The Colorado River Does Not Reach 2030 • Hacker News Board

Re: The Colorado River Does Not Reach 2030

#11

Post by littlexsparkee » Fri, Mar 13, 2026, 10:13 PM UTC

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #9

idontwantthis wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

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

Re: The Colorado River Does Not Reach 2030

#12

Post by iJohnDoe » Sat, Mar 14, 2026, 1:58 AM UTC

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.

Re: The Colorado River Does Not Reach 2030

#13

Post by hyperhello » Sat, Mar 14, 2026, 3:17 AM UTC

> 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.

Re: The Colorado River Does Not Reach 2030

#14

Post by egberts1 » Sat, Mar 14, 2026, 12:38 PM UTC

littlexsparkee wrote: post #11

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

Re: The Colorado River Does Not Reach 2030

#15

Post by aziaziazi » Sat, Mar 14, 2026, 3:32 PM UTC

egberts1 wrote: post #14

littlexsparkee wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: The Colorado River Does Not Reach 2030

#16

Post by egberts1 » Mon, Mar 16, 2026, 1:23 PM UTC

aziaziazi wrote: post #15

egberts1 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]…

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.

Re: The Colorado River Does Not Reach 2030

#17

Post by toomuchtodo » Wed, Mar 18, 2026, 4:37 PM UTC

idontwantthis wrote: post #3

exabrial wrote: post #2

> 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 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.