> We have climate issues, but places like New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, etc could easily provide that same output... That's unfortunately not true. You n

> We have climate issues, but places like New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, etc could easily provide that same output... That's unfortunately not true. You need to appreciate just how unique California's soil and climate are. Farmers from others parts of the world come to California and literally marvel at what we have. In many parts of the world the same technologies and techniques that we use are increasingly employed but these regions still can't achieve the same yields. Even if it's possible to grow certain crops in other areas, you will not be able to produce in the same quantities as California can and, more importantly, you won't achieve the same yields. Settling for substantially lower yields effectively means you are accepting less efficient use of local resources (water, energy, labor, etc.). That would be counterproductive. > I think it's a strategic problem for such a large portion if our food supply to be concentrated in one region. Even if there's some validity to this argument, the reality is that you can only reduce the concentration so much. Growing and distributing food at the quantity required in an efficient manner necessitates a higher level of concentration than might be desired in the ideal world we don't live in.