who worked his way up from ditch digger to being superintendent of the Water Department. Among the City's electorate he became one of the most trusted persons in the city. When he endorsed a proposed bond issue it almost always passed. He had a gift of attracting the loyalty of his subordinates, and he developed bonus payment systems that encouraged laborers to work extra hard on his projects.
The book begins by telling of the incident that effectively ended Mulholland's career, the St. Francis Dam failure on March 12, 1928 which was the worst U.S. civil engineering disaster of the 20th century. The real death toll is uncertain but is estimated to be over 600. Mulholland is famous for the quotation, "Whether it is good or bad, don't blame anyone else, you just fasten it on me. If there was an error in human judgment, I was the human, I won't try to fasten it on anyone else."
The book then proceeds on to tell the story of Mulholland's life. But the reader is left with the knowledge that in spite of all his amazing accomplishments, it's going to end with a terrible disaster.
The failure of the dam was probably caused by the pressure from the 190 foot depth of water at the dam's face penetrating the porous layers of underlying and neighboring rock and the concrete of the dam itself. Some have questioned whether the knowledge base of dam engineering at that time had developed sufficiently for Mulholland to have avoided this dam failure. The incident demonstrated the importance of thorough geotechnical exploration of the foundation material and served as a learning experience for the whole field of dam engineering. Dams built since then are equipped with pressure relief drains to prevent this kind of pressure infiltration. However, in this particular case the foundation materials were so bad that no dam, and no concrete gravity arch dam in particular, should have been constructed at that location.
Many people's understanding of this era is based on the 1974 movie Chinatown that starred Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway, and John Huston. This book has a final chapter that addresses this movie and explores whether there's any historical credibility contained in its plot. My conclusion is that there is much more fiction than fact in the movie's plot.
It's a fact that Los Angeles would have remained a small desert town if it weren't for Mulholland's initiative. It could be argued that the aqueduct would have been constructed by others if it weren't for Mulholland, but it's hard to imagine that anyone else could have completed the job in such an efficient manner free of graft and corruption. He was always on the lookout for the best interests of his employer, the City of Los Angeles. He was the model civil servant.
There are some people who consider Mulholland to be an evil person. Their enmity is misdirected because really what they are saying is that Los Angeles is an evil city. Mulholland was simply doing his job. The fact that he did his job well is held against him by these people. This anger is based on the fact that the city took (i.e. stole) water from the Owens Valley which as a consequence became a ghost of its former self. The defenders of the project counter that it's a situation where a water resource was used for the greater good.
This book's portrayal of Mulholland is that of an engineer/public servant extraordinaire who worked his way up from ditch digger to being superintendent of the Water Department. Among the City's electorate he became one of the most trusted persons in the city. When he endorsed a proposed bond issue it almost always passed. He had a gift of attracting the loyalty of his subordinates, and he developed bonus payment systems that encouraged laborers to work extra hard on his projects.
The book begins by telling of the incident that effectively ended Mulholland's career, the St. Francis Dam failure on March 12, 1928 which was the worst U.S. civil engineering disaster of the 20th century. The real death toll is uncertain but is estimated to be over 600. Mulholland is famous for the quotation, "Whether it is good or bad, don't blame anyone else, you just fasten it on me. If there was an error in human judgment, I was the human, I won't try to fasten it on anyone else."
The book then proceeds on to tell the story of Mulholland's life. But the reader is left with the knowledge that in spite of all his amazing accomplishments, it's going to end with a terrible disaster.
The failure of the dam was probably caused by the pressure from the 190 foot depth of water at the dam's face penetrating the porous layers of underlying and neighboring rock and the concrete of the dam itself. Some have questioned whether the knowledge base of dam engineering at that time had developed sufficiently for Mulholland to have avoided this dam failure. The incident demonstrated the importance of thorough geotechnical exploration of the foundation material and served as a learning experience for the whole field of dam engineering. Dams built since then are equipped with pressure relief drains to prevent this kind of pressure infiltration. However, in this particular case the foundation materials were so bad that no dam, and no concrete gravity arch dam in particular, should have been constructed at that location.
Many people's understanding of this era is based on the 1974 movie Chinatown that starred Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway, and John Huston. This book has a final chapter that addresses this movie and explores whether there's any historical credibility contained in its plot. My conclusion is that there is much more fiction than fact in the movie's plot.
May 28, 2015
One might question whether it was really necessary to write yet another book about William Mulholland and the epic building of the aqueduct that made the rise of Los Angeles possible. Les Standiford is not the first author to explore this complex public works story and find it captivating. Nor is he the first to succumb to the considerable charms of the story's central character: William Mulholland was the personification of a Horatio Alger hero. Mr. Standiford felt the story needed to be re-told, in part to redress wrongs perpetrated by the landmark film Chinatown. The plot of this film is based only loosely on the history of the aqueduct's building, and in it Mulholland is depicted as a rather "colorless pipsqueak easily dispatched" by villainous developers.
While Standiford's reverential re-telling of the story redeems Mulholland as the significant mover and shaker and devoted public servant that he surely was, it is rather dismissive of greivances raised by Owens River Valley residents, devastation from the St. Francis dam disaster, ancillary issues of public corruption, land speculation, and ecological issues in general. Worth a read though to provide some insight into the enormous water crisis facing not just Los Angeles today, but the entire world.
While Standiford's reverential re-telling of the story redeems Mulholland as the significant mover and shaker and devoted public servant that he surely was, it is rather dismissive of greivances raised by Owens River Valley residents, devastation from the St. Francis dam disaster, ancillary issues of public corruption, land speculation, and ecological issues in general. Worth a read though to provide some insight into the enormous water crisis facing not just Los Angeles today, but the entire world.
April 6, 2017
It’s hard to imagine a more timely book than Water to the Angels, which appears in the midst of a drought in California of historic proportions. Framed as a biography of William Mulholland, who built and managed the Los Angeles Aqueduct that supplied L.A. with most of its water for decades, Water to the Angels can equally be seen as a history of the Aqueduct itself — the more than two-hundred-mile-long series of pipes and tunnels that drained the Owens Valley to feed the thirst of generations of Angelenos. It also enabled the city to begin producing all the electric power it needed, setting L.A. on a course of energy self-sufficiency to the present day.
Though he was reviled in the Owens Valley and by the men who owned and ran the private companies that had been supplying power to L.A., Mulholland was lionized for much of his career, gaining a worldwide reputation as an engineering wizard. He brought in the aqueduct — deemed an impossible feat — on time and for far less money than private companies would have charged. For decades, he was “the highest-paid public official in California” because his work played a fundamental role in making it possible for Los Angeles to grow from a population of 50,000 in 1890 to more than thirteen million today.
Unquestionably, Mulholland figures in the history of the state as a major actor, and he was an extraordinary man. An ill-educated immigrant from Ireland who arrived at the age of nineteen, he was a self-taught civil engineer who rose to employ legions of professionals. He had a prodigious memory who frequently overawed coworkers and politicians alike, and he proved to be endlessly innovative in finding new ways to get things done in a massive construction project “that ranked with the building of the Panama Canal in scope and challenge.” He was also able, almost single-handedly, to persuade the city’s voters to back the many bond issues that proved necessary to build the Aqueduct.
Water to the Angels is not a dispassionate biography. For example, Standiford writes that it is “easy to argue that had William Mulholland not fought for and built the Los Angeles Aqueduct, Southern California as we now know it would not exist.” He also insists that “what he overcame to achieve a position of influence rivals any Horatio Alger-style narrative.” The author acknowledges the criticism of Mulholland by contemporaries and historians alike, but he dismisses most of it out of hand.
Naturally, if you mention water and Los Angeles in the same sentence, you’re likely to conjure up memories of the film Chinatown, which paints a picture of Mulholland’s greatest creation as the product of unalloyed greed. In fact, Mulholland is quickly dismissed in the movie as a minor character named Hollis Mulwray, and the central device in the film — the discharge of millions of gallons of water into the Pacific to create a severe water shortage in the city — is pure fiction. Mulholland had, indeed, opened the pipes to drain water into the ocean, but only to avoid flooding the system. And the corruption ascribed to those who built the Aqueduct is equally fictitious: Mulholland was demonstrably incorruptible. However, the powers-that-were in Los Angeles did manage to emerge from the project richer by millions of dollars through their speculation in San Fernando Valley land.
The story of William Mulholland and the Los Angeles Aqueduct can be viewed as a tragedy on a classical scale. Though the Aqueduct itself had to be viewed as an unqualified success, Mulholland made a catastrophic error a decade after the Aqueduct began delivering water to Los Angeles in 1915: he shrugged off signs that one of the big dams in the 233-mile-long system of waterworks was threatening to collapse. In fact, the dam did collapse, and “the dam’s failure took at least 450 lives [and destroyed thousands of homes], a disaster outdone in California history only by the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire.
Most of Water to the Angels is reasonably well written. However, the first few chapters — before Standiford hits his stride — are rife with turgid syntax. For instance, the very first sentence in the book reads as follows: “Often a writer is queried as to the source of an idea.” Not exactly an auspicious beginning!
There are other flaws in this book: Standiford reports numbers in mind-numbing detail as he discusses the construction of the Aqueduct. And he devotes an ordinate amount of space to dissecting the movie Chinatown. Still, the book is worth reading as an account of what may have been the most consequential event in the history of the nation’s second largest city.
Though he was reviled in the Owens Valley and by the men who owned and ran the private companies that had been supplying power to L.A., Mulholland was lionized for much of his career, gaining a worldwide reputation as an engineering wizard. He brought in the aqueduct — deemed an impossible feat — on time and for far less money than private companies would have charged. For decades, he was “the highest-paid public official in California” because his work played a fundamental role in making it possible for Los Angeles to grow from a population of 50,000 in 1890 to more than thirteen million today.
Unquestionably, Mulholland figures in the history of the state as a major actor, and he was an extraordinary man. An ill-educated immigrant from Ireland who arrived at the age of nineteen, he was a self-taught civil engineer who rose to employ legions of professionals. He had a prodigious memory who frequently overawed coworkers and politicians alike, and he proved to be endlessly innovative in finding new ways to get things done in a massive construction project “that ranked with the building of the Panama Canal in scope and challenge.” He was also able, almost single-handedly, to persuade the city’s voters to back the many bond issues that proved necessary to build the Aqueduct.
Water to the Angels is not a dispassionate biography. For example, Standiford writes that it is “easy to argue that had William Mulholland not fought for and built the Los Angeles Aqueduct, Southern California as we now know it would not exist.” He also insists that “what he overcame to achieve a position of influence rivals any Horatio Alger-style narrative.” The author acknowledges the criticism of Mulholland by contemporaries and historians alike, but he dismisses most of it out of hand.
Naturally, if you mention water and Los Angeles in the same sentence, you’re likely to conjure up memories of the film Chinatown, which paints a picture of Mulholland’s greatest creation as the product of unalloyed greed. In fact, Mulholland is quickly dismissed in the movie as a minor character named Hollis Mulwray, and the central device in the film — the discharge of millions of gallons of water into the Pacific to create a severe water shortage in the city — is pure fiction. Mulholland had, indeed, opened the pipes to drain water into the ocean, but only to avoid flooding the system. And the corruption ascribed to those who built the Aqueduct is equally fictitious: Mulholland was demonstrably incorruptible. However, the powers-that-were in Los Angeles did manage to emerge from the project richer by millions of dollars through their speculation in San Fernando Valley land.
The story of William Mulholland and the Los Angeles Aqueduct can be viewed as a tragedy on a classical scale. Though the Aqueduct itself had to be viewed as an unqualified success, Mulholland made a catastrophic error a decade after the Aqueduct began delivering water to Los Angeles in 1915: he shrugged off signs that one of the big dams in the 233-mile-long system of waterworks was threatening to collapse. In fact, the dam did collapse, and “the dam’s failure took at least 450 lives [and destroyed thousands of homes], a disaster outdone in California history only by the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire.
Most of Water to the Angels is reasonably well written. However, the first few chapters — before Standiford hits his stride — are rife with turgid syntax. For instance, the very first sentence in the book reads as follows: “Often a writer is queried as to the source of an idea.” Not exactly an auspicious beginning!
There are other flaws in this book: Standiford reports numbers in mind-numbing detail as he discusses the construction of the Aqueduct. And he devotes an ordinate amount of space to dissecting the movie Chinatown. Still, the book is worth reading as an account of what may have been the most consequential event in the history of the nation’s second largest city.
February 25, 2017
The role of engineer William Mulholland in the development and growth of Los Angeles is a sort of recalled part of California's history. But this book illuminates his role and notes his contributions to LA's growth. The city, originally, received water from the local eponymous river. However, this proved unable to fuel the growth of the city and other needs.
After having arisen from modest beginnings, Mulholland began--with others--to think about bringing water to Los Angeles--from the far away Owens River. He envisioned an aqueduct carrying water over a long distance to Los Angeles. The book does a fine job outlining the decision by Los Angeles to proceed with the project, the details of how LA gained ownership of property in the Owens River area, how different actors tried to benefit from the project, the engineering challenges that had to be met, and so on.
The politics of the project are discussed as well. This was an expensive project for the time, and the federal government had an interest in water. How the actors worked this out is well told.
Tragedies, too, were a part of this story--such as the collapse of a dam and the death and destruction that followed.
One suggestion: It would have been helpful to have had more maps, to get a sense of the larger picture.
One interesting side discussion--how the reality of bringing water to LA comports to the movie "Chinatown."
All in all, though, a fine work.
After having arisen from modest beginnings, Mulholland began--with others--to think about bringing water to Los Angeles--from the far away Owens River. He envisioned an aqueduct carrying water over a long distance to Los Angeles. The book does a fine job outlining the decision by Los Angeles to proceed with the project, the details of how LA gained ownership of property in the Owens River area, how different actors tried to benefit from the project, the engineering challenges that had to be met, and so on.
The politics of the project are discussed as well. This was an expensive project for the time, and the federal government had an interest in water. How the actors worked this out is well told.
Tragedies, too, were a part of this story--such as the collapse of a dam and the death and destruction that followed.
One suggestion: It would have been helpful to have had more maps, to get a sense of the larger picture.
One interesting side discussion--how the reality of bringing water to LA comports to the movie "Chinatown."
All in all, though, a fine work.
January 4, 2024
I had heard the name ‘Mulholland’ mentioned in songs before but had no idea who he was or what he did. The sheer engineering challenge of the LA Aqueduct is awe inspiring, not to mention all of the political and financial and social challenges that came with it. Its a testament to who Mulholland was that he was able to complete it successfully under budget. His impact and the reverberations of the LA aqueduct are still being felt over Southern California today!
July 1, 2017
Having lived in LA, and knowing that the movie "Chinatown" (which I watched within the last year or so) is loosely based on this true story, I thought this book would be right up my alley.
While I did enjoy it, I thought that it was, no pun intended, oftentimes quite dry. Maybe that's just me. Any time an author starts throwing lots of numbers around, I drift. So all the talk about how much things cost, or how many "inches" the aqueduct could carry, or how many miles were completed, etc., was a chore for me to get through.
However, I really enjoyed learning about William Mulholland. I wanted to know more! He seemed like such an interesting man. Also, this book really made me think. The whole time I read it, I was absolutely impressed by the hard work and ingenuity it took to built a 250-mile-long aqueduct in an age before the consistent use of heavy machinery.
While I did enjoy it, I thought that it was, no pun intended, oftentimes quite dry. Maybe that's just me. Any time an author starts throwing lots of numbers around, I drift. So all the talk about how much things cost, or how many "inches" the aqueduct could carry, or how many miles were completed, etc., was a chore for me to get through.
However, I really enjoyed learning about William Mulholland. I wanted to know more! He seemed like such an interesting man. Also, this book really made me think. The whole time I read it, I was absolutely impressed by the hard work and ingenuity it took to built a 250-mile-long aqueduct in an age before the consistent use of heavy machinery.
May 4, 2015
Interesting, but deeply one-sided in a way that became increasingly frustrating the longer I read.
October 3, 2020
This was the time of the massive engineering projects that today would be far out of reach of nearly everyone - the digging of the Panama Canal, the construction of the Catskill Aqueduct to bring water to New York City and the construction of the 233-mile long Los Angeles aqueduct that provides water to this day to the City of Los Angeles from the Owens River Valley in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
In 1904, southern California was experiencing drought conditions and any growth done by the city of Los Angeles - a great deal smaller (at just over 103,000) than the megapolis it currently is - was being prevented by the restriction of water resources. At that time, the water of the Los Angeles River - diverted into a canal during the Spanish occupation - was held by a private concern that agreed to supply water to the city and its residents. When William Mulholland arrived at LA in 1878, he was hired as a ditch-digger for the Los Angeles City Water Company with the job of shoveling mud and debris out of the canal to clear the flow of water.
And that was the start. This is the story of the actual construction of the Owens River-Los Angeles Aqueduct that requiring land and access to hundreds of acres but to pass through a set of mountains that at the time had no access save by horseback. Any roads for carriages or wagons were more ruts and rocks than what we currently consider roads. But Mulholland figured out a path - 255 miles including unlined riverbeds, open-air concrete lined conduit as well as covered conduit, tunnels, and inverted steel siphons - that would bring water to the thirsty city.
Looking back at what was an incredible feat of engineering, Mulholland could have lost his focus what with the thousands of workers, access problems, reporters, government interference, health inspectors, labor complaints, unhappy neighbors, financial problems getting the bonds sold and money flowing but he built a waterway which eventual led to advances and benefits for Southern California and beyond.
*Steam tractors were constructed - larger than previously built - and were nicknamed 'caterpillars' for their slow movement. The name stuck.
*The Southern Pacific Railroad was convinced to build a rail-line to provide transport of the enormous amounts of construction material. Nearly eighty miles from Mojave to Bishop. Opening access for the farmers to ship their products across the country in freezer cars.
*Built two hydroelectric plants which provided electricity not only for the construction but to continue afterwards.
*Still holds the record for hard-rock tunnel driving - 604 feet in one month through the solid granite for the Elizabeth tunnel.
Unfortunately, the so-called 'water wars' didn't end with the cascade of water through the aqueduct into the city. Sabotage happened regularly. Unfortunately, the residents of the Owens Valley - especially after the aqueduct was completed - appear greedy. They want reparations for lost value of their land, for lost income of their businesses, for the lost access to the water. And some of the demands seemed excessive. But it was the failure of the St. Francis Dam in 1928, that seemed to break Mulholland's spirit. He had built over a dozen dams but the collapse of this one with its accompanying deaths left a lasting impression on the man.
Standiford ends the book with his discussion with Robert Towne, screenwriter of the film Chinatown which mirrors some aspects of the shadowy manipulations of a municipal water resource. Towne admits to taking the urban legend regarding LA's theft of water from the Owens Valley but vehemently avers that his tale is fiction and does not in any way comment on the actual construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct. Admittedly, I have never seen the movie but may now investigate it if the opportunity arises.
It's an interesting history. One often wonders how a city the size of Los Angeles managed to grow to the extent it has and it seems that it was helped out by an Irish immigrant that somehow 'knew' water.
2020-195
In 1904, southern California was experiencing drought conditions and any growth done by the city of Los Angeles - a great deal smaller (at just over 103,000) than the megapolis it currently is - was being prevented by the restriction of water resources. At that time, the water of the Los Angeles River - diverted into a canal during the Spanish occupation - was held by a private concern that agreed to supply water to the city and its residents. When William Mulholland arrived at LA in 1878, he was hired as a ditch-digger for the Los Angeles City Water Company with the job of shoveling mud and debris out of the canal to clear the flow of water.
And that was the start. This is the story of the actual construction of the Owens River-Los Angeles Aqueduct that requiring land and access to hundreds of acres but to pass through a set of mountains that at the time had no access save by horseback. Any roads for carriages or wagons were more ruts and rocks than what we currently consider roads. But Mulholland figured out a path - 255 miles including unlined riverbeds, open-air concrete lined conduit as well as covered conduit, tunnels, and inverted steel siphons - that would bring water to the thirsty city.
Looking back at what was an incredible feat of engineering, Mulholland could have lost his focus what with the thousands of workers, access problems, reporters, government interference, health inspectors, labor complaints, unhappy neighbors, financial problems getting the bonds sold and money flowing but he built a waterway which eventual led to advances and benefits for Southern California and beyond.
*Steam tractors were constructed - larger than previously built - and were nicknamed 'caterpillars' for their slow movement. The name stuck.
*The Southern Pacific Railroad was convinced to build a rail-line to provide transport of the enormous amounts of construction material. Nearly eighty miles from Mojave to Bishop. Opening access for the farmers to ship their products across the country in freezer cars.
*Built two hydroelectric plants which provided electricity not only for the construction but to continue afterwards.
*Still holds the record for hard-rock tunnel driving - 604 feet in one month through the solid granite for the Elizabeth tunnel.
Unfortunately, the so-called 'water wars' didn't end with the cascade of water through the aqueduct into the city. Sabotage happened regularly. Unfortunately, the residents of the Owens Valley - especially after the aqueduct was completed - appear greedy. They want reparations for lost value of their land, for lost income of their businesses, for the lost access to the water. And some of the demands seemed excessive. But it was the failure of the St. Francis Dam in 1928, that seemed to break Mulholland's spirit. He had built over a dozen dams but the collapse of this one with its accompanying deaths left a lasting impression on the man.
Standiford ends the book with his discussion with Robert Towne, screenwriter of the film Chinatown which mirrors some aspects of the shadowy manipulations of a municipal water resource. Towne admits to taking the urban legend regarding LA's theft of water from the Owens Valley but vehemently avers that his tale is fiction and does not in any way comment on the actual construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct. Admittedly, I have never seen the movie but may now investigate it if the opportunity arises.
It's an interesting history. One often wonders how a city the size of Los Angeles managed to grow to the extent it has and it seems that it was helped out by an Irish immigrant that somehow 'knew' water.
2020-195
October 12, 2020
If you are an engineer or a historian with a particular interest in aquaducts, dams or Los Angeles, this is the book for you. I came in interested in learning about William Mulholland, the man. This book does share some key facts and the details about the end of his life but not much about him beyond his beginnings, that he was married and his wife died of cancer and that he had more than three children (see I just finished it and I can't remember how many he had).
The main focus of the book is the building of Los Angeles Aqueduct, its size, scope and challenges. And as this seems to be the Mulholland claim to fame, it is an amazing accomplishment despite the ongoing complaints that the taking of water from the Owens Valley was detrimental to the area and that somehow it was Mulholland's fault.
It is certainly an interesting read. I had vaguely known of this aqueduct but not necessarily Mulholland's involvement. Considering when it was built, its size and range, you can't argue that it is not a major accomplishment. And other than those who live in the Owens Valley, it is widely recognized as this.
But for a general reader, this may not be what they expect.
The main focus of the book is the building of Los Angeles Aqueduct, its size, scope and challenges. And as this seems to be the Mulholland claim to fame, it is an amazing accomplishment despite the ongoing complaints that the taking of water from the Owens Valley was detrimental to the area and that somehow it was Mulholland's fault.
It is certainly an interesting read. I had vaguely known of this aqueduct but not necessarily Mulholland's involvement. Considering when it was built, its size and range, you can't argue that it is not a major accomplishment. And other than those who live in the Owens Valley, it is widely recognized as this.
But for a general reader, this may not be what they expect.
November 7, 2021
Absolutely bonkers history that is little known by local citizens today. While the author has treated Mulholland quite generously in this retelling, it is still a worthwhile read. Independently of this book, I encourage everyone to take greater notice of their built environment and it's origins.
July 3, 2016
Review Title: Forget Chinatown, Jake, it's the real story
Let's deal with the Chinatown thing right up front because it is such a huge work of entertainment and art (and one of my all time favorite movies) that tells a great detective story around the construction of the massive Los Angeles aqueduct in the early years of the 20th century. With its plot so detailed that even the writers, director, and actors weren't sure what happened, the quotable and much quoted dialogue, the atmospheric settings, and the incredible performances of an incredibly young and powerful Jack Nicholson and an indelibly evil John Huston (the realization of the meaning of the closing scene and its perfect dialogue that I have paraphrased in my title still haunts even now just recalling it). While it doesn't diminish the movie, the real story told here is just as powerful but powerfully different, although to some extent what you feel about Mulholland's accomplishment in bringing water to Los Angeles depends on what you think of Chinatown.
Standiford intertwined the biography of Mulholland with the history of the Los Angeles aqueduct because the man and his monument are really inseparable. An Irish immigrant whose life journey to Los Angeles in the last decade ages of the 19th century, Mulholland worked his way up as an untrained laborer to be chief engineer of he LA water department, growing with the city as it grew from an outpost of 9,000 people when he arrived in 1876 to over 1 million when he retired from the water department over 50 years later.
In fact, when he reached a position of influence within the department, he began to advocate for looking for new water sources for the fantastic growth he anticipated. Los Angeles in 1890 had 50,000 residents and Mulholland envisioned 500,000, all needing only water to make the mild climate the perfect place for paradise. When he and the city's mayor took an exploratory 250-mile trek to the Owens River valley north of town by train, cart, and finally horse when they reached the end of the primitive roads, they beheld a river and lake fed by snow melt that Mulholland believed could be the solution to the water problem.
Of course buying access to the water from the Owens Valley citizens, and then getting the water to LA over rugged desert country remained seemingly insurmountable obstacles to the dream of a modern LA metropolis. Mulholland, in Standiford's account an imminently practical and focused engineer, started from the premise that it was "downhill all the way" between the two points and set out to engineer a way to solve the technical problems in an affordable and achievable solution. While the financial and political obstacles were not so tractable, all obstacles were eventually overcome, and from 1907 to 1913 "The Chief" (as Mulholland was now known and loved by both citizens and his employees) brought one of the great engineering feats of the 20th century to completion, on budget and on schedule.
The backdrop of Chinatown then and now still loomed large, as Standiford documents the labyrinthine history which still divides and unites opinions on all sectors of the political, economic, geographic, and ecological spectrums. Regardless of what positions you take, the modern city would not exist as the world city it is today without the water Mulholland brought. And regardless of whether you class him as a hero or villain of the piece, Standiford's account also demands respect for Mulholland as an insightful and forward thinking project manager:
He first spent time and money to put support infrastructure in place to support the massive building effort, even though the "slow" progress in miles complete caused concern by public and politicians. (p. 111)
He took an "Agile" team approach: in the words of a reporter observing Mulholland at work:
He was also completely self taught, with no college degree and no engineering or management classes, yet he solved problems with techniques now considered state of the art in those disciplines.
So if your interest follows any of the disciplines of politics, engineering, history, biography, economics, and culture touched in this account, you will find it both readable and informative.
Let's deal with the Chinatown thing right up front because it is such a huge work of entertainment and art (and one of my all time favorite movies) that tells a great detective story around the construction of the massive Los Angeles aqueduct in the early years of the 20th century. With its plot so detailed that even the writers, director, and actors weren't sure what happened, the quotable and much quoted dialogue, the atmospheric settings, and the incredible performances of an incredibly young and powerful Jack Nicholson and an indelibly evil John Huston (the realization of the meaning of the closing scene and its perfect dialogue that I have paraphrased in my title still haunts even now just recalling it). While it doesn't diminish the movie, the real story told here is just as powerful but powerfully different, although to some extent what you feel about Mulholland's accomplishment in bringing water to Los Angeles depends on what you think of Chinatown.
Standiford intertwined the biography of Mulholland with the history of the Los Angeles aqueduct because the man and his monument are really inseparable. An Irish immigrant whose life journey to Los Angeles in the last decade ages of the 19th century, Mulholland worked his way up as an untrained laborer to be chief engineer of he LA water department, growing with the city as it grew from an outpost of 9,000 people when he arrived in 1876 to over 1 million when he retired from the water department over 50 years later.
In fact, when he reached a position of influence within the department, he began to advocate for looking for new water sources for the fantastic growth he anticipated. Los Angeles in 1890 had 50,000 residents and Mulholland envisioned 500,000, all needing only water to make the mild climate the perfect place for paradise. When he and the city's mayor took an exploratory 250-mile trek to the Owens River valley north of town by train, cart, and finally horse when they reached the end of the primitive roads, they beheld a river and lake fed by snow melt that Mulholland believed could be the solution to the water problem.
Of course buying access to the water from the Owens Valley citizens, and then getting the water to LA over rugged desert country remained seemingly insurmountable obstacles to the dream of a modern LA metropolis. Mulholland, in Standiford's account an imminently practical and focused engineer, started from the premise that it was "downhill all the way" between the two points and set out to engineer a way to solve the technical problems in an affordable and achievable solution. While the financial and political obstacles were not so tractable, all obstacles were eventually overcome, and from 1907 to 1913 "The Chief" (as Mulholland was now known and loved by both citizens and his employees) brought one of the great engineering feats of the 20th century to completion, on budget and on schedule.
The backdrop of Chinatown then and now still loomed large, as Standiford documents the labyrinthine history which still divides and unites opinions on all sectors of the political, economic, geographic, and ecological spectrums. Regardless of what positions you take, the modern city would not exist as the world city it is today without the water Mulholland brought. And regardless of whether you class him as a hero or villain of the piece, Standiford's account also demands respect for Mulholland as an insightful and forward thinking project manager:
He first spent time and money to put support infrastructure in place to support the massive building effort, even though the "slow" progress in miles complete caused concern by public and politicians. (p. 111)
He took an "Agile" team approach: in the words of a reporter observing Mulholland at work:
'I have seen him sketch with a stick in the sand the outline of a piece of work or a mechanical device for the man selected to do the work and then leave the man to work the thing out in detail.' According to Kelly, Mulholland's elaborations were simple: 'There is the principle. Apply it in your own way.' I (P. 145)
He was also completely self taught, with no college degree and no engineering or management classes, yet he solved problems with techniques now considered state of the art in those disciplines.
So if your interest follows any of the disciplines of politics, engineering, history, biography, economics, and culture touched in this account, you will find it both readable and informative.
April 12, 2015
I had been hoping to come away with a better understanding of California's (and the West's) water situation - perhaps a sort of updated Cadillac Desert with a focus on the Owens Valley, Mulholland, and the Gilded Age. After an interesting start I got bogged down in details and began to skim for passages that provided me a broader perspective. Some readers will certainly be the opposite of me, and will relish the details - I know Standiford has loyal readers. This excerpt from the LA Times review describes his approach in this particular history:
Standiford's strategy for conveying the scale and complexity of the aqueduct's construction, it seems, is to pile on details of competing bids, annual reports, bonus systems, revised deadlines and precinct vote tallies. Rather than explore the drama of personality flaws or clashes, the author relies on logistical quandaries for suspense: "How to transport a section of steel pipe thirty-seven feet long and one and one-eighth inches thick weighing 52,000 pounds, up several miles of dirt road?" As a result, the book comes closer to a project-management assessment than a historical narrative or a portrait of a man and his motivations.
September 23, 2023
I had the advance reader version. I think it is detailed but could have used some pictures or diagrams. If you aren't familiar with the areas it's a pain to flip back to the one map in the front all the time. I think the author did a good job finding a somewhat large but not often thought about topic. I never thought about when water meters became a thing.
In a very interesting twist it mentions someone who was mentioned in a book I've read several months ago which makes me think it may be worth reading about that guy if I can find a whole book about him. Not sure the last part made it to the final book but it was interesting to know how the author got interested in the subject of this book.
Going to side with guy was savvy but didn't conspire to make the land buyer syndicate people. Sad he didn't seem to ever get an enjoyable vacation but it's relatable.
In a very interesting twist it mentions someone who was mentioned in a book I've read several months ago which makes me think it may be worth reading about that guy if I can find a whole book about him. Not sure the last part made it to the final book but it was interesting to know how the author got interested in the subject of this book.
Going to side with guy was savvy but didn't conspire to make the land buyer syndicate people. Sad he didn't seem to ever get an enjoyable vacation but it's relatable.
September 5, 2015
Other reviews are right, being unfamiliar with Los Angeles/California geography, I could have used about 12 more maps to get a better mental picture on where things where happening. Aside from my confused geography, I really, really enjoyed this read. It was thoughtful, at times powerful, and humanized a massive historical undertaking that we still utilize and talk about today. That last few paragraphs remarking on an exchange between Mulholland and his 1930s biographer set my preservationist-sense-of-place soul on fire.
November 1, 2018
The book gives a general overview of Mulholland’s career, casting him as a great man, pulled up by his own bootstraps, uninterested in power, money, or pettiness. Instead of a deep dive into the machinations of the LA aqueduct project, it admits that surely there were some bad actors but Mulholland was uninvolved. If the author wanted to clear Mulholland’s name, and he truly was disinterested in politics and power, then he should have told the story of power that contextualized Mulholland as the “great man” he’s claimed to be.
October 20, 2015
I have always been interested in the Owens Valley water history. It was interesting to read a more neutral history of Mulholland & how it all came to be. The book started out very interesting but then got weighed down by a deluge of facts on the size of pipes or what food was served at workers camps Overall interesting just would have liked less minutia of details & more history behind the controversy
Read
August 16, 2022A very informative Book. And a timely book, based on the current drought situation in the American Southwest. One small point, the term ‘tufa’ and ‘tuff’, were interchangeable [it seems] in the early 20th century. Today they are not. The author seems to stick with convention of the early 20th century. The building of the Los Angeles Aqueduct was [and remains] a mind-boggling engineering accomplishment.
March 14, 2016
Subject matter was very interesting, but rendering in a somewhat corny fashion. Sentence structures were weird and he told the story in a somewhat disjointed fashion to try to make it more suspenseful. The interview with the writer of Chinatown toward the end made the weirdness complete. If you can tolerate all of that, the underlying facts are really quite fascinating.
February 17, 2017
Interesting history, poor pacing. The magnitude of this achievement is easily lost in the frequent run-on sentences and so many unnecessary lists with what felt like syntactical labyrinths made with walls of commas. The technical discussions were confusing and more often than not, terms unknown to the lay reader were never defined or explained.
February 9, 2017
An Accessible Narrative History
The California Water Wars and the Los Angeles Aqueduct are far more fascinating than even Chinatown lets on. Standiford blends solid research and a strong narrative thread to create a compelling read.
The California Water Wars and the Los Angeles Aqueduct are far more fascinating than even Chinatown lets on. Standiford blends solid research and a strong narrative thread to create a compelling read.
January 25, 2022
The story of how LA got/gets its water is the story of William Mulholland. This is an entertaining and almost unbelievable story of an engineering and political triumph, to the detriment of residents of Owens Valley.
Highly recommended.
Highly recommended.
September 4, 2024
Stars: 4
How many millions of people have driven past various segments of the LA aqueduct without even wondering where it is going? How many millions have memories like I do of seeing water flowing down the Cascade as they drive up I-5 and don't think anything about it beyond "whoa, that's cool, back to Pokemon yellow." This is one of those rare books that changes the way you look at the world around you, particularly if you live anywhere near SoCal. It also provides a glimpse into what the world was like only 100 years ago, and it's wild how foreign it feels.
This is a fascinating book that does a decent job explaining the character of Mulholland and the Los Angeles Aqueduct. The topic itself is riveting. The only fault I found with the writing was that it was tough at times to follow descriptions of construction techniques and specific locations. Maps and pictures are few in this book, so I had to often turn to the internet to find out where exactly we are talking about. I'm sure the author spent many months immersed in these details, so things likely seemed obvious to him that would be a bit more murky to someone being introduced to this information for the first time.
Reading about government and public works from over 100 years ago seems like a totally foreign concept to someone like me who lives in Southern California. It's insane to think of a project as novel and monumental in scale as this one being completed as cheaply, under budget, and faster than expected today. Just take a look at our idiotic bullet train that was initially promised for 33 billion. It will probably end up costing 150-200 billion, be much slower than promised, take a decade longer to build, and cost more to ride than was initially implied. I was in relatively early meetings on the bullet train and can vividly remember scoffing when they were saying you would be able to take a ride on the train from LA to SF in 3 hours for $20 one way. Anyone with discernment knew that this was a pipe dream. I work for a government agency, and I know there are still a great many people that want to get things done, but there are about a million things that get in the way of progress. Just imagine today the amount of environmental studies and mitigation you would have to do to build this aqueduct. They'd inevitably find some rare spotted fly that isn't found anywhere else in the world and shut the entire project down. Plus you'd have to shut down for months during raptor nesting season and there would be some fairy shrimp that would show up in a puddle after it rained and you'd be shut down all over again. God forbid you see a burrowing owl. All of this to say that it made me quite envious to read about a time when people were able to get work done without an army of politicians thinking up rules to hamper their progress (all elected by the exact same people who will then whine that government workers never get anything done of course).
I think most people who read this book will be in awe at the courage and audacity of a man to set out on this journey, after convincing the people of LA to spend a small fortune on it, when there were many aspects of the work that he was just confident they would figure out.
The author is definitely pro-Mulholland, but it seems hard not to be once you begin learning about him. I'm sure some people will say that he should've been more sympathetic to the people of Owen's Valley, but the book seemed fair to all parties.
The book won't be for everyone. I'm guessing some people will be put off by some of the descriptions of construction work, but most people will generally find it interesting.
How many millions of people have driven past various segments of the LA aqueduct without even wondering where it is going? How many millions have memories like I do of seeing water flowing down the Cascade as they drive up I-5 and don't think anything about it beyond "whoa, that's cool, back to Pokemon yellow." This is one of those rare books that changes the way you look at the world around you, particularly if you live anywhere near SoCal. It also provides a glimpse into what the world was like only 100 years ago, and it's wild how foreign it feels.
This is a fascinating book that does a decent job explaining the character of Mulholland and the Los Angeles Aqueduct. The topic itself is riveting. The only fault I found with the writing was that it was tough at times to follow descriptions of construction techniques and specific locations. Maps and pictures are few in this book, so I had to often turn to the internet to find out where exactly we are talking about. I'm sure the author spent many months immersed in these details, so things likely seemed obvious to him that would be a bit more murky to someone being introduced to this information for the first time.
Reading about government and public works from over 100 years ago seems like a totally foreign concept to someone like me who lives in Southern California. It's insane to think of a project as novel and monumental in scale as this one being completed as cheaply, under budget, and faster than expected today. Just take a look at our idiotic bullet train that was initially promised for 33 billion. It will probably end up costing 150-200 billion, be much slower than promised, take a decade longer to build, and cost more to ride than was initially implied. I was in relatively early meetings on the bullet train and can vividly remember scoffing when they were saying you would be able to take a ride on the train from LA to SF in 3 hours for $20 one way. Anyone with discernment knew that this was a pipe dream. I work for a government agency, and I know there are still a great many people that want to get things done, but there are about a million things that get in the way of progress. Just imagine today the amount of environmental studies and mitigation you would have to do to build this aqueduct. They'd inevitably find some rare spotted fly that isn't found anywhere else in the world and shut the entire project down. Plus you'd have to shut down for months during raptor nesting season and there would be some fairy shrimp that would show up in a puddle after it rained and you'd be shut down all over again. God forbid you see a burrowing owl. All of this to say that it made me quite envious to read about a time when people were able to get work done without an army of politicians thinking up rules to hamper their progress (all elected by the exact same people who will then whine that government workers never get anything done of course).
I think most people who read this book will be in awe at the courage and audacity of a man to set out on this journey, after convincing the people of LA to spend a small fortune on it, when there were many aspects of the work that he was just confident they would figure out.
The author is definitely pro-Mulholland, but it seems hard not to be once you begin learning about him. I'm sure some people will say that he should've been more sympathetic to the people of Owen's Valley, but the book seemed fair to all parties.
The book won't be for everyone. I'm guessing some people will be put off by some of the descriptions of construction work, but most people will generally find it interesting.
January 28, 2024
I can't remember another book that so desperately needed a map. Approximately half of the book deals with William Mulholland, chief of Los Angeles Water Department, digging a big aqueduct from the Owens Valley to the San Fernando Valley, from 1906 to 1913. The book describes how the aqueduct moved through the Alabama Hills, Haiwee pass, Rose Valley, Jawbone Canyon, Antelope Valley, San Gabriel Mountains, Santa Clarita Valley and many other places. The geographic details are crucial here for showing when concrete-lined or unlined aqueducts were used, when big tubular "siphons" were put in place, when power plants, railroads, camps, and commissaries were constructed, when land purchases and condemnations were made and so forth, but the the book only features one undated historical map at the beginning, which contains almost none of the places mentioned in the book and instead includes some places that aren't. This is a big failing. The book can also be sloppy at places, making big unsupported claims or allowing minor errors to creep in.
Yet there is an amazing story here. Mulholland is portrayed, with justice, as one of the great men of his age. An Irish immigrant that started as a ditch digger for the Los Angeles Water Company and rose to superintend its work, he soon became superintendent of the new city water division when the city bought the company out (after tense negotiations, for $2 million, in 1901). Mulholland then became the highest paid government man in California and yet on his own initiative, with the help of Fred Eaton and a suspiciously US Geological Survey-employed JB Lippincott, secured land rights to the Owens Valley and pitched the U.S. government and LA citizens on the big aqueduct that made the modern city possible. His management style involved trusting men with their duty, wisecracking with them, with reporters and the press, and memorizing all aspects of every part of his job, and keeping on top of all issues. The aqueduct used some of the first hydraulic instead of steam shovels in the world, the first "caterpillar" tractors from Benjamin Holt & Co., new floating dredges, the earliest version of "gunnite" shot concrete and many other innovations. Mulholland got the aqueduct in on budget and under the deadline. He became ranked as one of the great men of the country until in 1928 his St. Francis Dam, one of the only two concrete instead of earthen dams he built, collapsed and killed over 400 people in the Santa Clarita Valley. He took full responsibility publicly (although privately he continued to be suspicious of sabotage or someone else failing) and aged visibly, but remained proud of his other accomplishments.
Mulholland's story has been told many times before (including a slightly different version of it in the 1974 Robert Towne movie Chinatown) and this book doesn't break any new ground. But it does offer a readable, if somewhat confusing and convoluted, view of Mulholland's impressive achievements.
Yet there is an amazing story here. Mulholland is portrayed, with justice, as one of the great men of his age. An Irish immigrant that started as a ditch digger for the Los Angeles Water Company and rose to superintend its work, he soon became superintendent of the new city water division when the city bought the company out (after tense negotiations, for $2 million, in 1901). Mulholland then became the highest paid government man in California and yet on his own initiative, with the help of Fred Eaton and a suspiciously US Geological Survey-employed JB Lippincott, secured land rights to the Owens Valley and pitched the U.S. government and LA citizens on the big aqueduct that made the modern city possible. His management style involved trusting men with their duty, wisecracking with them, with reporters and the press, and memorizing all aspects of every part of his job, and keeping on top of all issues. The aqueduct used some of the first hydraulic instead of steam shovels in the world, the first "caterpillar" tractors from Benjamin Holt & Co., new floating dredges, the earliest version of "gunnite" shot concrete and many other innovations. Mulholland got the aqueduct in on budget and under the deadline. He became ranked as one of the great men of the country until in 1928 his St. Francis Dam, one of the only two concrete instead of earthen dams he built, collapsed and killed over 400 people in the Santa Clarita Valley. He took full responsibility publicly (although privately he continued to be suspicious of sabotage or someone else failing) and aged visibly, but remained proud of his other accomplishments.
Mulholland's story has been told many times before (including a slightly different version of it in the 1974 Robert Towne movie Chinatown) and this book doesn't break any new ground. But it does offer a readable, if somewhat confusing and convoluted, view of Mulholland's impressive achievements.
April 25, 2022
It's a rather fascinating story, but it has the distinct feel of hagiography that is trying not to seem so obviously such by presenting the dam failure that damns Mulholland's reputation at the very beginning before showcasing his quick wit and the engineering creativity and sheer strength of will required in seeing the massive project to build the aqueduct come to fruition in the years before.
But I got suspicious at how one-sided and almost simplistic his depiction of the water wars seemed to be, implying that the Owens Valley folks beef with the aqueduct was entirely the product of speculators like Eaton buying land and hiking their asking price, which Mulholland and Los Angeles refused to pay, and also implying (without evidence -- which stood out because he does document sources for much else of what happens) that perhaps the power companies that stood to face more competition were also funding the opposition, and by telling the story largely from the point of view of Mulholland and Los Angeles, Standiford is able to gloss over the Owens Valley's reclamation/irrigation plan and present it as just one of numerous political obstacles Mulholland had to overcome to succeed.
So, about 2/3 of the way through, I decided to look up the Owens Valley Water War on Wikipedia which paints a starkly different picture (e.g., "After the aqueduct was completed in 1913, the San Fernando investors demanded so much water from the Owens Valley that it started to transform from 'The Switzerland of California' into a desert") and cites this source that has a pretty important detail that you will not find described anywhere in the book:
As American Heritage has a sterling rating at the source of media bias ratings that has best won my trust over the years, I am now very suspicious about Standiford's commitment to objectivity and the truth. I plan to read Cadillac Desert at some point and may elaborate more upon this review then.
But I got suspicious at how one-sided and almost simplistic his depiction of the water wars seemed to be, implying that the Owens Valley folks beef with the aqueduct was entirely the product of speculators like Eaton buying land and hiking their asking price, which Mulholland and Los Angeles refused to pay, and also implying (without evidence -- which stood out because he does document sources for much else of what happens) that perhaps the power companies that stood to face more competition were also funding the opposition, and by telling the story largely from the point of view of Mulholland and Los Angeles, Standiford is able to gloss over the Owens Valley's reclamation/irrigation plan and present it as just one of numerous political obstacles Mulholland had to overcome to succeed.
So, about 2/3 of the way through, I decided to look up the Owens Valley Water War on Wikipedia which paints a starkly different picture (e.g., "After the aqueduct was completed in 1913, the San Fernando investors demanded so much water from the Owens Valley that it started to transform from 'The Switzerland of California' into a desert") and cites this source that has a pretty important detail that you will not find described anywhere in the book:
But for all his engineering genius, Mulholland had omitted one vital feature from his Owens River project—a major reservoir. In his anxiety to get water to the city, he had simply diverted the river to Los Angeles; the only reservoirs were those necessary for the month-to-month operation of the aqueduct. He had, it was true, tapped the river below the valley’s main center of agriculture, so that under ordinary circumstances both farmers and city dwellers would have enough water. But without a reservoir there was no means of storing the precipitation of the wet years; when the dry years came, there was insufficient water to supply both the city and the valley. Upon this predicament the Owens Valley water war was reborn, and it was to become more savage than ever.
As American Heritage has a sterling rating at the source of media bias ratings that has best won my trust over the years, I am now very suspicious about Standiford's commitment to objectivity and the truth. I plan to read Cadillac Desert at some point and may elaborate more upon this review then.
October 26, 2020
Water to the Angels
By Les Strandiford
- [ ] Mulholland Drive
- [ ] The LA aqueduct
- [ ] The early 20th century when LA was just a desert, Hollywood was just starting, and the hills were still hills
- [ ] Interesting man
- [ ] 1880’s
- [ ] The geography of the area, the hills and the valleys
- [ ] LA always had a water problem
- [ ] Bonds, engineering, cities, decades, workaholics
- [ ] Mulholland
- [ ] Coming in under budget
- [ ] Fucking engineering
- [ ] A growing city
- [ ] Manual labor and cutting through mountains
- [ ] Biking in DC and Richmond, this was on in the background
- [ ] Mulholland was a complicated man, he certainly was a brilliant engineer
- [ ] The aqueduct helped create the urban Southern California of today but in doing so it destroyed the Owen’s Valley farming sector. There were massive farms and a strong economy, communities that existed, they could have become larger and boomed. To create the aqueduct these communities and farmers were cheaply bought out and the area razed for the aqueducts, damns, and other infrastructure
- [ ] Certainly there were business and people - public and private - that made fortunes from the water - legitimately and illegitimately
- [ ] There were people that went bankrupt, that lost their life savings, homes, family’s, and communities from those that were profiting
- [ ] The massive damn that broke and killed hundreds - the second largest disaster of the kind in the country’s history
- [ ] I am fascinated by the engineering, the infrastructure, the building, the vision, man attempting to control nature, what could have been v what became, the water to people/urban area, how important water is, how water is the source of growth and survival - fascinating
- [ ] The book was a tad dull but I was not paying attention much - the story and subject is amazing
By Les Strandiford
- [ ] Mulholland Drive
- [ ] The LA aqueduct
- [ ] The early 20th century when LA was just a desert, Hollywood was just starting, and the hills were still hills
- [ ] Interesting man
- [ ] 1880’s
- [ ] The geography of the area, the hills and the valleys
- [ ] LA always had a water problem
- [ ] Bonds, engineering, cities, decades, workaholics
- [ ] Mulholland
- [ ] Coming in under budget
- [ ] Fucking engineering
- [ ] A growing city
- [ ] Manual labor and cutting through mountains
- [ ] Biking in DC and Richmond, this was on in the background
- [ ] Mulholland was a complicated man, he certainly was a brilliant engineer
- [ ] The aqueduct helped create the urban Southern California of today but in doing so it destroyed the Owen’s Valley farming sector. There were massive farms and a strong economy, communities that existed, they could have become larger and boomed. To create the aqueduct these communities and farmers were cheaply bought out and the area razed for the aqueducts, damns, and other infrastructure
- [ ] Certainly there were business and people - public and private - that made fortunes from the water - legitimately and illegitimately
- [ ] There were people that went bankrupt, that lost their life savings, homes, family’s, and communities from those that were profiting
- [ ] The massive damn that broke and killed hundreds - the second largest disaster of the kind in the country’s history
- [ ] I am fascinated by the engineering, the infrastructure, the building, the vision, man attempting to control nature, what could have been v what became, the water to people/urban area, how important water is, how water is the source of growth and survival - fascinating
- [ ] The book was a tad dull but I was not paying attention much - the story and subject is amazing
January 25, 2025
This book first caught my eye several years ago, but didn't read at the time. I picked it up again shortly after the LA fires in early 2025, and controversies about drought and water issues encountered in fighting the fires. The whole Owens Valley controversy came up in reading another book: Ghost Town Living, by Brent Underwood, a man who took up ownership of a mountain mining town on the edge of Death Valley called Cerro Gordo, which overlooked the Owens Valley, and lamented the loss of Owens Lake.
That said, this book is a retrospect of the aqueduct that was envisioned and built under the leadership of William Mullholland with the LA Water and Power district. The engineering feat is phenomenal, what with bringing water from hundreds of miles away to feed the ever growing Los Angeles. That is fascinating and not without logistical problems. The book opens and closes with the epic failure of the St Francis Dam, which Mullholland built at the end of his aqueduct project. That alone is heartbreaking to read.
So much of what he built brought about the great growth in the Los Angeles valley, and the history of its growth is fascinating. The book also has a chapter on the movie, Chinatown, which drew a fictitious plot dealing with water wars and greed. I had just watched the movie a couple of weeks before.
It makes me sad to think that a lot of the communities that benefitted from the aqueduct have been forever changed due to the 2025 fires.
Interesting read, even if it gets little technical at times.
That said, this book is a retrospect of the aqueduct that was envisioned and built under the leadership of William Mullholland with the LA Water and Power district. The engineering feat is phenomenal, what with bringing water from hundreds of miles away to feed the ever growing Los Angeles. That is fascinating and not without logistical problems. The book opens and closes with the epic failure of the St Francis Dam, which Mullholland built at the end of his aqueduct project. That alone is heartbreaking to read.
So much of what he built brought about the great growth in the Los Angeles valley, and the history of its growth is fascinating. The book also has a chapter on the movie, Chinatown, which drew a fictitious plot dealing with water wars and greed. I had just watched the movie a couple of weeks before.
It makes me sad to think that a lot of the communities that benefitted from the aqueduct have been forever changed due to the 2025 fires.
Interesting read, even if it gets little technical at times.
July 18, 2020
Los Angeles, California was founded in a location that was ill suited to urban growth for the simple but overwhelming reason that it lacked sufficient water to support commerce and growth. That changed in 1907 when a young Irish visionary named William Mulholland arrived and began the Los Angeles Aqueduct to carry water from the Sierra Nevada Mountains some 233 miles to the city. Les Standiford tells the story of the project and Mulholland’s role in its success and controversy. The author assembled statistics, political background, civil engineering, and economic factors into a narrative that revealed the scope of the undertaking, Mulholland’s management skill, and the backstory on how it was financed. And it came in under budget and almost on time. This intriguing history moved steadily and easily.
The closing of the story, however, was odd. The author wandered into movie reviews of some old productions that used Mulholland and the project as a base but spun widely from there. Then he brought in retrospective interviews and a modern reevaluation of the St. Francis Dam failure that killed hundreds of people and caused Mulholland to fall from grace. The ending seemed to be tacked onto the history, a disjointed closure of a different style. It left me wondering what the author was trying to accomplish.
The closing of the story, however, was odd. The author wandered into movie reviews of some old productions that used Mulholland and the project as a base but spun widely from there. Then he brought in retrospective interviews and a modern reevaluation of the St. Francis Dam failure that killed hundreds of people and caused Mulholland to fall from grace. The ending seemed to be tacked onto the history, a disjointed closure of a different style. It left me wondering what the author was trying to accomplish.
July 28, 2015
At the turn of the last century, San Francisco was the largest city in California, not Los Angeles. How it surpassed San Francisco is the story Les Standiford tells in his account of the construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct.
Standiford focuses on William Mulholland, the Irish immigrant who led the LA water department and oversaw the design and construction of the aqueduct. After briefly recounting how Mulholland wound up in LA, Standiford details Mulholland's quest to provide LA an adequate water supply, a quest that eventually led him up to the Owens Valley. Mulholland remains a controversial figure to this day, and one can see why in Standiford's portrait: he's stubborn, sure of himself, and doesn’t suffer fools gladly. He has an engineer’s sense of purpose and sobriety. He believes what is right and that's that. Standiford has a good deal of respect for Mulholland, and even admiration. It's easy to see why. Mulholland had no engineering expertise, was essentially self-taught, yet managed to pull off one of the great engineering feats of the twentieth century.
The construction of the aqueduct, which lasted from 1907 to 1913, forms the core of the narrative. For such an unprecedented feat it went off with few problems. The foremost difficulty was probably getting financing on time and in sufficient amounts. Standiford relates a couple of notable accidents, but the sense one gets is that the project went smoothly. There are the usual infighting and political squabbling, though nothing out of the ordinary.
Standiford doesn't focus on it, but the Los Angeles area in the early twentieth century was rather rural and undeveloped. More so than anyone who sees the gleaming metropolis of LA today would ever think. On the initial surveying trip, Mulholland and his partner had to travel by mule. Rail tracks had to be laid specifically for the aqueduct construction; the area the aqueduct went through wasn’t previously on any lines. The aqueduct not only gave LA a secure water supply, it made it possible for Los Angeles to become the city it is today.
There are a lot of interesting anecdotes in the book. The headquarters of the Los Angeles Times was bombed by union sympathizers in 1910. Twenty-one people were killed. The violence, part of a campaign of union agitation, essentially killed unionism in LA County until the 1950s. I'd never heard of this episode, which came at the height of construction of the aqueduct. At the end of the book, Standiford interviews Robert Towne, the writer of Chinatown, the classic 1975 movie which tells a highly fictionalized story of the controversy about the aqueduct and the water and land rights involved in its construction.
Standiford has used all the proper sources, including water department records, newspaper stories, and the numerous books written about the subject. He also used a brief autobiographical sketch written by Mulholland himself, as well as the manuscript of a biography of Mulholland published by his granddaughter. His granddaughter, who Standiford spoke to several times, remembers the opprobrium that attached to her surname when she was young, a consequence of the controversy and enmity aroused by her grandfather's great work. By the 1920s, the aqueduct became the target of vandals who would open its gate or even try to bomb it, acts which continued into the 1970s. Many of the culprits were aggrieved landowners in the Owens Valley, who felt either that the LA government was shortchanging them in its offers to buy their land, or that the diversion of water to LA prevented the full development of their land. LA's gain was their loss, a fact that still rankles to this day.
Mulholland, it should be said, retired in a cloud of controversy. The St. Francis Dam, one of the water system's reservoirs, failed in 1928. The ensuing flood killed more people than any event in California history except the Great San Francisco Earthquake of 1906. Mulholland had overseen the construction of the dam, so took the blame. Modern experts remain divided on the extent to which Mulholland deserves the opprobrium he still carries. Some say the hydrological and geological science of the time was simply insufficient to have anticipated such a catastrophe, while others maintain that the dam was not up to the standards of its time.
There's a certain casualness to Standiford's writing that, although pleasing to the reader, can make things confusing at the same time. The aqueduct was completed in 1913, but the book doesn't finish until the dam collapse fifteen years later. The aqueduct opens, then it's the late 1910s, then the bombings start in 1924, then it's 1928 and the dam is collapsing. The passage of time isn't always adequately noted. It's one year on one page then another year on another page. The footnotes and bibliography aren't the best, either. Each chapter only has rudimentary notes citing the sources. No quotations are attributed directly. The bibliography is similarly sparse.
There is one major omission in the book, and that omission more than anything Standiford actually mentions reveals the vast gulf between the time he wrote his book and the time he wrote about. Not once does anyone object to the aqueduct on environmental grounds. They object over property and water rights, but never because of what the environmental impact would be. Not one environmental impact study was conducted. No one worried about chopping down trees or ruining habitats. Today, there’s no way the aqueduct would get off the planning stage, let alone built. Environmentalists wouldn't stand for it. Water remains a huge issue in the West, but now it is anchored around environmental concerns. A century ago, it was all about urban planning and growth. Giving people an environment they could live in, that was the only environmental concern. I doubt William Mulholland would have had much patience for today's environmentalists. They may grumble about it today, but Angelenos, as Standiford amply demonstrates, should be quite grateful that Mulholland had little patience for his opponents. They were simply another obstacle to be overcome on the great waterworks that delivered Los Angeles its future.
Posted 28 July 2015
Standiford focuses on William Mulholland, the Irish immigrant who led the LA water department and oversaw the design and construction of the aqueduct. After briefly recounting how Mulholland wound up in LA, Standiford details Mulholland's quest to provide LA an adequate water supply, a quest that eventually led him up to the Owens Valley. Mulholland remains a controversial figure to this day, and one can see why in Standiford's portrait: he's stubborn, sure of himself, and doesn’t suffer fools gladly. He has an engineer’s sense of purpose and sobriety. He believes what is right and that's that. Standiford has a good deal of respect for Mulholland, and even admiration. It's easy to see why. Mulholland had no engineering expertise, was essentially self-taught, yet managed to pull off one of the great engineering feats of the twentieth century.
The construction of the aqueduct, which lasted from 1907 to 1913, forms the core of the narrative. For such an unprecedented feat it went off with few problems. The foremost difficulty was probably getting financing on time and in sufficient amounts. Standiford relates a couple of notable accidents, but the sense one gets is that the project went smoothly. There are the usual infighting and political squabbling, though nothing out of the ordinary.
Standiford doesn't focus on it, but the Los Angeles area in the early twentieth century was rather rural and undeveloped. More so than anyone who sees the gleaming metropolis of LA today would ever think. On the initial surveying trip, Mulholland and his partner had to travel by mule. Rail tracks had to be laid specifically for the aqueduct construction; the area the aqueduct went through wasn’t previously on any lines. The aqueduct not only gave LA a secure water supply, it made it possible for Los Angeles to become the city it is today.
There are a lot of interesting anecdotes in the book. The headquarters of the Los Angeles Times was bombed by union sympathizers in 1910. Twenty-one people were killed. The violence, part of a campaign of union agitation, essentially killed unionism in LA County until the 1950s. I'd never heard of this episode, which came at the height of construction of the aqueduct. At the end of the book, Standiford interviews Robert Towne, the writer of Chinatown, the classic 1975 movie which tells a highly fictionalized story of the controversy about the aqueduct and the water and land rights involved in its construction.
Standiford has used all the proper sources, including water department records, newspaper stories, and the numerous books written about the subject. He also used a brief autobiographical sketch written by Mulholland himself, as well as the manuscript of a biography of Mulholland published by his granddaughter. His granddaughter, who Standiford spoke to several times, remembers the opprobrium that attached to her surname when she was young, a consequence of the controversy and enmity aroused by her grandfather's great work. By the 1920s, the aqueduct became the target of vandals who would open its gate or even try to bomb it, acts which continued into the 1970s. Many of the culprits were aggrieved landowners in the Owens Valley, who felt either that the LA government was shortchanging them in its offers to buy their land, or that the diversion of water to LA prevented the full development of their land. LA's gain was their loss, a fact that still rankles to this day.
Mulholland, it should be said, retired in a cloud of controversy. The St. Francis Dam, one of the water system's reservoirs, failed in 1928. The ensuing flood killed more people than any event in California history except the Great San Francisco Earthquake of 1906. Mulholland had overseen the construction of the dam, so took the blame. Modern experts remain divided on the extent to which Mulholland deserves the opprobrium he still carries. Some say the hydrological and geological science of the time was simply insufficient to have anticipated such a catastrophe, while others maintain that the dam was not up to the standards of its time.
There's a certain casualness to Standiford's writing that, although pleasing to the reader, can make things confusing at the same time. The aqueduct was completed in 1913, but the book doesn't finish until the dam collapse fifteen years later. The aqueduct opens, then it's the late 1910s, then the bombings start in 1924, then it's 1928 and the dam is collapsing. The passage of time isn't always adequately noted. It's one year on one page then another year on another page. The footnotes and bibliography aren't the best, either. Each chapter only has rudimentary notes citing the sources. No quotations are attributed directly. The bibliography is similarly sparse.
There is one major omission in the book, and that omission more than anything Standiford actually mentions reveals the vast gulf between the time he wrote his book and the time he wrote about. Not once does anyone object to the aqueduct on environmental grounds. They object over property and water rights, but never because of what the environmental impact would be. Not one environmental impact study was conducted. No one worried about chopping down trees or ruining habitats. Today, there’s no way the aqueduct would get off the planning stage, let alone built. Environmentalists wouldn't stand for it. Water remains a huge issue in the West, but now it is anchored around environmental concerns. A century ago, it was all about urban planning and growth. Giving people an environment they could live in, that was the only environmental concern. I doubt William Mulholland would have had much patience for today's environmentalists. They may grumble about it today, but Angelenos, as Standiford amply demonstrates, should be quite grateful that Mulholland had little patience for his opponents. They were simply another obstacle to be overcome on the great waterworks that delivered Los Angeles its future.
Posted 28 July 2015
December 18, 2020
Dry as dust. That pretty much sums up not only the water situation in Los Angeles 100+ years ago (and again recently, save for the recent rains), but Les Standiford's account of one man's personal mission to bring water to the city and ensure its future viability and prosperity.
Now, before I go any further, I must acknowledge that I did not finish Water to the Angels. In fact, I made it only about one-third of the way through before I allowed myself to give up for good. Normally a voracious reader once I begin a book, I've been plugging away at this one one or two pages at a time for roughly a month. Why? I believe much of the dryness comes from a lack compelling narrative, a lack of character development, and a lack of colorful language (not the unprintable kind, just the kind that livens up the recounting of a meeting that occurred 112 years ago).
I have no doubt that there is a good story in how Los Angeles got its water. Cumulatively, the reviewers on Amazon have given this book 4.5 stars. So it might just be me. Clearly, every historical event must stand on its own, but when I consider the really excellent non-fiction I've read in the recent past (The Fall of the House of Dixie, for example, or A Good Place to Hide), this one just doesn't hold a candle.
Now, before I go any further, I must acknowledge that I did not finish Water to the Angels. In fact, I made it only about one-third of the way through before I allowed myself to give up for good. Normally a voracious reader once I begin a book, I've been plugging away at this one one or two pages at a time for roughly a month. Why? I believe much of the dryness comes from a lack compelling narrative, a lack of character development, and a lack of colorful language (not the unprintable kind, just the kind that livens up the recounting of a meeting that occurred 112 years ago).
I have no doubt that there is a good story in how Los Angeles got its water. Cumulatively, the reviewers on Amazon have given this book 4.5 stars. So it might just be me. Clearly, every historical event must stand on its own, but when I consider the really excellent non-fiction I've read in the recent past (The Fall of the House of Dixie, for example, or A Good Place to Hide), this one just doesn't hold a candle.
September 18, 2022
We all know just a bit about how the California coast has thrived by taking water from other locations. But I was amazed to learn the details about how Mulholland brought together the funds, the planning, and a lot of varied manpower, to build an aquaduct from the Owens Valley to Los Angeles, a distance of -----------. And it was mostly a human-powered accomplishment with help from a herd of mules and a bit of support from steam shovels. I recommend this book if you are interested in the details. But....
If you have any questions about how all this movement of water affected and affects the ecology and environment, forget it. Standiford, like Mulholland, accepts without reservation that allowing LA to metastasize into the current mess that it is was a noble undertaking, a morally unassailable rearrangement of the earth to favor the limited, shortsighted goals of some humans.
It is more amazing to me that this book tells this story as it does, without examining the more profound questions about what human manipulation of the environment has really done to the earth, than that Mulholland and company were able to build it in the first place.
If you have any questions about how all this movement of water affected and affects the ecology and environment, forget it. Standiford, like Mulholland, accepts without reservation that allowing LA to metastasize into the current mess that it is was a noble undertaking, a morally unassailable rearrangement of the earth to favor the limited, shortsighted goals of some humans.
It is more amazing to me that this book tells this story as it does, without examining the more profound questions about what human manipulation of the environment has really done to the earth, than that Mulholland and company were able to build it in the first place.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 115 reviews