First of all, the land in the Valley is very fertile. Secondly, in the southern portion, the climate is nearly semi tropical which allows for two crops per year.
And its the only warm fertile place in the country?
In addition, there are crops grown in the Valley that can't be grown anywhere else in the US.
One valley, and anywhere else is impossible? Doesn't sound likely. Maybe for a very narrow range of highly specific crops, or maybe its just that given the subsidized water they are cheaper to grow in the valley. In any case if they are uneconomical to grow in the valley without subsidized water, or anywhere else in the US, who says they have to be grown in the US?
Its either this spectacularly advantages place to grow crops or it isn't.
If the advantages are so great than there probably still will be crops grown their, at least high margin crops. The price might be a bit higher, the amount supplied from that specific location might be a bit lower, but there is no need to just stop everything.
Or alternatively if its so uneconomical to grow crops there when the growers pay the full price for the inputs, then there is no need for the crops to be grown their.
Several of its products including its wines are world reknown and provide major export items for the US.
Wine growing typically doesn't require massive irrigation, and quality wines are high margin products. No need to shut down wine growing, at least not for wines that are in high demand.
ou talk about dislocations when it comes to oil; the dislocations that would result from 'shutting down' the SJ Valley would be nearly as problematical for the US
You exaggerate things. Oil is involved in one way or another in the majority of our economy. Vegetables from San Joaquin are a much smaller concern. In any case 1 - Its not like all growing their will stop if the subsidies stop. Tighter controls on water use, will reduce the extra amount they have to pay for water (right now there is little need to be careful about it since the water is subsidized). Not all the products are very water intensive, and most of them have decent margins for agricultural goods. 2 - Its not like all growing that does leave that area just ends, crops can be grown elsewhere, and 3 - If the disruptions are really that massive its possible to phase subsidies out instead of ending them overnight. And most importantly 4 - If paying the full cost means the growers there lose money to the point where they can't continue in business than that means they are currently making a net subtraction to the US economy. |
