I saw [this](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/22/climate/colorado-river-water.html) article today which mentions that 55% of water usage in the west is used for livestock feed. Is there a reason we can’t grow this feed in different parts of the country with more abundant water?
In: 3
Try looking at it from an individuals perspective, in a farmers perspective:
You have inherited/bought land and water rights, as well as farming machinery. The only logical choice is to use that and grow crops. Now, what crops do you want to grow? You want to grow the most profitable crops that you can, considering your land, the amount of water you are allowed to use, what you are legally allowed to plant, and your other constraints. If this turns out that livestock feed is the most profitable, you probably will grow that.
Now why don’t we as a society forbid planting of water-intensive crops with Colorado river water? There have been attempts, but these have so far all been squashed by resistance from water right holders/farmers, since they would loose their livelihood and what their families have built up for generations. It would probably also mean that meat could get more expensive, which doesn’t make the decision more attractive to politicians and their voters.
To add to that, IIRC the water rights on the Colorado river are “use it or loose it”, meaning that if you don’t use the water you are allowed to use, then in future you might only be allowed to use the amount that you actually needed. Which is pretty bad long-term if you want to expand/plant more water-intesive crops. Because getting water rights (back) is near impossible due to the ever-shrinking amount of water available. That further incentiveses you to use all the water you are allowed to, in order to not cripple your future once/if water rights get reduced due to climate change.
Latest Answers