alt Hacker NewsI certainly agree that EQIP should be funded!
But why are programs like this controversial, even though anything shaped like a farm subsidy is normally popular? It seems to me that things like your Central Valley analysis are precisely the reason. The Central Valley has been one of the nation's agricultural heartlands for a while, and for quite a few common food products represents 90%+ of domestic production. So if this "blaring siren" you describe is real, and we have to stop farming there, a realistic response plan would have to include an explanation of what all the farmers are going to do and where we'll get almonds and broccoli from.
Perhaps you know all this already, but a lot of people who advocate such policies don't seem to. This then feeds into skepticism about whether they're hearing the "blaring siren" correctly in the first place. Personally, I think nearly arbitrarily extreme water subsidies are worth it if that's what we need to keep olives and pomegranates and celery in stock at the grocery store.
The solution is to rely on the magic of prices to gradually push farming elsewhere while simultaneously investing heavily in more efficient farming practices and shifting our diet away from ultra-inefficient meat production.
You really DON’T need to centrally plan everything. The market will still find good solutions under the new parameters, but we need those parameters to change before we’re actually out of water.