Well, they managed -- over the last 70 years or so -- to engineer hundreds of millions of gallons of water away from the valleys and Mono Lake to slake/sate the thirsty desert town of L.A.
With the technology available today, one would think they could man-make a reservoir and find a way to divert such torrential outflow INTO it....
I get your drift as to "where" it ought to be. But it seems to me that all those minds that used to contemplate towing icebergs down to the southern climes and using desalination science to "water the desert" should have been able to figure out how to salvage the water that does manage to fall on LA.
A. Mono lake to LA - downhill (nature pays the energy coat); putting water back - uphill - mucho big bucks energy cost!
B. Actually the LA Basin is ringed by systems of dams and reservoirs to collect water - the flooding LA and San Gabriel rivers are the result of spill-over from these reservoirs!
C. Studies to use rain water to recharge the aquafiers have always come up short. During the rainy seasons the aquafiers rapidly recharge and when the later torrents come, there is no water-room left at the aquafier inn.
D. Nature's way of charging aquafiers is a slow seepage process; when man decided to pave over most of the desert that is now LA County, he removed the vast majority of seepage points; since the rain now has no place to soak in, it follows gravity desparately looking for a resting place.
E. All that pavement in LA County also serves as a depository of vast quantities of oil and grease that result from the operation and storage of motor vehicles. Throughout the long dry season, the oils accumulate, and come the rains, vast quatities of hydrocarbons are released into the flowing rainwater and crate torrents of petro-sludge flowing into the rivers and on to the sea.
F. The vast collection of debris you saw in the picture I posted of Long Beach harbor is the result of trash entering the LA river from all the many up-stream towns. After years of argument, legislation has been passed requiring the various cities to clean up their run-off before it hits the river; virtually every city is suing to stop implementaion of the legislation maintaining that the cost is probibitive - "If the river is to be made clean we will have no police or fire, and all the libraries and parks shall be closed!"
G. The pillaging of MONO lake was cost-effective (from an LA point of View) - the creation of additional storm water holding facilies is not. (Note - the Bay area solved their water problems by building huge dams and flooding vast areas of pristine wilderness.)
H. In spite of all of these problems, southern California is still continuing on an never-ending quest to cover more dirt with concrete to provide homes for people who will need lots of water and will demand more roads for transportation.
I. Even though the conservationists can predict where the floods will be, where there will mudslides, and where there will be significant fire danger, the home builders return! (Like natives retuning to settle on the slopes of a volcano before the lava is cool.)
der Brucer
