The New Yorker recently wrote an article about the Imperial Valley in California and the neighboring Salton sea; while the state suffers from a devastating four-year drought, the Imperial Valley has used its water seniority from the Colorado river to sustain its livelihood and farming activities, which reduces the water supply to San Diego. A common refrain consists of criticizing the water-thirsty urbanites and lauding the right of small communities to exist in the rapidly globalized, conglomerated world of hyper-expanding metropolises. Indeed, San Diego has few fresh water sources, while its population has exploded to well over three million flocking to its Mediterranean climate and biotechnology sector. Desalination and local water recycling yield moderate advancements, but full-scale application is not yet there…nor will it be for decades. Although the quest towards building a sustainable water cycle is noble, society has to balance future potential with immediate needs.
Cities are the manifestation of humanity’s need for social interaction. In most cases, a city yields an average 10% increase in productivity compared to the same number of people in rural communities, largely as a result of more opportunity to interact and collaborate with both diverse groups and concentrated interest (this 10% figure can applied to virtually any population-based metric, whether it be a 10% increase in charity donations or, unfortunately, a 10% increase in violent crime). For instance, an artist in Los Angeles has hundreds of thousands of potential collaborators to provide synergy, while an artist in rural North Carolina often struggles to find adequate connections. Einstein fleshed out his ideas with Michele Besso in Swiss cafes, the Lost Generation of Hemmingway, Fitzgerald and Stein met and collaborated in Paris, and the list goes on. It’s why small communities struggle to keep their young, as they can’t offer them the same opportunities as cities can. Undoubtedly, there is a Caracas or Benghazi that can be used as a counter argument, but these normally involve inadequate governance and the momentum of violence; they can easily be contrasted by a Berlin or New York.
Getting back to Imperial Valley, we have a tendency to live in our cities with self-deprecation, bemoaning the dwindling areas that might be defined as frontier or traditional America, perhaps as an apology to our distance from nature and subsistence. Yet one look at Imperial Valley and the façade of reality unveils the ultimate level of unsustainability. How is it that lush green fields of lettuce, broccoli and alfalfa grow surrounded by harsh desert? Of all the places to conduct flood irrigation and grow some of the most water-hungry plants, much for international export, Imperial Valley makes little sense. The massive excess of fertilizers have concentrated toxic levels of nitrogen, phosphates and salt in the water flow, all of which have been used as the reasoning for more water, more energy and a repeat of this downward spiral. In fact, the population has risen at one of the fastest rates in California for the past six years, yet residents wonder why the Salton Sea is dwindling. One of the points of contention in the article involves a nine-billion dollar plan to restore the lake, with grandiose visions of salt-water fishing and resorts in a throwback to its heyday of the ’60, when Sinatra prowled the speedboat scene. The plan is to pay a small portion of it with money from San Diego, which is forced to buy access to the water as a downstream consumer, the rest with funds from the California and Federal government…in other words, taxpayers. Many of the larger landowners do not actually live in the area, instead simply own the farms as an investment while relying on migrant and tenant farmers. Why subsidize an already infeasible area, which has had past success simply because they have traditionally had easy access to cheap water, losing perspective of the cost of this natural resource. When does the cycle end? Revitalizing the area will bring more people, which will further increase farming, which will again deplete natural resources, which will push artificial solutions, and then another round of subsidies.
We must be realistic about our growth. There is plenty of land that survives just fine without humans, and there are areas with decadent rainfall and fertile soil that can provide for us agriculturally. Let the deserts be deserts, let the forests be forests, take advantage of the contours and nuances of this world. Modify the environment with as little an impact as possible, and don’t be afraid to step back when it’s not working. Rapid entropy will let you know if it’s not to be. Subsidies can provide a short-term boost to assist while a community transitions back to sustainability. These subsidies must not be given without an exit plan, an ultimate vision as to how this money will be used and then returned back to the system when growth returns. We need CREATIVE DESTRUCTION. Some things should not exist as they are, and relying on historical precedent isn’t the answer. If Imperial Valley wants to reset itself as a solar technology magnet, or a low-key area that takes advantage of salt water resorts (such as Israel/Jordan’s dead sea development), then so be it. But using a massively disproportionate share of natural resources to provide agricultural exports to the international community while passing the bill to the rest of us is not the answer. We are conflating entrenched interest preservation with natural and cultural sustainability.