But it doesn't matter how much water you have if your climate can't adequately support the crop. Louisiana may have water galore, but almonds ain't gonna do well with the humidity. Do farmers then build NASA greenhouses and pass on the associated build-and-maintain costs with increased food prices? Accept the climate they got and the accompanied lower yield (or higher risk of no yield, idk, I'm not a farmer), and again pass on the cost to food prices? These farmers are still capitalists and if it were cheaper and just as consistent or productive to farm elsewhere it probably would've been done already. But I think it's probably good that the decision makers and engineers start looking at the water sourcing issues with more urgency anyway. They'll continue to grow more critical as the population grows, anyway. Relocating them would be a band-aid rather than the case study we have right now anyway, IMO.