> If you're growing inside, then you might as well grow where the water/people are.
Well, no, you want to, ideally, grow where the water is but the people aren't. Because otherwise agricultural use and human use are competing for space in the same high-demand areas, and driving the prices up for each other. It may be even be worth moving some water to where the people aren't to support growing to permit this, given the normal tendency for people to also be where the water is.
It's actually way more complicated than that: farm grower agribusinesses aim to minimize costs of competing tensions between locating input supplies, growing, processing, transportation and distribution. The reality is government should move to align business interests to ecological productivity and sustainability to compel corporations to get with the program. It would take a Bernie Sanders 2016 to get that going in the US, because the corporations have too much power and don't like change (change = risk, obstinacy = power).
It's not critical. Bernie is an honest, consistent, socialist. Look at his interviews from 30 years ago, his message hasn't changed. He's against TTIP. His biggest objectives will include campaign finance reform, income inequality, justice sys racial bias... the long road of fixing the very broken republic. He voted and spoke out against the wars Iraq and Afghanistan which costed $5 trillion USD +- $2 trillion. I won't get into it further because HN is allergic to political speech.
Well, no, you want to, ideally, grow where the water is but the people aren't. Because otherwise agricultural use and human use are competing for space in the same high-demand areas, and driving the prices up for each other. It may be even be worth moving some water to where the people aren't to support growing to permit this, given the normal tendency for people to also be where the water is.