The Colorado River Does Not Reach 2030 | Hacker News Reader

The Colorado River Does Not Reach 2030

drlennecefer.substack.com

39 pointsThemalSpan16 comments

> They were very good at filing amicus briefs. They were very good at negotiating consent decrees. They were very good at producing reports. They had professionalized advocacy to the point where the people doing the advocating had more in common, socioeconomically and culturally, with the people they were negotiating against than with the communities bearing the consequences of the failures they were negotiating about.

Great writing.

> My water bill has doubled since 2025

The problem is, we have this expectation that we can live and do things in the desert and everything will just be fine.

_That_ is the problem. The solution is to let prices increase "out of control" until there's response from people to change their habits, or new solutions that were previously unprofitable emerge.

Humans consuming water are not the problem. It’s the insane agriculture happening across the west.

If the price of water for residential consumptions rises too much, the humans would probably vote in favor of things that would make insane agricultural consumption unviable.

Property taxes that accurately account for the relative value of property with water rights vs those that don’t. Excise taxes on water pumping. Etc.

The problem is that they don’t pay their fair share. Farms get insanely low rates and grow things like alfalfa that doesn’t even feed people but requires an insane amount of water.

Las Vegas recycles almost 100% of its indoor water usage and minimizes outdoor usage. They pay you to remove your lawn and almost all of them are gone.

Yes, you’re talking about right now.

In 5-10 years, if this ends up like many are predicting (and I don’t know if it will or not), you are going to see people by the hundreds or thousands appealing their property tax assessments, saying their land is effectively worthless if water is too expensive or unavailable. They’ll get denied but some of them will contest the denial and file suit. And eventually one wins in court. Then everyone contests and everyone wins. And the only land that can be taxed has water rights. And unless the farmer plans to get his alfalfa to market via helicopter, he’s gonna have to pay the taxes or the roads disappear. He’s proper F’ed.

We'll that and once the majority of the voters are affected they farming voter block won't have enough control and find themselves in a world of hurt.

> alfalfa that doesn’t even feed people but requires an insane amount of water

Just because people don't eat the alfalfa doesn't mean it isn't ultimately feeding people. Cows eat a ton of alfalfa, and we get both meat and milk from them. So it is feeding people, just indirectly.

The problem is that because farmers pay artificially low prices for their subsidized water, it distorts the price signals of the market. Who says cattle need to eat alfalfa? If they had to pay market rates for water, we’d probably find a more suitable crop that doesn’t need quite so much. But there’s no incentive right now to even try.

I think the point is it's an very inefficient way to get calories.

Yet remains the most efficient way to get proteins.

PDCAAS and DIAAS by livestock are in the highly efficient category even after alfalfa water usage. Soy is just mid-tier.

So, depends on your body's protein needs. Vegan/vegetarian is just a choice and not for everyone.

Let's look some data:

[edit: Soy Milk protein require 2.9x less water than Caw Milk protein, DIAAS adjusted: 1 / (0.28 * 1.25)]

   PDCAAS [0]
   Soy 0.92 - Beef at 0.94 (Beef 2% better)

   DIAAS [1]
   Soy 0.91 - Beef 1.116 - Whole milk 1.14 (Beef 23% better, Caw milk 25% better)

   WATER footprint [2]
   Soy Milk is 28% of caw milk (Soy 257% better)
   Soy Burger is 28% of caw milk (Soy 1329% better)

   CALORIC / PROTEIN fed population [3]
   MAD (mean American diet) 341m - Plant-Based 531m (plant 56% better)

0: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestible_Indispensable_Amino... No data for Soy PDCAAS in that page and Beef has a different number as the first source. The difference isn't significative though.

2: > The water footprint of the soy milk product analysed in this study is 28% of the water footprint of the global average cow milk. The water footprint of the soy burger examined here is 7% of the water footprint of the average beef burger in the world.

https://www.waterfootprint.org/resources/Ercin-et-al-2012-Wa...

3: > [caloric and protein] At 3% in both metrics, beef is by far the least efficient [...] legume-dominated plant-based diets substitute beef with a dietary shift potential of ≈190 million [current US] individuals.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/1...

Obviously the production method of soy/burger/milk is significant, however others sources show rougtly the same order of magnitude: https://watercalculator.org/water-footprint-of-food-guide/

> depends on your body's protein needs.

For an higher protein/calorie ration, Quinoa is in range of soy' water footprint, and legume protein concentrates fit as well.

Sure, soybean is holding up in its own way but it:

- lacks methionine. So eat more soybean or complementary proteins such as grains, legumes.

- contains Phytates, which reduce mineral absorption such as iron, zinc.

- contains Trypsin inhibitors that reduce protein digestion.

- contains Lectins

- comtains genistein and daidzein inducing estrogen while maintaining testosterone in male.

- a known allergen for 0.4-0.6% of population

- is overly used as ultra-processed filler instead of more expensive natural ingredients.

Then there is land-use issues and monoculture.

The number you gave while accurate ignores the overall issues.

Thats exactly what I'm saying.

If agriculture won't change its practices, the solution is to pump the aquifers dry as quickly as possible agriculture is most exposed to, and then to acquire the land at a steep discount (based on the impaired future ag productivity) for conservation in a land trust.

This essay was really good and I think will prove to be pretty accurate in the long run. Not sure about 2030, but we’re certainly headed in that direction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com