LA and San Diego provide ports (with the attendant transportation and shipping), military installations and know how, and entertainment to the world, and a top world tourist destination. None of this can be provided elsewhere, even if you picked LA population up and dropped them wholesale in a brand new city in, say North Carolina, it would not be the same.
Like I said, look at your own life, and see how much of it uses food, content, equipment and services that arise from CA or are based on its origins in CA. I suggest not 1 person in 100,000 could change their lives at a whim to do without all of this.
Perhaps you can look at a map of where I live in the Central Valley and tell me about all the turf and pools you see. Roughly 25,000 square miles of the most productive farmland in the world, it must eb nothing but grass :rolleyes:
And you say you would rather a family of 5 flush water away without a care in the world than consider selling it? Because like I said, it is not just CA or even the Southwestern states that need water - the entire midwest great plains are pretty bad off too.
Who knows? Maybe if the Gulf is destroyed, some of the Mighty Mississipp can be re-purposed for the midwest to use…
Why? They’re not building a pipeline to your front door. Theoretical proposals for it have been to supply CA/NV/AZ/NM with water, not just your strawberry fields.
But those regions weren’t the ones who kept having bright ideas that served as the catalyst for the Great Lakes Compact. Maybe some day they will and I’ll have to thank the pools and golf courses of Phoenix and Los Angeles for locking down the Lakes with an international treaty while the getting was good.
Actually, it pretty much is a pipeline all the way through. If it was truly new water, it would be likely to be oversubscribed, and very possibly not yet subject to any riparian rights or allocations. That means it would go to the highest bidder, not simply the first place it passed by. I would make the case that California is a better use of most water in the west than AZ, NM, NV, UT. Do you disagree?
Actually, it was probably the neighboring regions that spurred the Compact from what I understand. Even Waukesha, a close neighbor and barely on the other side of the drainage field, can’t get the water because the unused water won’t drain back AIUI. I hardly think anyone is concerned about pumping over the Rockies, but down to OK or anywhere over the Oglalla might be a concern.
No I am suggesting that the knee jerk reactions of many simply ruling out investing in keeping what people already have and enjoy and don’t seem to be ready to give up is what you should be wishing “good luck with that” to.
Unless you plan on getting your food elsewhere than CA (which is possible even today, we could simply import it) than you are talking about the impacts of price elasticity of large chunks of the fundamental and staple food supplies in this country.
In layman’s terms: Not enough food for the people at hand.
If that is what you want to see simply because you object to people in LA having a pool, well [skipped because this is not The Pit].
California runs the 7th largest economy in the world on the water it has now. It supplies the fresh food for the nation and much of the world. It supplies ports, military, technology, entertainment, transportation, and tourism products and services beloved the nation and world over.
Even is sluggish times, all of this is true, and the products and services in a wide variety of very large industries (these are only some of them) are second to none the world over.
What precisely are you suggesting is not well husbanded? What degree of thought and analysis have you actually given this issue?
Read this for a good idea of the Great Lakes Compact. Research on this topic for current policies being constructed and enforced.
Locally a few years ago the Perrier water bottling plant bid to take water from the Neenah Creek water shed was stopped and a county ordinance enacted to ensure the watershed would not be drawn down to supply bottled water. We like our wetlands, and wildlife that they support.
We should treat the water like the Middle East does oil. You will always need water as there is no alternative if you want to live.
No California is NOT going to get any water from the Great Lakes anytime soon. The elevation difference and distance are effectively so cost prohibitive that it will not happen.
Any discussion about whether or not California should get water from other regions is a completely different debate. Personally if California is so great at supplying an ungrateful bunch of consumers then it should up the cost of its produce to pay for desalination plants. That or use the water it does have access to in a more efficient manner.
:dubious: Moving water over the Rockies is cost prohibitive, but desalinization isn’t?
Let’s be clear - am I on the only one here who has given more than a moment’s thought as to how CA uses its water?
Because I wonder what Grey means when s/he suggests that we could be using our water in a more efficient manner?
And I also wonder why the price of produce in the grocery store across the US has anything to do with paying for desalinization in CA even if that were possible?
For one thing, by the time you buy it in a store, the produce has changed hands many times over.
For another, the farmer generally does not set the price of the commodity he is selling, the buyer does.
For a third, the farmers are using fresh water to begin with, if desalinization were to be used, it would be implemented on a large scale, it would be for the non-ag urban populations on the coast.
So what does the price of produce have to do with implementing any of that, even if it were available?
Much of the problem of growing food is that places that are good for that purpose lack some of the necessary ingredients.
Examples: The central California valley has good temps years-round and lots of flat land, but little water.
The Sierra Nevadas have lots of water, but very little suitable, flat land and only a few months of warm growing season.
So if you bring the Sierra water to the California valley, you’ve got everything you need, and that’s why it works.
As far as those who say this is against nature, everything man does it against nature. You live in a shelter that wasn’t build by nature and eat food that was deliberately planted or raised by humans. And what is natural about cars, phones, medical care, books and computers? It’s because of the major flaws in “natural” processes that we are motivated to better ourselves.
Actually, it is not quite that simple here in the Valley. Left to nature for billions of years, the Valley was a natural wetlands most of the year, and the water from snow melt would flood it. There used to be the 2nd largest (IIRC) freshwater lake in the US called Tule Lake, but it is drained now with the rest of the Valley. Water is captured and stored in reservoirs and released for irrigation and some other uses, every drop accounted for. There is nothing close to a wetlands anymore.
This picture was taken on or about 06/02/2010. See the white stuff around the sides? That’s supposed to be under water. That’s how low the water level is arriving at the dam, not leaving it.
Possible only due to extensive irrigation projects - that is, taking water from somewhere else and transporting it to the Central Valley - and only fairly recently. Fruits and vegetables can and do grow elsewhere in the world.
Nope. I do, however, grow most of my own vegetables in my own garden in my backyard. Which, by the way, does NOT require irrigation.
Actually, since I am severely allergic to tomatoes it WOULD be good for me - anything that reduces the tomato supply makes the world a safer place for me.
But I admit I am the exception…
Even so, as I said, I grew most of my own vegetables (including things like lettuce and carrots) last year. Most of the fruits I bought (apples, plums, cherries, etc.) were either from my own state or a neighboring one. I exist quite well although only a small fraction of my food is of Californian origin. My supply of home-grown vegees lasted until mid-May this year, we ate them all winter long (it’s called "food preservation, it’s not a new concept) It’s not nearly as impossible as you think it is.
Some of your argument is reasonable, but I don’t know why you throw this rah-rah stuff in about “envy of the world” and “things that make us great”. You would be more convincing if you left that out.
Dilemmas like that are the reason that we need to be planning ahead. Keeping the pizza shops open won’t be worth anything if we don’t have any water to wash the pizza down with. We need to figure out how to prevent over use of water without causing economic hardship.
I don’t disagree with you about ‘local’ not working everywhere. Could it work in enough places to make a difference? That’s the question which needs to be addressed.
Again with the powerful U.S. What does that have to do with the price of almonds?
Thank you. I don’t disagree with you about not getting the best bang for the buck with beef.
For fun, I checked around and found some interesting stuff about California produce. This is a list of the % of U.S. produce types which come from California:
Artichokes - 19%
Asparagus-55%
Broccoli-93%
Cabbage-22%
Carrots-89%
Celery-94%
Garlic-86%
Lettuce-78%
Cantaloupe-54%
Honeydew-73%
Onions-27%
Bell Peppers-47%
Spinach-18%
Tomatoes -94%
Almond-99%
Apricots-95%
Avocados-84%
Strawberries-90%
Dates-82%
Figs-98%
Grapes-88%
Kiwi-97%
Lemons-89%
Nectarines-93%
Olives-100%
Peaches-76%
Pistachios-96%
Plums-93%
Walnuts-99%
Honey-18%
Milk & Cream-21%
From here. A lot of these are delicious things, but I don’t know that I would call them staples or necessary for existence.
It is not clear that the US as a matter of policy wants to outsource the 40% of tis fruits and veggies that grow in CA. Many simply don’t grow elsewhere in the US, and nowhere in the world do they grow as efficiently.
Good for you. You capture your own water, and feed yourself all your fruit and veggie needs all year every year.
Any ideas on how that irrigationless effort might scale to meet, say, 40% of the fruit and veggie demand (fresh, and processed for many crops) of 330 million people in the US 365 days a year every year?
I don’t particularly care how California uses the water it currently has access to, my point is only that getting more water will become progressively harder to do and so you will be required by necessity to use the available water in ever more clever manners thereby ensuring both your preeminent position in mangoes and sanctimony.
The obvious answer would be that getting more fresh water in California would be expensive and so produce prices would increase to cover the expense of the water. Now would it be the primary driver of price? Likely not. But how else would you recoup the cost of the water? Regardless of how you do it the region will have to allocate water and price would be the obvious starting point.
