A hydrologic and economic analysis of the Upper Rio Grande basin in the Southwest, published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that subsidies and other policies that encourage conservation methods like drip irrigation can actually increase water consumption.Thanks neverdem.
This has all the allure of spin-cast fishing. Drip irrigation uses less water per plant at a lower unit cost to the customer for the produce. So the farmer makes more money, so more farmers stay in business and people buy and eat more healthy fresh food. This guy is arguing that because the plant takes up ALL of what is allocated, it constitutes an undesirable subsidy because farmers use more total water, as if people wouldn't buy their strawberries from elsewhere. He's effectively saying that the problem is that it is working. He is apparently not including the amount of water it would take to wet the soil on the way back to the aquifer as a deleterious side effect.
His reason? It's obvious. He wants to see that marginal water used elsewhere. Where would that be? Let's see, justify it for "the environmint" because housing uses less water than farming. Then develop former farms bought for a song because they were pushed out of business.
Oh, but that would be EEEVIL!
Methinks this is another pitch to encourage farming abroad at the expense of Americans with the desire of making money in real estate racketeering. Allocating grant money for such "studies" is popular these days among investors, particularly to find ways to justify unnaturally high flows in streams in late season (Klamath Dam releases anyone?). There are gobs of bureaucrat "scientists" with financial interest in such a story who will note immediately its prestigious publication. Hence ii highly placed in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Take the water, kill the farm, and grab the dirt. In that order.
As to irrigation, I'm a lot more concerned about salting up dirt than I am about using too much water.