Well even if the environmental concerns were invalid and their alarmists appeased, it still doesnt seem like a good idea, when the problem can be solved simply by properly aligning incentives so that people don&#x27;t privately benefit from overusing water, and aren&#x27;t stuck in &quot;use it or lose it&quot;-type situations where they can blow $100 worth of water for free to keep the $5 worth of crops.<p>It can be done without unilaterally voiding water rights: just coordinate a way pay them to waive the drawing rights they&#x27;d normally have (such that it doesn&#x27;t simply go to someone else with similarly skewed incentives). See David Zetland&#x27;s &quot;all-in auctions&quot;. Then, farmers would quit drawing so much for marginal crops, total usage would taper off, and aquifers would replenish. Infrastructure cost: $0.<p>$100 billion is a steep price to pay to refuse to recognize relevant scarcities.