It seems to me that juncture would be a perfect site for a major port or a big city. Why did it not develope.
Probably because Tijuana does everything a port in the Gulf could do, only better. Facing the Pacific Ocean, you can go in many directions; facing the Gulf of California at the mouth of the Colorado, you can only go south for hundreds of miles.
Plus it’s bitchin’ hot there, and quite barren.
Because it’s faster to walk to the Pacific Ocean than to take a ship the ~600 miles around Baja?
Damn. Beat me while I was making sure I knew where the Colorado river ended up.
You all make good points, but it is just as hot in Phoenix and that city has a million people and it would seem more sense to build a city on a river with water than to build one hundreds of miles away and steal the water from the Colorado which I believe is essentially what LA and Phoenix do now.
When Phoenix was founded, it seemed like a good idea at the time. There is the Gila River and all that. It just isn’t enough to satisfy a city the size of Phoenix, just as the Los Angeles River isn’t a reliable water supply for L.A.
I suppose that nobody in 19th Century Mexico got to the mouth of the Colorado and said, “Hmm, let’s build a city here.”
All the cities near the mouth of the Colorado at the Gulf of California are really small.
That area is actually much hotter than Phoenix. Check out the temperatures for Yuma sometime and you’ll get the picture.
It’s my understanding that the Colorado ends up fanning out into many small channels, none of which would support motor-vessel traffic. I remember reading about someone in a canoe having a difficult time trying to find the route. Also, I don’t feel there was much need for industrial river traffic on the Colorado even 150 years ago. The river was a wild river with a relatively short section which would be navigable on a seasonal basis.
Has anyone seen my keys?
Markxxx asked: It seems to me that juncture would be a perfect site for a major port or a big city. Why did it not develope.[sic]
[ul][li]Before agriculture and dams, its sea exit was quite shallow. And now, the Colorado often doesn’t even make it to the ocean. :([/li][li]The upstream course was quite wild.[/li][li]There were no major settlements to support.[/li][li]The weather is quite extreme in the downstream canyons (along CA/AZ border). This was one of the hazards of building the Hoover Dam; it was @!#?@! hot![/li][li]These same canyons were quite steep, and getting cargo out of them to the top would’ve been prohibitively expensive.[/li][li]upstream of the Green River junction in Utah, it is quite shallow. (I’ve walked across it in Grand Junction, CO.) Canals around the shallow and rough parts would’ve had to have been too long.[/li]The mouth of the Colorado is in Mexico; all but about 100 miles of the river is in the US. Why build and maintain a port for those @!#?@! gringos? :)[/ul]
I tried to post to this thread last night and the power went down. They said it was a utility-pole fire. Let’s see what happens tonight.
I was going to say about what WiseOldMan said , viz., the mouth of the Colorado was a broad shallow delta.
The page linked here says:
“After the Jesuits left, the Spanish and later the Mexicans had little to do with northeastern Baja, perceiving it as an untamable, flood-prone desert delta.”