The California drought has been a large point of contention recently. Agriculture is often criticized for using a disproportionate amount of water (almonds use 11% of the state's water while major cities use about 20%). But in a country where one parched state produces a sizable majority of the nation's produce, completely halting agricultural production is not an option. Below is a short piece I wrote attempting to justify the controversial construction of an aqueduct from Alaska to Mt. Shasta that would allow Alaska, Oregon, and Washington state to sell their water to California. The justification was written in an attempt to instigate debate, and I would really appreciate if you guys would comment any arguments in favor of or opposed to this infrastructure project!
America's agricultural system is designed in such a way that forces us to depend disproportionately on certain sectors. Notably, California is home to 4% of the nation's ranches, and, yet, produces more than 13% of the nation's food, and a sizable majority of our produce. In recent years, as the Californian drought continues to worsen, the sustainability of this system needs to be challenged. Without access to environmentally responsible resources to grow food, Californian farms often turn to unsound sources. Extracting around 800 billion gallons of groundwater a year, the California agricultural sector has caused the land to subside by two feet and the water table by 500. Continuously decreasing snowfall levels mean that the state cannot continue to serve as the nation's breadbasket if it does not have the resources to do so.
The construction of an aqueduct spanning from the southern Alaskan islands to Lake Shasta is a drastic, but essential, step that needs to be taken to support the way America's food production is currently structured. If the nation wishes to continue reaping the rewards of such expansive agricultural production in the state of California, we need to ensure that the proper infrastructure exists to do so.
One possible argument against the construction of the aqueduct is the cost. Someone told me (ahem Julia) that Princeton did a study and found that such a design would cost about 2 to 8 million dollars a mile, or about 11 billion for the entire project. That's a huge investment, but one that could be potentially worth it... What do guys think?
ReplyDeleteI think another issue we need to keep in mind has to do with state's rights. Sure the states will be selling water, but what gives California the right to take Alaska's water? In my argument in favor, I went a little heavy handed on the California-centric rhetoric in stating that other states have a moral obligation to provide water in exchange for food, but I don't think we can ignore the state's rights issues involved here.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete