Insurrection Copy

8/2/2019 Insurrection Copy

1/14

Rozsa 1

George Gregory Rozsa

AMST 416

December 7, 2011

Alabama Gates OccupationNovember 16, 1924

Courtesy, Siskiyou County Museum

Insurrection at the Alabama Gates

On November 5, 1913, the fate of Owens Valley was sealed as the first of its water

cascaded down Los Angeles newly opened aqueduct. As the water gushed down the final

sluiceway, William Mulholland turned to the Mayor and said, There it is. Take it. 1Los Angeles

has been taking it ever since. When it became apparent to the merchants and businessmen of

valley that they could no longer compete with Los Angeles for control over their own water

supply, and by extension, their livelihoods, they initiated a holdout strategy beginning with the

occupation of the Alabama Gates of the Los Angeles Aqueduct. This paper examines the

occupation, its underlying holdout strategy, and the final outcome from holding out.

1Marc Reisner, Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water(New York: Penguin, 1986), 86.


2/14

Rozsa 2

Just before daybreak on Sunday, November 16, 1924, a caravan of sixty to seventy men

from Bishop, California,2 headed south towards Independence. About five miles north of Lone

Pine they veered off of the main highway, steering their Model T Fords towards the red-rounded

contours of the Alabama Hills, a small range of barren rises at the foot of the Sierra escarpment.3

When they arrived at the Los Angeles Aqueducts Alabama spillway, they easily brushed aside

the guards, and upon taking possession of the spillway, they opened the floodgates, releasing

nearly the entire flow of the Aqueduct 2,182 gallons a second,4 onto the dry riverbed below.

By noon, hundreds of the valleys residents, brooding over their wrongs, whether real or fancied5

had gathered to see Los Angeles contested water supply cascade down the open spillway.

6

Sheriff Collins, a friend and sympathizer of the Bishop rebels, arrived with the obligatory

cease and desist orders;7but as theLos Angeles Times noted, those Owens Valley residents who

seized the control station and opened the flood gates, remain(ed) at their posts, quietly determined

to stay indefinitely.8

The occupation took on the appearance of an open rebellion as neighbors spelled each

other in night-long vigils.9 Searchlights trained on the highway approach from Los Angeles,10

gave the encampment even more of a warlike appearance.11 Still, others continued to arrive as

2Troops Asked as Owens Raiders Open Aqueduct,Los Angeles Times, November 17, 1924, and John Walton,Western Times andWater Wars: State, Culture, and Rebellion in California (Berkeley: University of California Press,1992), 160.TheLos Angeles Times puts the number closer to 60 men while John Walton recalls the higher figure of70.3Marc Reisner, Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water(New York: Penguin, 1986), 94.4Troops Asked as Owens Raiders Open Aqueduct,Los Angeles Times, November 17, 1924.5

Aqueduct Is Periled as Anarchy Rules in Inyo,Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1924.6John Walton, Western Times andWater Wars: State, Culture, and Rebellion in California (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1992), 160. [hereinafter Walton, Water Wars].7John Walton, Picnic at Alabama Gates: The Owens Valley Rebellion 1904-1927, California History 65.3 (1986):193. [hereinafter Walton, Picnic].8New Troop Plea Made,Los Angeles Times, November 18, 1924.9Walton, Water Wars, supra note 6, at 164.10Ibid.11Aqueduct Is Periled as Anarchy Rules in Inyo,Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1924.


3/14

Rozsa 3

the days dragged on. 100 or more automobiles, proclaimed theLos Angeles Times, all dust-

laden and bearing scars of long arduous journeys over mountains and deserts, testified to the

residents resolve.12 By noon on Monday, November 17, 1924, nearly two-dozen women from

Bishop, sturdy women with bronzed faces and hands calloused by household toil Wives of

ranchers who have taken upon themselves the big job of feeding the scores of Owens Valley

men who have opened the flood gate,13arrived to serve lunch to the men standing guard.

According to theLos Angeles Times, The presence of the women served to give the entire affair a

more serious touch. Until they arrived it appeared to be more of a bachelor picnic.14

Notwithstanding the additional solemnness, the scene soon deteriorated into a spectacle.

15

The occupation was a bold and risky move to create an event of such notoriety that the

governor would be forced to send the state militia to oust the trespassers and restore order. 16

According to John Walton, The seizure of the Alabama Gates marked the culminating failure of a

process of political negotiation between the valley representatives and the Los Angeles Department

of Water and Power.17 Even the Bishop Chamber of Commerce officially sanctioned of the

occupation stating that Whereas the city of Los Angeles has failed, notwithstanding repeated

promises to submit any definite and dependable plan of settlement of differences between said city

and Owens Valley property owners, and whereas certain farmers and other citizens now have

possession of the aqueduct with the sole intention of obliging the city to act justly toward the

12 Camp at Aqueduct Gate Is Center of Family Life,Los Angeles Times, November 20, 1924.13Ibid.14New Troop Plea Made,Los Angeles Times, November 18, 1924.15By the fourth day, a grand barbeque was trucked in for the makeshift militiamen, their wives, and their children.Bishop merchants provided the meat, bread, and other foodstuffs. More than fifty women, reported theLos AngelesTimes, baked pies, while others cooked and looked after the children. John Walton and Marc Reisner also note thatTom Mix, who had been filming one of his Westerns nearby, saw the barbeque smoke rising out of the hills andjoined in the festivities, bringing both his crew and a Mariachi band. The day then ended with (a)n orchestra withseveral khaki-clad girls dragging drums and musical instrumentssinging Onward Christian Soldiers. SeeCamp,Los Angeles Times, November 20, 1924.16Walton, Water Wars, supra note 6, at160.17Walton, Picnic, supra note 7, at 194.


4/14

Rozsa 4

valley, therefore, be it resolved that we indorse and approve the action of the citizens who have

taken the step mentioned as a means of attaining a definite settlement.18The raiders would

remain vigilant and the floodgates would remain open until a settlement was reached.19

Los Angeles officials were a bit perplexed by the occupation. Just days before the takeover,

a delegation from the city had met with representatives from Bishop to discuss the resolution

passed by the Water Board on October 14, 1924.20 According to the citys proposal, 30,000 acres

in the upper valley and 3,000 to 5,000 acres in the lower valley, all thoroughly irrigated and

cultivated (would have insured) a production exceeding anything known in the past history of

the valley.

21

The citys plan however, was totally unacceptable to the valley ranchers.

22

Moreover, the ranchers had heard such promises before,23 and it was their conviction that city

officials have never kept a single promise.24

Such a guarantee was first made by William Mulholland back in 1913 when he agreed to

provide the Owens Valley with enough water to continue producing at their existing levels. That

plan, however, was thwarted when a lawsuit was filed on behalf of the city to prevent its

finalization on the grounds that it would mean forfeiting some of Los Angeles water rights.25 In

fact, Mulhollands plan was, in itself, a response to the question of what to do with the citys

excess water supply. Los Angeles new aqueduct provided four times as much water as the city

could use, an excess of enough water to irrigate approximately 135,000 acres of land per year.26 A

18Water Grab Indorsed By Bishop Body,Los Angeles Times, November 18, 1924.19Troops Asked as Owens Raiders Open Aqueduct,Los Angeles Times, November 17, 1924.20

Mediation Offer Made In Fight Over Aqueduct,Los Angeles Times, November 21, 1924.21 Board Rejects Valley Offers,Los Angeles Times, January 10, 1925.22William L. Kahrl, The Politics of California Water: Owens Valley and the Los Angeles Aqueduct, 1900-1927:II. The Politics of Exploitation, California Historical Quarterly 55.2 (Summer, 1976): 110. [hereinafter Kahrl,Politics II].23Ibid.24 Mediation Offer Made In Fight Over Aqueduct,Los Angeles Times, November 21, 1924.25Kahrl, Politics II, supra note 22, at 102.26Kahrl, Politics II, supra note 22, at 99.


5/14

Rozsa 5

few of the proposals floating around at the time advocated for selling the excess water at market

prices to the highest bidders, others proposed selling the excess water back to the Owens Valley

ranchers, still others preferred using the excess water as an enticement for annexation.

On August 29, 1913, Los Angeles formally adopted the Quinton-Code-Hamlin Reports

recommendations for annexation. Under the Quinton-Code-Hamlin Report, any area outside of

the city limits that desired to share in the surplus would have to agree to be annexed. 27

Furthermore, the report advocated that the San Fernando Valley be given first consideration for the

surplus water due to the valleys location at the head of the Los Angeles River. Any irrigation in the

valley would ultimately return to the Los Angeles River as drainage for the citys reuse.

28

Such

rationality, however, did not alleviate the feelings of corruption, which had resurged upon this

recommendation. Instead of reassuring critics, the plan gave sudden new credence to the charge

that the project had been intended to benefit the syndicate rather than the city from the very

beginning.29 Incriminations were nothing new. Similar charges of corruption have abounded the

whole project of the Los Angeles Aqueduct. From its very inception the aqueduct had been

shrouded in secrecy.

From 50,393 in 1880 to more than 250,000 by 1900, Los Angeles population had risen

five hundred percent and there was a growing concern among boosters that unless Los Angeles

secured another reliable source of water, its growth would be retarded.30 On July 12, 1904, it

seemed like Los Angeles prayers had been answered. On that date, the San Francisco Callran an

article on a report published by J.C. Clausen of the United States Reclamation Service, announcing

the commercial viability of the Owens Valley, a little known stretch of land one hundred miles

27Ibid.28Ibid.29Ibid, at 100.30Gary D. Libecap, Chinatown: Owens Valley and Western Water Reallocation Getting the Record Straight andWhat It Means for Water Markets, Texas Law Review 83.7 (June 2005): 2064.


6/14

Rozsa 6

long and approximately five miles wide, straddling the Sierra Nevada mountains, on one side, and

the White mountains, on the other, in northern California.31By September 1904, Fred Eaton,

former Mayor of Los Angeles, and William Mulholland, Superintendent of the Los Angeles

Department of Water and Power, set out by buckboard to investigate the Owens Valley, 250 miles

north of Los Angeles, where Eaton insisted, lay a water supply capable of supporting a city ten

times the current size of Los Angeles.32

To convince the United States Reclamation Service to withdraw its interest in the Owens

Valley in favor of Los Angeles, Mulholland acquired the services of J.B. Lippincott, Chief of

Southwest Operations for the United States Reclamation Service and fellow Los Angeles resident.

On September 17, 1904, Lippincott intimated to his superiors that Los Angeles was interested in

the valley.33 By then, the Reclamation Service had already undertaken three major projects in

Yuma, Owens Valley, and the Sacramento River, while a fourth, in the Klamath River basin, was

under review.34 Designed to be a self-sustaining agency, funded partially through public land sales,

the Reclamation Services appetite for initiating new projects soon outran its funding.35 Just

weeks after Lippencotts notice, the Reclamation Services financial difficulties had reached a

crisis point, which led F.H. Newell, Chief Engineer for the Reclamation Service, to send out a

memo to his engineers informing them of the Services financial position and asking them to

31A Typical Irrigable Valley, The San Francisco Call, July 12, 1904.32William L. Kahrl, The Politics of California Water: Owens Valley and the Los Angeles Aqueduct, 1900-1927: I.The Politics of Appropriation, California Historical Quarterly 55.1 (Spring, 1976): 4. [hereinafter Kahrl, PoliticsI].33As Lippincott was advising the Department of Interior of Los Angeles interest, Eaton was in New Yorkconsulting with Dillon and Hubbard, bond attorneys, in an attempt to privatize the water rights from the OwensValley, which he would then in turn, resell to Los Angeles, 15,000 miners inches at an annual rate of $100 aninch. See Kahrl, Politics I, supra note 32, at 5.34 Planning Work of Reclamation, The San Francisco Call, July 17, 1904. According to Kahrl, the Owens Valleyproject ranked third in the Reclamation Services priorities with Yuma and Klamath River coming in first andsecond. See William L. Kahrl, Water and Power: The Conflict over Los Angeles Water Supply in the Owens Valley(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), 56. [hereinafter Kahrl, Water and Power].35Ibid.


7/14

Rozsa 7

carefully weigh their projects, stating that, It is evident there will not be sufficient funds for the

construction of all the projects which appear feasible.36 By February, 1905, Lippencott and

Newell devised a plan in which the Service would bow out of Owens Valley while Los Angeles

would reimburse the Service for its previous work. In return, Lippencott confidentially furnished

Mulholland with a detailed report of the agencys measurements in the valley.37

With maps and credentials in-hand, Eaton set about purchasing water rights from

unsuspecting farmers who thought they were aiding reclamation for the valley rather than giving

up their water to Los Angeles.38 Kahrl also notes that all of these purchases, were carried out in

strictest secrecy due to the fears that publicity about the project would escalate prices.

39

Moreover, Eaton himself proclaimed, When our scheme gets out there is going to be an army of

grafters in [the valley] filing up and buying up water rights to my discomfort, and I must be given

all the protection possible.40After Eaton had acquired the requisite number of properties,

Mulholland informed the syndicate that The last spike had been driven, all of the options Los

Angeles had desired had been secured.41

The syndicate in question, the San Fernando Mission Land Company, has been at the heart

36Ibid.37Kahrl, Politics I, supra note 32, at 5. There was one additional caveat to agreement. The Reclamation Servicewas keen to Eatons attempt at privatization and refused to withdraw its interest unless the entire Los Angelesproject was publicly owned. Eaton reluctantly bowed out when Mulholland offered him $450,000 for the waterrights and the right to build reservoir on the 12,000-acre Rickey Ranch Eaton had purchased in anticipation of hisprivatization scheme. In essence, Los Angeles paid Eaton $450,000 in cash and approximately $50,000 in cattle fora 2,000-acre easement and the ranchs associated water rights while Eaton retained ownership of the remaining10,000 acres. According to Willie Arthur Chalfant, Eaton had paid Rickey $30,000 of his own money to secure theoption on Long Valley. If Chalfant is correct, Eaton received approximately $470,000 for his assistance inacquiring Owens Valley property for Los Angeles. See Willie Arthur Chalfant, The Story of Inyo, p 343. As quoted

in Kahrl, Politics I, supra note 32, note 15, at 23.38Kahrl, Politics I, supra note 32, at 5. Apparently Eatons credentials identified him as an agent of theReclamation Service; however, Lippincott flatly denied furnishing Eaton with such documentation. Even ifLippencott did not provide Eaton with the aforementioned credentials, Kahrl notes that Lippencott was well awareof what Eaton was doing, because he had to tell Eaton to stop representing himself as a federal agent, on manyoccasions. See Kahrl, Politics I, supra note 32, note 16, at 23.39Kahrl, Politics I, supra note 32, at 5.40Kahrl, Water and Power, supra note 34, at 56.41Remi A. Nadeau, TheWater Seekers (Garden City, New York: Country Life Press, 1950), 28.


8/14

Rozsa 8

of the controversy surrounding Owens Valley from the aqueducts inception. The San Fernando

Mission Land Company (hereafter, referred to as the syndicate) was formed on November 28,

1904.42Just moments after Mulholland received the approval to undertake the project, Harrison

Gary Otis, Director, and one of the syndicates founding members, secured an option on 16,000

acres in the north end of the San Fernando Valley for $35 an acre. The option, however, was only

exercised after Eaton had acquired the Rickey ranch, which made the project feasible.

Subsequently, when Eaton had made the last of his purchases, Otis Los Angeles Times ran an

article Titanic Project To Give City A River announcing Los Angeles plans to build the

aqueduct. With the news, property values throughout much of Los Angeles doubled, and within a

fortnight, Burbank lots more than quintupled.43

42Courthouse notes from December 2, 1904, list the companys initial subscription of $1,000,000 in capital stock tobuy and sell water, divide land into farm and town lots, and improve and develop the lands that may be obtained by

the incorporation. The directors of the corporation were listed as E.H. Harriman, H.E. Huntington, H.G. Otis, W.G.Kerckhoff, J.F. Sartori, L.C. Brand, and E.T. Earl. See Courthouse Notes,Los Angeles Times, December 2, 1904.The importance of these syndicate magnates is revealed by Kahrl: Harriman was the largest single landowner inSouthern California; Huntington owned each of the Southern, Central, and Pacific railroads; Kerchoff was thepresident of the Pacific Light and Power Company; Sartori was affiliated with the Security Trust and Savings Bank;L.C. Brand was affiliated with the Title Guarantee and Trust Company; Porter was a San Francisco land speculator;Earl owned theExpress; and Otis owned the Times and theHerald. Subsequently, Moses Sherman, another street-railway man and Harry Chandler, Otis son-in-law joined the syndicate. See Kahrl, Politics I, supra note 32, at 11.and Kahrl, Politics II, supra note 22, at 100.43Remi A. Nadeau, TheWater Seekers (Garden City, New York: Country Life Press, 1950), 29.


9/14

Rozsa 9


10/14

Rozsa 10


11/14

Rozsa 11

Throw in allegations of a scheme to divert water from Los Angeles reservoirs to create the

impression of a shortage in order to pass a bond measure that would finance the aqueduct,44

along with the Quinton-Code-Hamlin Reports recommendation that San Fernando should get

twice as much water as Los Angeles, and It almost looks as if some of these men whose character

and integrity are above reproach had purchased arid lands, and are in haste to have them made

valuable by this water project.45Is there any wonder why the farmers and ranchers of Owens

Valley would have had reason to mistrust the intentions of Los Angeles? According to Kahrl, the

opening of the aqueduct sealed the fate of Owens Valley.46Moreover, once the inhabitants of

Owens Valley had understood that they were locked into a contest with Los Angeles over their

own water supply, a contest already decided in Los Angeles favor, the residents adopted a new

strategy to hold out for the best possible price.47

Los Angeles water officials had come to the same conclusion. They believed that the

Alabama Gate occupation was just another gesture in a long program to force the city to buy

extensive properties in the valley.48 According to one Water Board official, their October 14,

proposition to irrigate the valley at existing productivity levels was met with great approval. The

plan appealed to many of the ranchers, advised one official, Many of them are doing well on

their ranches, and desired to stay, thinking that this interest was for the best interests of the valley

and the city.49 Apparently, the owners of the Owens River Canal were holding out for a better

44

Nadeau writes that by September 1, 1905, reservoir levels had been dropping by 3,000,000 gallons per day and

Muholland warned that Los Angeles would probably be out of water in three weeks. Critics alleged thatMulholland had been releasing water into the sewers to generate the appearance of a water shortage. See Nadeau,Water Seekers, supra note 41, at 34. Interestingly enough, on September 1, 1905, theExaminerran a story, whichclaimed that the city was losing 24,000 gallons a day from leaks in the municipal high service reservoirs. SeeKahrl, Politics I, supra note 32, note 33, at 24.45Quoted in Kahrl, Politics I, supra note 32, at 10.46Kahrl, Politics II, supra note 22, at 103.47Ibid, at 110.48Troops Asked as Owens Raiders Open Aqueduct,Los Angeles Times, November 17, 1924.49Ibid.


12/14

Rozsa 12

price. The only thing that would satisfy them, wrote theLos Angeles Times, would be for the

city to purchase their entire lands.50

On December 3, 1924, the ranchers made a counter-offer to Los Angeles. They were

willing to accept Los Angeles offer if Los Angeles was willing to pay $5.3 million in reparations

to repair the damage already inflicted upon the valley towns by lack of water, or payment of $12

million for the valleys remaining lots.51 If the original irrigation proposal was sufficient for the

ranchers, then what was the additional $5 million for? So thought J.A. Graves, president of the

L.A. Clearinghouse Association, who asked, whether any moneys which the city would agree to

pay are to be divided among the farmers of the valley, or whether the lions share thereof would go

to a junta of Los Angeles and Bishop capitalists.52 Ultimately, the gamble paid off. The Alabama

Gates occupation and subsequent violent acts drew national attention to the plight of the Owens

Valley ranchers, compelling Board officials to settle negotiation disputes.53 Those farmers and

ranchers who held out the longest received the most money for their properties, $443 per acre as

compared to an average of $198 for all farms;54 however, no purchase price would have been

sufficient enough to eradicate the general feeling of theft surrounding the Owens Valley and the

sale of its water to Los Angeles.

50Ibid.51Five-Million Reparations Asked By Owens Valley,Los Angeles Times, December 3, 1924.52Combine Hinted In Water Fight,Los Angeles Times, December 4, 1924. John Walton had similar questionswhen he set out to write, Picnic at Alabama Gates: The Owens Valley Rebellion 1904-1927. Walton observed that80 percent of petition signers in 1904 were farmers or ranchers while only 15 percent were professionals, merchants,or town clerks. By 1924, during the Alabama Gates occupation, those figures radically changed. 51 percent of thoseparticipating were either professionals, merchants, or clerks, while the number of farmers and ranchers participatingdropped to a low of 38 percent. See John Walton, Picnic at Alabama Gates: The Owens Valley Rebellion 1904-1927, p 197. Who are these people who have hurled the boldest of defiance at the officials of Los Angeles? askedthe Los Angeles Times on November 20, 1924. (P)hysicians, lawyers, business men, merchants and others, was

the Times reply. See Camp,Los Angeles Times November 20, 1924 and New Troop Plea Made,Los AngelesTimes November 18, 1924.53Gary D. Libecap, Chinatown: Owens Valley and Western Water Reallocation Getting the Record Straight andWhat It Means for Water Markets, Texas Law Review 83.7 (June 2005): 2077.54Ibid, at 2082.


13/14

Rozsa 13

Works Cited

A Typical Irrigable Valley, The San Francisco Call, July 12, 1904.

Aqueduct Is Periled as Anarchy Rules in Inyo,Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1924.

Board Rejects Valley Offers,Los Angeles Times, January 10, 1925.

Camp at Aqueduct Gate Is Center of Family Life,Los Angeles Times, November 20, 1924.

Combine Hinted In Water Fight,Los Angeles Times, December 4, 1924.

Courthouse Notes,Los Angeles Times, December 2, 1904.

Five-Million Reparations Asked By Owens Valley,Los Angeles Times, December 3, 1924.

Kahrl, William L. The Politics of California Water: Owens Valley and the Los Angeles

Aqueduct, 1900-1927: I. The Politics of Appropriation. California Historical Quarterly55.1 (Spring, 1976): 2-25.

Kahrl, William L. The Politics of California Water: Owens Valley and the Los Angeles

Aqueduct, 1900-1927: II. The Politics of Exploitation. California Historical Quarterly55.2 (Summer, 1976): 98-120.

Kahrl, William L. Water and Power: The Conflict over Los Angeles Water Supply in the Owens

Valley. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.

Libecap, Gary D. Chinatown: Owens Valley and Western Water Reallocation Getting the

Record Straight and What It Means for Water Markets. Texas Law Review 83.7 (June

2005): 2055-2089.

Mediation Offer Made In Fight Over Aqueduct,Los Angeles Times, November 21, 1924.

Nadeau, Remi A. TheWater Seekers. Garden City, New York: Country Life Press, 1950.

New Troop Plea Made,Los Angeles Times, November 18, 1924.

Planning Work of Reclamation, The San Francisco Call, July 17, 1904.


14/14

Insurrection Copy

Documents

Transcript of Insurrection Copy