What would happen to California if it seceded?

[bgwah]

Israel has a lot less water than California and it's doing alright (although it is a major issue).

It also has a lot less people, and I doubt they waste water as much as Americans, especially suburbanites (plenitful in California) do!

[Beet]

Yeah but considering how small Israel is by land, and assuming the same land:water ratio, its population:land ratio and thus its population:water ratio is probably not less than California's.

Secondly, Israel's relations with its potentially water-supplying nations nearby are the worst possible short of war.

On the other hand, the port of Seattle is not nearly large enough to accomodate the large amount of goods coming in from Asia that sustain U.S. consumption and the price/interest rate regime, so the U.S. will still be dependent on California to process those goods.

Thirdly, suburbanites are proportionally less, not more, plentiful in California than the U.S. as a whole. California's homeownership rate is significantly lower than the national average, thanks to Proposition 13.

[English]

California would do extremely well on it's own, I can't believe anyone would think otherwise?
If it were an independent nation California would be the sixth richest in the world. Just behind the UK and France.

[Bogart]

Yeah but considering how small Israel is by land, and assuming the same land:water ratio, its population:land ratio and thus its population:water ratio is probably not less than California's.

Secondly, Israel's relations with its potentially water-supplying nations nearby are the worst possible short of war.

On the other hand, the port of Seattle is not nearly large enough to accomodate the large amount of goods coming in from Asia that sustain U.S. consumption and the price/interest rate regime, so the U.S. will still be dependent on California to process those goods.

Thirdly, suburbanites are proportionally less, not more, plentiful in California than the U.S. as a whole. California's homeownership rate is significantly lower than the national average, thanks to Proposition 13.

Perhaps true, but the reality is under current treaty, California's share of Colorado River water is rapidly shrinking relative to demand. Within California, there is a fight between SoCal urban areas and SoCal farmers over how to divide that share. And, California's share is not going to rise in any scenario. Arizona, for example, agreed to take less than it's share in return for Federal support in building the Central Arizona Project which brings the water to Phoenix and Tucson. I can't see an international treaty being negotiated which would be more favorable towards California. Consider also, that a new treaty was just negotiated with Native Americans giving the tribes control over a substantial portion of the water. And, the treaty levels were negotiated during unusually "wet" years. We are now in the 5th year of the current drought, with no signs of substantial relief.

It is difficult for those who have never lived in this part of the country, especially those back east, to understand just how stretched the water supply is. Lake Powell is at about 42% of capacity and Lake Mead is at about 57%.  Capacity is 55.6 million acre feet combined. Current levels total 27.6 million acre feet. An acre foot is the equivalent of an acre covered by 1 foot of water, or approximately enough for a family of four for 1 year.

[Platypus]

you can't complain about water. We're in our 11trh year of drought, although it's showing signs of breaking. Because of the water conservation   laws and the fact that all new homes in Vcitoria musy have high levels of water efficiency, Victoria (my state) is doing reasonably well, but two years ago we were only 45%, and much of the rest of AUS is still suffering-the dam that supplies 80% of Sydney's water is about half at the moment, and Adelaide and Perth are on final reserves before extreme water restrictions

Damn global warming.

[Beet]

I guess it is pretty bad there. Maryland was in a drought about 5 or 6 years ago but since then it has been fine. I imagine of things ever got really bad we could just load up the Chesapeake shoreline with desalinization plants.

[bgwah]

Yeah but considering how small Israel is by land, and assuming the same land:water ratio, its population:land ratio and thus its population:water ratio is probably not less than California's.

Secondly, Israel's relations with its potentially water-supplying nations nearby are the worst possible short of war.

On the other hand, the port of Seattle is not nearly large enough to accomodate the large amount of goods coming in from Asia that sustain U.S. consumption and the price/interest rate regime, so the U.S. will still be dependent on California to process those goods.

Thirdly, suburbanites are proportionally less, not more, plentiful in California than the U.S. as a whole. California's homeownership rate is significantly lower than the national average, thanks to Proposition 13.

California still has a lot of suburbs. The port of Seattle or other ports could be made larger.