The Hypocrisy of California

California is almost idyllic for many people. It's beautiful beaches, sun-drenched mountains, amazing cities, and great opportunities. However, how many people know of the precarious foundations this state is built on?

In the course of my studies we have analyzed California every which way, from urban policy and economic innovation, investigating the reasons behind businesses' success, and also the many environmental advancements that are initiated there. The rest of the country often follows in their legislative and regulatory footsteps. While the state could now be considered a spearhead of the environmental movement, its history and many of its current policies are far from preservationist.

The state is one of the highest food-producing states in the country. Most of our fruits, vegetables, meats, or milk products come from California. Yet, if you've ever driven through any part of the state, you have to wonder, WHAT? The entire landscape is a mixture of arid desert, semidesert, or dry plain. One of the many attractions of California is the gorgeous weather, marked by blue sunny skies that are omnipresent. They have two seasons, the rainy and the other, and from March to November the entire state gets little to no rain at all. So, how do they do it, you wonder? Well, I'll tell you (summarizing of course).

During the Great Depression, Roosevelt began many public works projects to employ out of work men. The state of California was a very different place at that point in time, the cities much smaller, the land much drier, and devastating floods countering long droughts made farming difficult, to say the least. But with modern technologies emerging, farmers began to harness the land's natural resources, including a huge aquifer under the plains left from the last Ice Age, untouched until that point. They also decided to harness some of the water from rivers and divert it, building large dams and aqueducts to channel the water to "where it was needed". The government began setting aside money for these irrigation building projects, and water was dispersed to the farms, cheaply and efficiently. In a way, it was better than relying on natural methods of getting water to plants like rainfall, because it could be regulated on the time schedule best suited for the crop to prosper.

This changed the landscape of California from dry plain to blooming field. When you drive through the Central Valley of California now, you can see miles of lush growth, oranges, apples, garlic, even lettuce. But this change is inherently unsustainable. The water from the underground aquifers is being depleted but not replenished, and the water that is diverted from other areas is not enough to sustain the area for an indefinite period of time. So much of the water from these rivers has been diverted to other areas that their routes have been fundamentally changed. The Colorado River no longer runs into Mexico, and is now just a dry riverbed, disconcerting to a country that is in desperate need of drinkable water.

Californians are farming a desert, and many people don't even realize it. Unless you knew about the grand schemes for getting water to the area, it would just look like an idyllic farmland, sunny and lush for mile upon mile. But someday, maybe even in my lifetime, we could see a fundamental shift, if there isn't enough water to go around. Policy-makers will have to come up with new ideas of sustaining the current land-use policies, but none of them will be permanent, and eventually the land will revert back to desert. Bad news for the farmers and the millions of people who rely on the region's agricultural productivity.

This revelation made me wonder how California could be an advocate for so much environmental change and yet allow this to keep happening. It's part of the hypocrisy of the state, which is mimicked throughout the rest of the country: focus on certain issues while ignoring others. It's a matter of convenience; air pollution is a problem for humans, directly detrimental to one's health, and should therefore be dealt with. However, farming makes a huge positive impact on the population, both in terms of the revenue it brings in and the product it sells. It is not economically "responsible" to create restrictions that would reduce the productivity of this breadbasket. However, sooner or later something catastrophic will occur that will lead to a lot of destruction, both economic and environmental. Something needs to be done, but I don't see any meaningful change likely for just the reasons I have listed. It will take a more drastic wake-up call than environmental theories of the future and threats of potential major destruction to incite people to change. And by then it will probably be too late.


As a caveat: this is not to say that California is alone in its hypocrisy. Most states in the US have similar stories they could share, harrowing tales of environmental disasters covered up quietly. In California, however, these problems are seen clearly, and with their almost unparalleled focus on environmental issues, I believe the state has more of a burden to explain itself.