One of the most consequential strategic mistakes the United States made in the last century was its failure to pursue large-scale, long-distance water diversion projects during its period of peak national strength from the 1950s to the 1970s. By missing this critical window, the nation forfeited the opportunity to address water scarcity in its central and western regions, a shortfall that now threatens long-term economic stability, food security, and geopolitical resilience. This missed opportunity underscores how the choices of a single era can shape the strategic vulnerabilities of generations to come.
Water Scarcity as a National Security Challenge
Water scarcity has emerged as one of the most pressing strategic issues facing the United States. Leaders across the political spectrum have repeatedly acknowledged its importance: in 2021, then–Vice President Kamala Harris warned that future conflicts could be fought over water rather than oil, while in 2024, former President Donald Trump proposed diverting water from British Columbia’s Columbia River to alleviate California’s droughts. Despite differing political approaches, these statements reflect a shared recognition that the long-term availability of water is critical to national security, economic stability, and regional resilience.
The more critical question, however, is not whether water scarcity poses a threat, but why decisive action was not taken earlier, when large-scale interventions were far more feasible. The failure to act during periods of national strength has left the United States increasingly vulnerable to drought, agricultural stress, and potential geopolitical pressure, highlighting how strategic neglect in resource management can create lasting vulnerabilities. Addressing water scarcity is no longer merely an environmental or domestic concern—it is a strategic imperative that will shape the nation’s security and prosperity for decades to come.
The Geographic Challenge of U.S. Water Resources
The United States faces a fundamental structural challenge in the distribution of its freshwater resources. Much of the country, particularly areas west of the Mississippi River, lies in arid or semi-arid zones where water availability is naturally limited. The Midwest and Great Plains, as well as the Southwest—including California, Arizona, and Nevada—experience chronic constraints on freshwater, creating persistent pressure on both natural ecosystems and human populations.
Ironically, these same regions are home to some of the nation’s most water-intensive activities. The Midwest and Great Plains constitute the primary grain-producing areas of the United States, while the Southwest hosts large urban populations and industrial centers that rely heavily on consistent water supplies. This geographic mismatch—where economic, agricultural, and urban hubs are concentrated in water-scarce regions—represents a structural vulnerability that complicates long-term planning and national security. Understanding this geographic reality is essential for any meaningful discussion of water policy, infrastructure, and strategic resilience.
The Misalignment of Agriculture, Industry, and Water Resources
U.S. agriculture is heavily concentrated in regions where natural water supply is limited, creating a significant misalignment between economic activity and environmental capacity. Much of this farming relies on non-renewable deep groundwater, such as the Ogallala Aquifer, and large-scale irrigation in arid climates to sustain crop production. Regions like the Midwest, Great Plains, and California benefit from fertile soil and favorable growing conditions, yet their agricultural productivity comes at a high and often unsustainable water cost.
This misalignment extends beyond farming. Populous southwestern states maintain water-intensive lifestyles—including lawns, golf courses, and swimming pools—despite chronic drought conditions. The combination of agricultural demand and urban consumption places severe stress on limited freshwater resources, highlighting a structural disconnect between economic activity, population centers, and the geographic reality of water availability. Addressing this imbalance is essential for long-term sustainability, economic stability, and national water security.
Drought as a Persistent National Threat
The United States has long experienced catastrophic droughts that have inflicted widespread economic and social damage. The Dust Bowl of 1930–1936 devastated the Great Plains, triggering massive soil erosion and displacing countless families. A subsequent drought from 1950–1956 struck the southern Plains and Southwest, further highlighting the vulnerability of water-scarce regions. By 1988, drought conditions had expanded across much of the Midwest and Great Plains, even extending into Canada, signaling an alarming trend of increasing geographic reach and severity.
The economic impact of these droughts has been staggering. The 1988 drought alone caused $40–60 billion in agricultural losses, slashed corn yields by 30–40%, and reduced soybean production by more than 20%. These historical events demonstrate that drought is not an isolated or sporadic occurrence but a recurring national threat with escalating intensity. Understanding this pattern underscores the urgent need for proactive water management and long-term strategies to safeguard both agriculture and national resilience.
The Untapped Wealth of America’s Water-Rich Regions
While much of the United States struggles with water scarcity, several regions hold an extraordinary abundance of freshwater that remains largely underutilized. Alaska, for example, contains over half of the nation’s surface freshwater, more than half of the world’s non-polar glaciers, and over three million lakes alongside 12,000 rivers. If considered independently, Alaska would rank among the world’s top freshwater holders, representing a massive but largely untapped strategic resource.
The Pacific Northwest is another water-rich region. The Columbia River alone has an annual runoff of 223 billion cubic meters, surpassing the combined runoff of all rivers in California. Similarly, Northern California benefits from annual rainfall exceeding 1,000 millimeters, making it relatively water-abundant compared to the southern portion of the state. These regions illustrate that while parts of the country face chronic shortages, significant opportunities exist to harness surplus freshwater for long-term economic, agricultural, and strategic resilience.
Abandoned Ambitions: America’s Grand Water Diversion Plans
Throughout the mid-20th century, the United States explored several ambitious plans to redirect its abundant water resources to regions of scarcity, yet these projects were ultimately abandoned. In the 1950s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed diverting rivers in Alaska through Canada into the continental United States, even considering the use of nuclear explosions to carve channels. The plan was shelved due to prohibitive costs, geopolitical complications, and practical feasibility concerns.
During the 1960s through the 1980s, the Bureau of Reclamation proposed diverting 12.3 billion cubic meters annually from the Columbia River to California at an estimated cost of $100 billion (in 1980s dollars). This grand scheme never materialized, leaving only smaller regional initiatives to succeed. Notably, California’s North–South Water Diversion Project, constructed between the 1930s and 1970s, transferred 6–9 billion cubic meters annually. Since the 1970s, major water infrastructure projects have largely ceased, with federal efforts shifting toward dam removal and environmental restoration. The abandonment of these grand plans represents a significant missed opportunity to address the structural imbalance of water scarcity in the United States.
The Strategic Window of 1950–1970 for U.S. Water Security
The period from 1950 to 1970 represented a unique opportunity for the United States to secure its long-term water needs. In the decades following World War II, the nation commanded over half of global GDP, dominated manufacturing, and possessed unmatched engineering capacity and fiscal resources. It successfully executed transformative infrastructure projects, such as the interstate highway system, yet it failed to pursue an equally ambitious national water security initiative.
This era also offered exceptional federal mobilization. Cold War conditions granted the government extraordinary authority and public support to undertake massive infrastructure projects with comparatively little partisan or regional opposition. Additionally, environmental constraints were minimal: before the rise of the modern environmental movement in the late 1960s and 1970s, large-scale water diversion projects faced far fewer legal and social obstacles. Once this window closed, costs escalated, political resistance intensified, and the feasibility of nationwide water projects sharply declined, leaving the nation with enduring structural vulnerabilities in water availability.
Strategic Lessons from China’s South–North Water Diversion
China offers a striking example of long-term strategic planning in water management. As early as 1952, Chinese leadership recognized the imbalance between the water-rich south and the arid north, proposing a massive diversion project to address future scarcity. Although the nation initially lacked the financial and technical capacity to execute the plan, the idea was preserved and eventually implemented decades later, with construction beginning in 2002.
This contrast highlights the difference between foresight and short-term thinking. While the United States missed the opportunity to undertake similar large-scale water infrastructure during its peak period of national capacity, China’s early strategic vision allowed it to act decisively when conditions became favorable. The South–North Water Diversion Project illustrates how anticipating resource imbalances and planning over decades can transform potential vulnerability into long-term resilience.
Internal Conflict and Regional Resistance to Water Transfers
Within California, attempts to redistribute water have frequently sparked deep regional tensions. Northern California has consistently opposed further diversion to the south, seeking to protect its relatively abundant water resources. At the same time, Southern California has continued to expand water-intensive agriculture, cultivating crops such as almonds and pistachios, while urban areas maintain high levels of consumption, including lawns, golf courses, and pools.
These competing demands have intensified friction between regions and eroded political support for additional large-scale water projects. The clash of local interests illustrates how internal conflict and entrenched consumption patterns can become major obstacles to national water management strategies. Without addressing these regional disputes, even technically feasible water transfers face significant social and political barriers, highlighting a critical challenge to long-term water security.
Cost Comparisons and Missed Opportunities in Water Infrastructure
When evaluating national priorities, the financial scale of past U.S. projects provides striking context for the missed opportunity of large-scale water diversion. For example, the Vietnam War (1965–1973) cost approximately $141 billion, while the Apollo Moon Program totaled $25.4 billion. By comparison, diverting 12.3 billion cubic meters annually from the Columbia River to California was estimated at $100 billion in 1980s dollars—a figure well within the nation’s historical capacity to fund major initiatives.
Unlike wars or prestige programs, a national water diversion project would have delivered enduring economic and demographic benefits. It could have supported an additional 100 million people by alleviating structural water scarcity, boosting agricultural output, and fostering long-term regional development. The decision not to invest in water infrastructure illustrates a profound trade-off: prioritizing short-term expenditures over projects with lasting strategic value left the United States increasingly vulnerable to water-related risks.
Long-Term Consequences and Strategic Risks of Water Scarcity
The United States faces looming water crises with profound long-term consequences. Key aquifers and rivers are approaching critical depletion: the Ogallala Aquifer may be largely exhausted within 20 years, threatening a 50% reduction in U.S. grain output; California’s Central Valley aquifers are projected to be depleted between 2040 and 2060; and the Colorado River’s flow could fall to just 61% of historical levels by 2050. Without new water supplies, agriculture, urban centers, and industrial revitalization efforts will confront structural limits that cannot be easily mitigated.
The strategic implications of this scarcity are equally severe. Water shortages directly undermine food security, industrial reshoring, urban sustainability, and long-term national resilience. In a nation increasingly dependent on water-intensive agriculture and industry, the absence of secure water resources constrains both economic recovery and strategic flexibility. Ultimately, water scarcity is not merely an environmental or economic issue—it is a core determinant of national strength, shaping the United States’ ability to sustain itself and project power in the decades to come.
Summary & Implications
History demonstrates that the rise and fall of nations often hinges on the stewardship of their foundational resources. At the height of its power, the United States prioritized geopolitical rivalry while neglecting water security—the most essential resource for sustaining agriculture, industry, and national resilience. This oversight serves as a stark warning: when national strength peaks, leaders must invest in long-term, foundational projects, even if immediate returns are not apparent. Failing to do so risks locking a nation into structural vulnerabilities that may be irreversible, limiting its ability to recover and maintain strategic dominance in the future.