Page 13 - lw3198

NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018
(Rev. 8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service

National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet

Section number 8 Page 9

St. Francis Dam (Site of), Los Angeles County, California — Narrative Statement of Significance
[continued]
When outside relief organizations began arriving in the valley, they were surprised to find many immediate life-saving efforts already
taking place at makeshift rescue camps, including one at Rancho Camulos near Piru, where some of the Edison Camp survivors were
initially sheltered. An ad-hoc tent city was quickly created in Santa Paula, which provided temporary housing for 600 displaced
residents, some remaining for as long as three months after the flood, even while scores of others were taken in by friends and
relatives. Aid provided to the injured and homeless proved to be a less pressing concern to the residents of the valley than dealing
with the vast numbers of corpses, however. The overwhelmed local mortuaries were forced to stockpile the victims of the flood in
provisional open-air morgues. [Outland, 1963: 140-3; Travis, 1929] [Figure 13]

The day following the dam break, a citizen’s committee was founded to coordinate relief efforts throughout the Santa Clara Valley. It
would be chaired by prominent Santa Paula resident Charles Collins Teague. Three days later, the Ventura County Board of
Supervisors authorized the creation of a blue ribbon committee to investigate the dam disaster and take up the issues of losses and
compensation. Again, Teague would be its leader.
A counterpart committee from Los Angeles was also formed, headed by Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce president George
Eastman. Together, these two groups became known collectively as the Committee of Fourteen. Their duties were divided formally
into claims and reconstruction tasks. Working in concert, the Committee of Fourteen prevailed upon the Los Angeles City Council
to immediately authorize $1.0 million for claims settlement and recovery efforts. [Teague, 1944: 185; Travis, 1929]

The Committee of Fourteen also actively mediated between aggrieved residents of the disaster area and the City of Los Angeles in the
settlement of claims. The Los Angeles City Attorney set up a field office in Santa Paula to screen and process damage claims, with
the objective of providing expedited settlements, in exchange for agreements on the part of the claimants to relieve the city of further
exposure to liability or lawsuits.

As a matter of policy, the City of Los Angeles agreed to restore or replace damaged or destroyed housing, but refused to make lump
sum payments for such losses. The city also declined to negotiate with claimants who hired a contingency fee attorney.

This scheme was enforced on a local basis by Teague and Ventura County District Attorney James Hollingsworth through novel, if
heavily-handed means. Out-of-town attorneys were expelled from the disaster area, escorted to the county line by the Ventura County
Sheriff, and sternly cautioned against returning. Teague also threatened to publish the names of these attorneys, whom he regarded as
“parasites,” in the local newspaper. Evidently, few did return, and consequently only 44 lawsuits would be filed against the City of
Los Angeles for wrongful death and property damage claims. By comparison, 228 death and injury claims, and a great number more
for property loss, were settled amicably within a year and a half of the disaster. [Travis, 1929]
Teague also proved instrumental in persuading local and Los Angeles authorities to engage the services of the University of
California Farm Extension Service as an unbiased and expert third-party to survey damage to agricultural lands. Losses were
calculated on the basis of the survey and field investigations. [Outland, 1963: 151-4; Teague, 1944: 186-7, 190-4; Travis, 1929]
Investigations, Interpretations and Recriminations

The St. Francis Dam disaster proved to be a blow not just to the residents of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, but to the reputation
of the City of Los Angeles, and those who had acted on its behalf. The city was still reeling from the prolonged, sometimes violent,
and still quite recent history of the Owens Valley water wars, which had been put to rest less than a year before the dam collapse. The
fact that the water unleashed on the Santa Clara Valley was extracted from the Owens Valley, by what many regarded as unsavory
means, colored the public’s perceptions of the disaster. Feeding on the lore which had influenced the public’s interpretation of the
water wars, conspiracy theories abounded.