No Imperial Valley

MerryPrankster · Jul 28, 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Valley_(California)

What if the Imperial Valley was never irrigated?

I imagine that part of California would not be highly populated and there'd be a lot less agricultural productivity in the state.

Oba · Jul 28, 2011

Interesting question: Having been to southern California, I would say that Los Angeles would not become a huge city and probably be more like contemporary Seattle. Without a large LA, there could be no Hollywood; it would probably either be in New York City, due to the strong existing media infrastructure there, or in Florida, due to the favorable weather their.

Arachnid · Jul 28, 2011

Why on earth wouldn't it be irrigated. Its such an obvious move that it requires a pretty severe POD to prevent it. Like whoever owns it being so broke and dysfunctional that they can't do some really obvious improvements.

PoorBoy · Jul 28, 2011

Aracnid said:
Why on earth wouldn't it be irrigated. Its such an obvious move that it requires a pretty severe POD to prevent it. Like whoever owns it being so broke and dysfunctional that they can't do some really obvious improvements.

Perhaps because it may become an extension of the Sea of Cortes? But the big geological question here is how would the Colorado be prevented from dumping all that sediment and damming the Imperial Valley off from the rest of the ocean?

Oba said:
Interesting question: Having been to southern California, I would say that Los Angeles would not become a huge city and probably be more like contemporary Seattle. Without a large LA, there could be no Hollywood; it would probably either be in New York City, due to the strong existing media infrastructure there, or in Florida, due to the favorable weather their.

LA may still end up as a large city: It pretty much grew to what it is today due to oil (just like Houston).

irishparadox · Jul 28, 2011

If you're looking for an ATL motion picture hub: Jacksonville, Florida. Wiki

Alex Richards · Jul 29, 2011

Oba said:
Interesting question: Having been to southern California, I would say that Los Angeles would not become a huge city and probably be more like contemporary Seattle. Without a large LA, there could be no Hollywood; it would probably either be in New York City, due to the strong existing media infrastructure there, or in Florida, due to the favorable weather their.

Actually, when films moved to Hollywood, the entire area was orange plantations.

neopeius · Jul 29, 2011

Someone once did an amazing timeline where the Imperial Valley was largely covered by Lake Cuhuilla, but that resulted in more, earlier population.

As a fellow who lived in El Centro for 18 years and still works for a company headquartered there, it's a pretty lousy place to live. I think it is the hottest "civilized" place on Earth (over 120 degrees F in the summer). And it goes down to 20 degrees F in the winter. Is there any inhabited place on Earth with such a range?

I say let it die.

ArKhan · Jul 30, 2011

The Salton_Sea wouldn't recieve the agricultural runoff it did in OTL, and as such wouldn't have a microbial bloom, which wouldn't produce toxic gases, which wouldn't force the evacuation of the entire lake.

MerryPrankster · Jul 30, 2011

PoorBoy said:
LA may still end up as a large city: It pretty much grew to what it is today due to oil (just like Houston).

Are you sure? I was under the impression before WWII, it was a small city dedicated to movies and it was the defense industry that did it.

ArKhan · Jul 30, 2011

MerryPrankster said:
Are you sure? I was under the impression before WWII, it was a small city dedicated to movies and it was the defense industry that did it.

There where 4 forces that caused LA to become the big city it is today. The Imperial Valley irrigation, the oil fields, the Hollywood boom, and the great San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 that caused a significant shift in california's population southward. Even if you remove one of them, the other three are still there. While you could argue that with an unirrigated Imperial Valley the Hollywood boom would be butterflied away, or that the population would shift north instead, that still leaves the oil fields. All I'm saying is that sure LA would be smaller, but it'd still be a major city, even if it's nowhere near the second largest in the US.

Swan Station · Jul 30, 2011

Oba said:
Interesting question: Having been to southern California, I would say that Los Angeles would not become a huge city and probably be more like contemporary Seattle. Without a large LA, there could be no Hollywood; it would probably either be in New York City, due to the strong existing media infrastructure there, or in Florida, due to the favorable weather their.

Florida gets more rain than LA, meaning less sunny days to spend filming exterior shots. California also has access to a lot of varied and dramatic types of terrain that are a bit more difficult to reach in Florida. Florida is an adequate substitute, but not a perfect substitute. Coastal Texas might be better, since at least it still has more choices for terrain.

I often wonder if California was also chosen because it was further away from the east, further away from the old Theater industry of New York, and further away from east coast politicians who might want to interfere.

I have a feeling that if LA wasn't an option, the film industry would still settle in Southern California. Even if they had to move down to San Diego, or up to Santa Barbara.

Dathi THorfinnsson · Aug 1, 2011

neopeius said:
I think it is the hottest "civilized" place on Earth (over 120 degrees F in the summer). And it goes down to 20 degrees F in the winter. Is there any inhabited place on Earth with such a range?

100 degrees range isntthat much. I grew up with 100 rarely in the summer to 40 below in the winter....