It doesn’t seem like an outrage to me that agriculture uses more water than the cities they feed. It’s actually more accurate to think of the water used in agr

It doesn’t seem like an outrage to me that agriculture uses more water than the cities they feed. It’s actually more accurate to think of the water used in agriculture as an externalized cost of the city. Of course food production uses more water than washing and drinking. That is the case in almost all circumstances. Now, whether we should be growing luxury crops in water constrained regions, that might be a better discussion to have, but the nature of global trade demands centralized production for the needed economy of scale. I am very much in favor of a revamp of the unnecessary movement of goods where local production could suffice, but the reality of that concept at scale is a much more constrained, regional marketplace rather than the global bazaar we currently expect and enjoy. This really seems like a self promoting drive-by on a farm that makes an effort to contribute to their communities in lasting ways, while ignoring the real issue which is overpopulation of areas that can only support sparse populations. As long as humans need to eat, it’s hard to justify the position that farm usage of water unduly impacts the needs of cities. It’s disingenuous. It’s like saying that breathing uses too much oxygen in a crowded room- maybe resident density, not breathing, is the problem.