This will cost tens of billions. So be it. Civilization is not cheap.
It would take a lot of thought and planning to manage that transition. Of course the status quo appears to be untenable.
So the state could ... buy all the farms? The annual CA budget seems to be in the $250 billion range.
CA could have bought the entire UP for $150 billion or so, done a high-speed rail, and then sold it back to Buffet or whatever. But our system isn't setup to handle that kind of scenario.
The point I was trying to make is that food security is one of the most basic elements of national security.
You can’t just stop farming in California (or raise the price to obscene levels) and expect things to sort themselves out on their own.
Basic large scale food production does not work as a pure free market activity. It would have wildly oscillating prices and large portions of the population would periodically starve. That’s during normal times, and is purely economically driven, not even counting a climate crisis.
Fuck almond milk, by the way. We don't need any "milks" per se, but oats are way better.
The new generation geothermal is also something that we should be exploring in areas that aren't earthquake prone (which is basically everything from Denver to Las Vegas)
This story also has to do with California's centralization of economic power and influence, which is why so many water ways have been moved here.
Shipping produce across the country (and across the world) has been a net negative for taste.
Once we actually make it sustainable maybe then we can evaluate the success of the project, imo.
I find it odd that we expect everything to be a sustained success. Society progresses. Our needs change.
Short term profits are the ruin of humanity in my view. Doubly so when human lives and environmental damage is the cost. Lets not play stock market with those, please.
Agreed the approach resulted in higher food production for many decades. But diverting water means diverting it from filling up lakes or going into the ocean- both of which devastated the fishing industry. And the diversion from the ocean now threatens agriculture itself- the salinity of the water in the river delta is increasing. Diversion for agriculture also means diverting it from aquifers- it remains to be seen what will happen to agriculture if the wells end up dry. Maybe the system was working before climate change. But now we have to wonder if the ability to export almonds to China is worth not having the largest freshwater lake of the western US. There was probably a middle ground where California could have one good wet season for agriculture and one season for dry weather crops rather than growing whatever we feel like all year round.
>If California wasn't growing them already, people wouldn't be buying them from California.
The history of the region begs to differ. Water management in the West was deliberately pursued by the federal government to promote agriculture.
"An estimated 20% of alfalfa in the American SW, meaning about [20%?] of all water in the Colorado watershed, goes to foreign nations like KSA to feed their dairies. Related: if Lake Mead drops another 75 feet, the Hoover Dam will stop producing power. #virtualwater"
He said it would be easier to build the pipes and the pumps than it would be to rebuild the other infrastructure, homes, offices, restaurants, and social systems those people would need after you moved them. (specifically I asked about Las Vegas, and a plan to import water from other parts of Nevada).
My take-away was that "sustainability" isn't a factor in these decisions. If you want to set up yourself for a sustainable future, you have to vote with your feet. Nobody will can make that decision for you.
Climate change is going to have a lot of negative effects on some parts of the globe. But there will also be a lot of opportunities, and other regions will prosper as their climates become more hospitable or productive. The challenge is trying to anticipate those changes and making responsible decisions.
And I get it. It does suck, for all those reasons. It sucks a lot. But there's water, and millions of people getting by OK—if a bit fatter, partly on account of the outdoors being so shit.
But the AECOM guy wasn't wrong - the amount of "investment" even in a smaller town is insane - the LA basin is worth something like 2.3 trillion in land value alone. That kind of pricing can justify absolutely massive projects.
For those looking to move from California, I would suggest considering other factors such as sustainability come into play - Texas and Arizona aren't the only possible destinations.
Though I doubt we can solve California's water problems by all buying Wisconsin Cheese whilst living in Minneapolis.
If a state unilaterally decided to suspend all contracts, treaties, and convenants on the sharing of hydrologic resources, other states would call on the federal government to step in. If the federal government refused to intervene, you would probably see aggrieved states form a coalition to force the "aggressor" state to cease "hostilities". Worst case scenario, it becomes a free for all and states start invading one another to "open the rivers and reservoirs". You could see local right-wing militias and ordinary but armed citizens take matters into their own hands. This is how civil war happens.