I'd say the addiction is more about sourcing food where the government subsidizes the cost.

The east coast has no water issues compared to the west, yet farmland is fallow everywhere.

The solution in a first world economy is not to limit options. That is just regression.

The solution is to make the industrial system sustainable.

If there was a power crisis, you wouldn't make everyone use pocket calculators instead of computers, you'd figure out how power generation alternatives.

Or price things so that they take in all their externalities... perhaps cheap meat isn't ethical.

That analogy isn't great -- plenty of places in the world have power crises, and they do respond by limiting consumption of power.

In actual water crises, such as the one in California, limiting and controlling consumption is the response. Obviously, it's always better to come up with an alternative before you reach the crisis. But once you've gotten to the crisis, you're already exhausted all other options and have to be realistic.

>plenty of places in the world have power crises, and they do respond by limiting consumption of power.

At the cost of luxury, economic development and social stability.

It's an emergency option, not a sustainable one.

New generation and leaps and conservation technology allow for the same options while improving future sustainability.

Actually, conservation is likely much lower hanging fruit than new generation -- both for water and energy. It's just that the American market somehow thinks "conservation" equals "limiting and red tape" when it really means "making sure you can keep producing/consuming."