Comments by "John Peric" (@johnperic6860) on "Who Killed the Colorado River?" video.

10:30 What's the worst about the Alfalfa and Lettuce production in the Colorado River Basin is that it only contributes to something like 5% of the nation's supply. It's entirely unnecessary. Even if we were to completely get rid of alfalfa and lettuce farms in the Southwest, it would have almost no impact on their availability nationwide, including for cattle. We're sacrificing our most endangered and of our most important rivers for something that isn't even necessary.
1300
@kevinconrad6156 You're right, my number was a bit off, the Imperial Valley produces 8.5% of the nation's alfalfa, according to UC Davis and the state government of California. As for lettuce, roughly 12.8% of the nation's lettuce comes from the Imperial Valley, definitely significant, but it would not take much to increase production elsewhere in wetter parts of California, Washington, and Oregon to compensate for decreasing output in the Imperial Valley. (these figures come from the FDA and California state government). Though to be frank, lettuce is such an incredibly unnecessary and useless crop it really wouldn't hurt much to do away with it. It has some of the lowest nutrient value-to-water consumption ratios of any plant.
39
@DigitalConfusion1 The Imperial Valley produces 8.5% of the nation's alfalfa and 12.8% of the nation's lettuce. Boosting lettuce production in coastal-central California (e.g. Salinas) by 18% would be enough to replace the entire lettuce industry in Imperial Valley. Should be noted that lettuce is a pretty useless crop too, it holds very little nutrition, especially relative to how much water it uses.
30
Crisis* and yes, it isn't smart, though the golf courses are much less bad for the environment than the Alfalfa and Lettuce farms.
26
@attemptityourself5662 Most (almost all of it) is used in America. Doesn't really matter where it's shipped though because that doesn't change the fact it's unnecessary and it's harming the river.
24
@iseeblood209 Alfa in the Southwest consumes something like 2 times more water than every single city in the Southwest combined. Enough water is used to grow alfalfa to sustain the city of Phoenix several times over. And unlike human beings, you can get rid of all alfalfa production in the South West with little harm to the general populace or nation as a whole.
10
@basedoz5745 What's worse is that the Colorado River Basin only produces something like 5% of the nation's Alfala. There are small counties in Iowa that produce more Alfalfa than the entire Colorado River Basin but with relatively little impact on the environment. So we're destroying one of the world's most important and unique rivers to produce a crop that could be produced cheaper and with far less environmental impact in Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, or Mississippi.
5
The Salton Sea was formed when an agricultural diversion canal failed and formed a new branch of the river. Without the flow of additional diverted water the Salton Sea would've dried up in a matter of years, as it did after the 1862 flood. The only reason the Salton Sea hasn't dried up is because the Colorado River has been diverted for agriculture and agricultural runoff now empties into the Salton Sea.
5
They weren't managed at all. The Colorado River only supported a few hundred thousand natives, many of which were nomadic and non of which had mass agriculture (bar the Hohokam people who disappeared 1000 years ago). This is akin to saying that a room that's clean because almost no one uses it is well-managed.
4
Stupid take, most of the agricultural canals in Phoenix today were built using those already built by the Hohokam people 1000 years ago. And in your stupid dreams, it will never happen nor should it happen. People can learn how to live in a desert and with the river.
3
Maybe not that, but instead repurposing them exclusively for flood control. So instead of removing the Hoover Dam, you keep it in place and keep Lake Mead empty, so that it can capture all the flood water that flows into it.
2
@tolson57 Yes, absolutely, I would have nothing against replacing the dams with nuclear power plants. And there are other ways to get nuclear power without placing massive water-wasting dams. You can use small diversion dams that divert water into aqueducts which then drop water down a steep slope a few miles further downstream (this is commonly done in Appalachia).
2
@PringleSn1ffer The central and northern coasts of California aren't deserts; they receive 15 to 100 inches of rain annually. I recommend looking at a map because only South Eastern California and part of the San Joaquin Valley are deserts.
2
@MbisonBalrog I know, but you can't grow lettuce in upstate New York in February. Also, the central and northern coast of California isn't exactly water sparse either. The coast receives 15 to 100 inches of rain, with most areas, such as San Francisco, receiving over 20 inches annually. Not to mention that California's dry season is in the summer, and almost all of the state's rain and snow falls between December and April.
2
@Tijereño Notice how I said "mass agriculture" Having a few acres of farmland next to the river isn't mass agriculture. The Hohokam had tens of thousands of acres of agricultural land and hundreds of miles of agricultural canals. They were the only native society in the Colorado River basin that came remotely close to the level of agricultural development we have today. The river did not support as much as it could, natives supported themselves as much as they could. What's disingenuous is saying that natives managed the river better despite the fact they were supporting a dozen times fewer people.
2
@tolson57 I know, I'm aware. What's your point?
1
@Juneisthebestmonth No durrr really???
1