I'll also add that NPR's argument is "this water is used to grow crops which feed beef/dairy, therefore if we reduce beef/dairy cows, these crops and the corresponding water will be reduced proportionately".
Their conclusion is not grounded in microeconomic logic. If the demand for alfalfa and hay decrease, that will affect only the marginal farmer/seller, not all alfalfa/hay farmers/sellers equally. In other words, the most expensive seller of cattle feed in the market may no longer have a buyer, but other less expensive sellers will be totally unaffected.
Imperial Valley farmers are likely not the the marginal seller in the cattle feed market (ie the most expensive sellers who still have buyers), so this argument that reducing beef/dairy consumption is flawed.
I'll also add that NPR's argument is "this water is used to grow crops which feed beef/dairy, therefore if we reduce beef/dairy cows, these crops and the corresponding water will be reduced proportionately".
Their conclusion is not grounded in microeconomic logic. If the demand for alfalfa and hay decrease, that will affect only the marginal farmer/seller, not all alfalfa/hay farmers/sellers equally. In other words, the most expensive seller of cattle feed in the market may no longer have a buyer, but other less expensive sellers will be totally unaffected.
Imperial Valley farmers are likely not the the marginal seller in the cattle feed market (ie the most expensive sellers who still have buyers), so this argument that reducing beef/dairy consumption is flawed.