The past couple of days I drove from Los Angeles up to the Napa Valley and back, taking the unglamorous Interstate 5 route north through my semi-native state, as opposed to the more genteel Camino Real of Highway 101.
The 400-plus-mile route north took me from the Hollywood Hills, Beverly Hills, and Brentwood through the San Fernando Valley and then, once you clear the greater L.A. area past Santa Clarita, into the Central Valley — or, as I like to think of it, Victor Davis Hanson country. From Bakersfield up to Modesto, the Golden State Freeway parallels to the west America’s great breadbasket.
As usual, I was struck by the miracle of it all — but the miracle is visibly fading. The irrigation system is one of the wonders of the world, and a tribute to the can-do California in which I grew up, a spirit that created a mighty state out of a couple of coastal enclaves and some good weather. But now, thanks to the “environmentalists,” much of it is in disuse, in the name of regression. The great military bases and defense infrastructure, which once made California synonymous with patriotism and productivity, are dead or dying.
In their place has come you-know-who, led by their wretched governor, Jerry Brown (California has been ruled off and on by the Brown family since 1959, and this is Jerry’s second stint in the office), who sees his job as managing decline, choking paradise with taxes, regulations, and a stupefying number of state commissions, and driving the productive class away. In the end, the state will be down to where it began — San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego, without an interior to feed them and water them — and that will be that.
Once in the Bay Area, or back in L.A., the moral and spiritual rot is less visible, and the Napa Valley looks better than ever; wine is something that sells in good times and in bad. But I can’t shake the feeling that this is all some dreadful family-tragedy novel — not by Steinbeck, who, for all his social consciousness, understood what had gone into creating California out of a Spanish mission trail, a gold rush, and a great natural port — but by Faulkner: The story of a state who wanted sons, and her sons destroyed her.
Disagreement here. Look, if California's economy collapses and its infrastructure falls into the most shabby disrepair, and its movers and shakers load up their pickup trucks and trundle back to elsewhere, what does that mean? Property values collapse! That's good for me, since I have cash, but not real estate there. Then I might be able to buy a nice property, which I couldn't buy now. Brutal economics: It's what's for dinner! I am sure that all who read NRO agree with me, yes?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot necessarily. For example, you can get homes much cheaper now in Detroit after decades of mismanagment by politicians and unions, but even at fair market value, do you want to live there?
The problem is the collapse takes a long time and its effects continue for a long time. Arriving at the point where all the locust are gone and you have a clean slate again may be 50 - 100 years. In my opinion California will not be fixed in our lifetimes. It will continue its current slow downward spiral providing a good life to a relatively few wealthy people, a miserable existence for the majority and a better than third world existence to the bottom quartile or so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe browning of California's central valley is the result of an economic fallacy. California's farm water is being diverted to the ocean to save the Delta Smelt -- a small, environmentally insignificant, fish. The fallacy lies in the belief that all species are to be saved regardless of the costs. This is akin to the belief that there should be no limit to the resources dedicated to clean water, clean air, safety, etc. Why is this a fallacy? Because society could literally spend all its resources on efforts to save endangered species, clean air, clean water or provide safety without ever achieving those goals completely. A cost-benefit analysis is required, yet none is being used.
Flawed thinking is rampant. California will be just one of its casualties.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFlawed thinking is : grow water intensive crops in the middle of a dry desert, with senior water rights basically guaranteeing that there is no market driven incentive for the farmers to conserve water, where crops are subsidized and we actually grow rice and alfalfa (horse feed) in the desert with water, which by the way is also subsidized.
Your 'insignificant' smelt is only half the story. The pump in the Delta that feed water to rice growers and almond ranches plus feed the lawns and golf resorts down South have so far this year killed the following :
Per DFG :
Besides your smelt (which is a part of an ecosystem and 94-99% is killed) also killed at the pumps were : 8,966,976 splittail, 35,556 chinook salmon, 430,289 striped bass, 54,412 largemouth bass, 69,383 bluegill, 76,570 white catfish, 28,301 channel catfish, 233,174 threadfin shad, 264,171 American shad, 1,642 steelhead were 'salvaged' in the state and federal water export facilities from January 1 to August 2, 2011, according to Department of Fish and Game (DFG) data.
Insignificant? Maybe subsidized farmers growing horsefeed is more important to you than the coastal communities that have seen their salmon runs ruined. We lost 2 years of salmon fishing due to closures. Come to Bodega and all up along the Northern Coast and tell the people how insignificant the delta smelt is.
From DFG again : the DFG’s 2010 Fall Midwater Trawl survey shows that fish populations were at or near historic lows : splittail were 0% of their 1998 population, striped bass were 0.2% of 1967 numbers, threadfin shad were 0.8% of 1997 numbers, American shad were 7.3% of 2003 numbers, longfin smelt were 0.2% of 1967 numbers and Delta smelt were 1.7% of 1970 numbers
Insignificant eh
I value a healthy salmon run in my NorCal river system and coastal fishing jobs more than alfalfa crops in a dry desert and golf resorts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOK, rene, as long as we can force you to harvest enough of that salmon run to replace the food we're not allowed to grow so you can have it. Problem solved (and salmon run gone next year)!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFollowing that logic, the vast majority of people shouldn't be living in CA.
People are water intensive. And they're building their cities in the deserts.
Stop acting like nature is some sort of uncompromisable god. You have a problem with the smelt population, fix it while keeping your water.
Unless they don't have civil engineers in CA?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you value it so much, how much of your cash have you ponied up?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFlawed thinking is : grow water intensive crops in the middle of a dry desert, with senior water rights basically guaranteeing that there is no market driven incentive for the farmers to conserve water, where crops are subsidized and we actually grow rice and alfalfa (horse feed) in the desert with water.
Your 'insignificant' smelt is only half the story. The pump in the Delta that feed water to rice growers and almond ranches plus feed the lawns and golf resorts down South have so far this year killed the following :
Per DFG :
Besides your smelt (which is a part of an ecosystem and 94-99% is killed) also killed at the pumps were : 8,966,976 splittail, 35,556 chinook salmon, 430,289 striped bass, 54,412 largemouth bass, 69,383 bluegill, 76,570 white catfish, 28,301 channel catfish, 233,174 threadfin shad, 264,171 American shad, 1,642 steelhead were 'salvaged' in the state and federal water export facilities from January 1 to August 2, 2011, according to Department of Fish and Game (DFG) data.
Insignificant? Maybe subsidized farmers growing horsefeed is more important to you than the coastal communities that have seen their salmon runs ruined. We lost 2 years of salmon fishing due to closures. Come to Bodega and all up along the Northern Coast and tell the people how insignificant the delta smelt is.
From DFG again : the DFG’s 2010 Fall Midwater Trawl survey shows that fish populations were at or near historic lows : splittail were 0% of their 1998 population, striped bass were 0.2% of 1967 numbers, threadfin shad were 0.8% of 1997 numbers, American shad were 7.3% of 2003 numbers, longfin smelt were 0.2% of 1967 numbers and Delta smelt were 1.7% of 1970 numbers
Insignificant eh
I value a healthy salmon run in my NorCal river system and coastal fishing jobs more than alfalfa crops in a dry desert and golf resorts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is depressing because I'm a native Californian, born in and still residing and working in the shadow of Hoover Tower. So much remains great here that the idea of leaving is hard indeed. But there is so much going wrong that the thought of leaving is never far from my mind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI always get frustrated when some fellow conservatives, eager to score cheap points, launch into abject hatred of all things California.
I just look at them puzzled, wondering, "What are you talking about? California is a *paradise*."
A paradise, ruined by awful men (and not a few women).
I also like to remind them, there's a reason why everyone moved there. It's physically beautiful, perhaps second only to Hawaii in its majesty. And that beauty extends to its resources, both physical and human.
And it's all being ruined-- if it hasn't been ruined already.
Many conservatives look at places like California-- and Detroit, or Chicago-- and gloat, "See, that's what happens when liberals are in charge."
I've never been able to do that. Those places are *wonderful*, amazing places that are part of what's made America great.
And once they are gone, the fleeting joy of schadenfreude will be gone with it.
I can't gloat over a *tragedy*.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho's gloating?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMany conservatives look at places like California-- and Detroit, or Chicago-- and gloat, "See, that's what happens when liberals are in charge."
Yeah, Dave, that's what conservatives say, because it's true. And it's happening to California right before my eyes. I'm a fourth-generation native, and I'd move if I was ten years younger.
Schaudenfraude? No. More a feeling of "we told you this would happen and you didn't listen". That's the tragedy. That, and over-sensitive men who think pointing out obvious truths about decaying cities and states is "gloating".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseConservatives gloating over the demise of California?!?!?!
We aren't gloating. We despair. What the hell are you talking about?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour comment is just so weird.
You are just plain wrong.
It's not gloating, it's dread. Our antipathy toward California is not toward its natural attributes but toward the blindness of its two-legged inhabitants. Those of us who live in pro-freedom, pro-work, pro-individual responsibility states see the Californians relocating here for the job prospects, all the while seeking to recreate in their new homes the exact same politics that destroyed California.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting article on Yahoo yesterday about California's plans for more clean energy windmills in Kern County, and how the windmills outside Livermore already kill an average of 80 eagles a year (out of an estimated eagle population of 2,500) along with countless other birds of prey like falcons and owls. It doesn't take much to imagine an explosion of rats and mice devastating California's agriculture due to a decline in birds of prey for the sake of clean energy wind farms.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI lived in California for 15 years and left for the same reason many do. Liberal policies result in high taxes and regulation that make it difficult for those in the middle class to live comfortably there. Low income residents are cared for by the taxpayers, while the wealthy barely notice the high cost of living.
One day there will be no working middle class to speak of in California. There will be only the wealthy who pay the taxes and the poor people who are supported by the taxes. When the wealthy get wise and move their wealth to more tax-friendly locales - as many already have - the poor will protest the loss of their generous caretakers and California will be Greece with Disneyland.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI had much the same experience. I lived in California for a few years, particularly the LA area, and I'm very, VERY glad that my career took me elsewhere, for one simple reason:
Nobody I knew was able to afford a house.
Let me qualify that a bit: If you had a household income in the low six figures, and you wanted a house of small to middling size that was in a semi-decent school district and was less than an hour and a half from work, you could not afford it. The people I knew with houses had borrowed or inherited tremendous sums of money from their parents.
I honestly don't know how anyone manages to live there permanently unless (1) they're very rich; (2) they're poor and subsidized, or (3) they're willing to accept a vastly lower standard of living than they could find almost anywhere else.
But it is beautiful, and I miss fresh produce.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOver the past few decades, it has been California's fate to be settled by millions of Americans who were escaping the state they had just ruined.
They are, therefore, serial nest-crappers.
Even now, they are looking for the next state to despoil.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI just did the same trip and would like to add what terrible condition I-5 is in. It makes you think that the state is not getting rid of the potholes or fixing the crushed roadway as simply an extortion plot to "persuade" the citizens into voting for higher taxes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen I-5 was completed north of Bakersfield and officially touted to replace the old U.S. 99 as the main central valley North/South freeway, there were charming signs such as "Next Services 45 Miles" because the places to stop and gas up and snack were so few and far between. There was a considerable amount of opinion that the main motivation for the route was the ease of eminent-domaining semi-low-value farmland in the middle of nowhere far from the actual towns along the way vs. any real transportational imperatives.
And now, Harris Ranch at the Coalinga offramp (the actual tiny town is a bit off the route like the rest) has become not only a great steak-stopping place but a huge and fairly luxurious motel where families with offshoots in L.A. and the Bay meet mid-point for reunions and birthday parties and the like.
The other thing to mention is that since you can get from L.A. to the Bay along I-5 and tributaries in roughly 5-6 hours if the CHP isn't looking, with today's TSA delays and the general mess that is air travel you can do it far faster than flying, portal-to-portal.
Now the only question is where the signs will someday be erected delineating the border between the two (or more) Californias that will achieve separate statehood as the situation continues to deteriorate and the politics spread further and further apart.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse