That will be further complicated by which version of CalExit comes to fruition. I’ve seen multiple maps where CA is divided into various configurations.
CA would have the same issues as Texas. Military bases and federally funded highway infrastructure to name a couple. The drug cartels would emerge in CA just like in TX.
Water would be the same issue it is now, and new water agreements would need to be arranged for the Colorado, but most of the state relies on water that accumulates within the state already. If no Colorado river water, then shut down some almond and alfalfa and cotton farms (or other thirsty ag) - industry and suburban toilets and golf courses are a long way from going dry.
This is just not true. Most of the ag in California is in the Central Valley, which relies on surface water sources (rivers and snowmelt) and groundwater (which is a problem of it’s own). Colorado River water does supply ag in the Imperial Valley in far southern California, but that’s a small portion of CA’s overall ag picture. More of a concern for Colorado River water is supplying SoCal urban and industrial uses, which are very reliant on the Colorado - the farms in the Imperial Valley are the only ag that would be done if that water were somehow cut off.
I’m not an expert on the subject. But my understanding is that California is able to use its large congressional base to ensure that interstate water rights are negotiated on terms that are very favorable to California.
I think it’s reasonable to assume that if California was a foreign country negotiating with the United States for these same water rights, it would get much less favorable terms. Mexico, to make a comparison, has complained about the amount of water that the United States takes out rivers before they cross into Mexico.
Agree - there is a long and tortured history of California water rights that is well documented - an independent California would have to renegotiate all the agreements and would likely end-up with less favorable terms. Here is an article discussing this somewhat.
True BUT the aquafers are being drained faster than being replenished and snowpack depends a lot on not being in a drought decade. The Colorado is needed by California as a supplement to lower those uses.
As noted in the previous secession thread, California is on even more tenuous grounds than Texas due to its far greater risk of severe earthquakes.
It’s been estimated that the cost of damage due to the 1906 quake in San Francisco was $500 million, which in today’s money would translate to over $18 billion. And that figure doesn’t include damage to other affected areas in California that are vastly more populated now than they were in 1906.
Given all the other “natural” calamities it faces on an annual basis (fires, drought, floods etc.) California would frequently resemble Shit Creek Nation.
*in the event of a Trump re-ascendancy, expect disgruntled Californians to revive that dopey secession scenario.
Is the OP assuming a friendly or antagonist relationship with the US?
Certainly CA would suffer in the short-term as the Federal apparatus pulled out. This would be untenable if the relationship was antagonistic.
But CA is not an insignificant portion of the US in terms of population, GDP, active duty service members, ag and industry, net federal taxes, port capacity, etc.
It would be a significant blow if the US lost 11-14% of it’s GDP and a big chunk of it’s access to the Pacific Ocean. CA would have more leverage than Canada and eventually more than the UK.
Water rights would be a weakness for sure, but port access would be a strength. Presumably there would be plenty of business interests in the remaining US that have significant ownership in CA. They wouldn’t want the US to turn off water access and erode their investments.
California has the advantage of plentiful port trade with the Pacific, lots of natural resources/terrain/good farmland.
The main problem for them is having to do lots and lots of desalination in order to get potable water. But with some teeth-gritting and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on it, they could. They could also solar-power their way out of almost any energy problem.
I’m no economist, but I imagine that many companies will move to other states to avoid whatever regulations apply to foreign owned businesses selling goods in the states. Of course, the same will apply to a TX secession.
That, on top of people and corporations already fleeing the tax situation there, is going to kick their GDP square in the knackers.
I don’t think businesses would flee due to regulations alone, there would have to be real financial penalties to starting. Plenty of multinationals exist and thrive, especially if it gives them access to another market. I’ll admit that it seems likely that the net flow would be toward the US and away from the newly sovereign state --absent some big incentives.
But I don’t think CA or TX would sit still and let companies or people leave en masse. Presumably both would adjust themselves to market conditions. We like to anthropomorphize these states around their dominant political ideology, but the ultimate ideology, Money, would win out.
Finally I don’t remember if it came up in the Texas thread, but the second most important factor* to CA (or any state’s) success would be how much, if any, Federal debt the new state takes with them. In the unrealistic scenario that CA takes no debt, they would have a significant credit line available. Not as much as the US, but eventually approaching a similar sized economy like the UK, India, or Japan.
*The most important factor being the relationship with the US: friendly or antagonistic.
Where are those hundreds of billions of dollars going to come from? The entire budget for California was just over two hundred billion dollars in 2023. And that was as a state in an existing country. As an independent nation, California would need to add new expenses like building a military on top of that.
Defense industries are a significant portion of California’s economy. And I don’t see how the American government would be okay with having its defense industries based in a foreign country. So those businesses would be pulled out of California and relocated to other states still in the United States.