California can internally counter that problem by giving people a corresponding tax break or any number of policy remedies. For the rest of the nation, there is no obvious cooperative framework to explain to Californians on why they should face the looming risk of a water crisis on behalf of the rest of the nation, especially in such a hostile national atmosphere. California can also continue to provide favorable economic policy to staple crops as opposed to nice-to-have crops.

And it's not just California facing a water crisis. The Colorado river flows through multiple states and it's drying up at an alarming rate.

But we can agree that all available policy knobs should be tuned.

I wouldnt say drying up but not refilling up but, yeah, otherwise, california is the garden, fruit, non-wheat bread basket of most the country. This water was being used to build wealth among a small group of farmers that sent the food out of state. I say cut it off.

It might be objectively better to pay someone to not grow alfalfa for export to the middle east then it is to waste water on growing it. In the end, this is likely cheaper than building desalination infrastructure to make up for the wasted water so you save money. Don't think this is a good long term plan though.

> In the end, this is likely cheaper than building desalination infrastructure to make up for the wasted water so you save money.

Fresh water is scarce and the demand for fresh water continues to grow annually (growing population, growing economy, etc). Fresh water is an appreciating asset, with fixed (or reducing) supply. Increasing the supply of fresh water is beneficial for many, many reasons globally, and increasing investment into desalination will keep reducing the cost (helping developing countries also build desalination).

Getting society to "use less fresh water" is non-competitive, and at best a medium term "stop gap". The economy is competitive, it doesn't "allow for" non-competitive players. You can try to change the inertia of the economy, but you would likely fail.

Building infrastructure to increase the amount of fresh water we have on earth (without unaccounted for externalities - e.g. it should be carbon-neutral/negative) is economically competitive and as such 1. durable; 2. improves lives; 3. changes the mental-model from "wasted water" to "wasted energy" (which is a simpler problem to solve).

> I disagree that we should build desalination, even if we can "afford" it.

Spreading this message of disagreement with increasing durable, cost-effective, and carbon-neutral infrastructure because it is not cost-optimal does a disservice to the global population and the long term sustainability of the global ecosystem. Way better off with the message "I agree with building more desalination. We should also get ... to do ...".

I say abolish golf courses

> pay someone to not grow alfalfa for export to the middle east

Or just add tariffs for anything we'd like to curb export of - that's the traditional solution, and it does work. Then turn around and use the tariff proceeds to further alleviate water issues.

Or let the market price and allocate water.