This is purely a result of the fact that water is so cheap and water rights don’t incentivize water saving technologies.

There are residential and agricultural technologies that dramatically reduce water usage. For instance drip irrigation. Also the city of Las Vegas recycles almost all the recyclable water and consequently is extremely efficient at using water

Can you elaborate? I agree water cost does not tend to incentivize conservation and leads to what seems to be inappropriate choices of crops for example. It’s also interesting how the idea of water rights in the East/West evolved differently because of scarcity. Is your point that the problems in the West would be solved by more expensive water?

I’d worry that it would upend agrarian economies (in the short and medium term, at least $

Ocean is full of water. It just costs money (maybe a lot) to desalinate it.

(And to move it).

That just pushes it to another zero sum game of money.

Why does it matter if it's zero sum? Sometimes things we need aren't free.

The GGP post was claiming housing was zero-sum. Posts responding to it seem to be trying to contradict it.

My point is that in a world of finite resources, it's going to be zero-sum at some point whether that's land, water, money, labor, or something else. It's not good or bad, but you do have to pick your poison to a certain extent.