By Gabriella Sotelo for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Suzanne Potter for California News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Less than one percent of the Earth’s water is available for human use. This limited supply, known as freshwater, can be sourced from rivers, lakes and groundwater. This is also the water we rely on for drinking, recreation, industrial use and our food system. The agricultural industry is the largest user of freshwater, making up nearly 70 percent of global withdrawals, according to the UN World Water Development Report. At the heart of this issue are the meat and dairy industries, both of which consume vast amounts of water, and pollute ecosystems.

“There’s a couple of things that are really, really important. One is to set formal limits on how much water can be extracted from each of our water sources,” Brian Richter, water conservation researcher and president of Sustainable Waters, an organization focused on water scarcity, tells Sentient. “Another important strategy that’s beginning to be used more and more, is shifting from water-intensive crops to crops that don’t require as much water.”

In California, concerns about water usage were brought into focus during the start of the wildfires that ravaged multiple communities in Los Angeles. False claims spread that there was not enough water to fight the fires, leading to more scrutiny about water waste. While firefighting efforts were not in fact hampered by a lack of water, the claims highlighted an underlying issue: the real competition for limited water resources.

California faces a cycle of extreme weather patterns, known as “whiplash” events. For the Golden State, this means going from extremely dry drought conditions, to much-needed record-breaking rain that facilitates plant growth. But when dry conditions return, that same new vegetation quickly becomes dry fuel, which heightens the risk of devastating wildfires.

This shifting weather cycle is driven in part by climate change, which is making extreme weather events more frequent and unpredictable. And by using vast amounts of water and contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, meat and dairy production also exacerbates these extremes.

Why Does Farming Use So Much Water?

Factory farms use water for animals — to raise and feed them, and to slaughter them. But a good share of water usage in agriculture comes from the irrigation needed to make feed for livestock. In the U.S., irrigation alone made up for 42 percent of all freshwater withdrawals in 2015, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“The other generality about the western United States is that the majority of water that’s used on irrigated farms is going to produce a couple of different crops that we refer to as cattle feed crops,” Richter tells Sentient.

Feed crops for animals include barley and wheat, but cattle feed crops also include alfalfa, corn and other hays and grasses — crops that require massive amounts of water to grow. Alfalfa, for example, requires roughly five feet of water per acre to thrive. The sheer scale of water use needed for these crops is a considerable part of the environmental toll of animal agriculture.

Meat and dairy production is also the leading source of methane pollution in the U.S. And water being diverted for irrigation has serious consequences for vital water sources. When too much water is taken for irrigation, it drains rivers and aquifers, leaving less water for people and wildlife. This can hurt local ecosystems, drying up wetlands, and affecting fish and bird habitats. The over-extraction of groundwater can also lead to the gradual sinking of land.

California’s Water Wars

The agriculture industry in California is a powerhouse, producing a significant portion of the nation’s crops and employing workers across the state. However, this agricultural success comes at a steep environmental cost. The sector uses approximately 80 percent of the state’s developed water supply, and much of that water supports both the state’s food industry and the livestock sector — dairy alone is one of the most valuable commodities in California at $8.13 billion. A significant portion of the state’s water is directed toward cattle feed; feed crops make up a quarter of the state’s farmland and 27 percent of its water usage.

California’s agricultural sector is deeply dependent on both surface water from rivers and reservoirs, and groundwater drawn from underground aquifers. However, in recent years, reductions in surface water availability, driven by drier conditions, have pushed farms to rely more on groundwater. This shift has led to rapid depletion of the state’s underground water reserves, especially in regions like the Central Valley, where water scarcity is becoming an urgent issue.

Richter points out that there is currently no effective control on the overall volume of water being used in agriculture. “The number of people that get served by our water resources is just dependent on how much water is coming down the river, or how much is in the reservoirs,” he says. In other words, if we exceed the natural replenishment of water supplies, we risk consequences.

“Replenishment happens naturally each year through rainfall and snowmelt, but if our consumption surpasses that replenishment, we start facing real problems,” Richter adds. “In the western U.S., there are farmers who simply don’t have enough water, because it hasn’t been replenished.” These challenges, Richter warns, could lead to more widespread water shortages if we don’t change our approach to agricultural water use.

While California has implemented some measures, such as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which aims to curb overuse of groundwater, a report from the Groundwater Leadership Forum found that the plans are failing many of its users. These water disputes have threatened local food systems across the state, with communities caught in the crossfire between industrial agriculture and the need for equitable, sustainable water access.

“A reduction in the production of agriculture in general, but more specifically, those cattle feed crops, is going to be necessary to return to a more sustainable use of water,” Richter says.

The Great Salt Lake, Shrinking

These issues aren’t only affecting California: The Great Salt Lake in Utah has been shrinking at an alarming rate as water is continually diverted for agricultural use. A 2024 study on reducing irrigation for livestock feed found that 62 percent of river water that would have originally gone to replenish the lake is instead being diverted for human activities. Of that, 71 percent of it was used for agriculture, specifically irrigation. This diversion has contributed to a dramatic drop in the lake’s water levels, putting its delicate ecosystems at risk.

The Great Salt Lake is a critical biodiversity hotspot, supporting 10 million migratory birds from 350 bird species. Reduced water levels threaten these habitats and could disrupt the food web, with far-reaching consequences for both local wildlife and human communities.

To reverse the lake’s decline, the study’s researchers call for a 35 percent reduction in human water consumption, particularly in the agricultural sector. They say one of the most effective ways to achieve this would be through a significant reduction in alfalfa production, which is one of the largest water-consuming crops in the region.

“But different levels of reduction in these cattle feed crops is going to be necessary in many other places in the western United States,” Richter says. “It’s going to be absolutely necessary in the Central Valley of California.”

The Bottom Line

Crops grown for livestock feed take a huge toll on our water supply. Research finds that shifting production patterns, or scaling back on feed crop cultivation, could have a substantial impact on water consumption in the sector. However, if meat and dairy consumption continues, the pressure on freshwater supplies will only grow worse.

Globally, agriculture already accounts for about 70 percent of all freshwater withdrawals — and demand is only rising. By the year 2050, meat production is predicted to grow to around 550 million metric tons of meat, up from 367 million metric tons in 2013. This will significantly intensify the strain on water resources.

One way to address this is through more efficient water management practices. Researchers at the World Resources Institute say that farmers can adopt techniques such as switching to irrigation methods like drip or sprinkler systems, which use far less water than traditional flood irrigation.

Another switch, as Richter previously mentioned, would be to move away from water-intensive crops and foods like beef, to more water-efficient alternatives. Reducing beef consumption, particularly in high-consuming regions, would ease pressure on global water resources and contribute to a more water-efficient food system.


Gabriella Sotelo wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

The organization Practical Farmers of Iowa is helping urban crop growers use beneficial insects to control pests, boost soil health and increase pollination.

It is part of the group's efforts to use natural resources to create healthier farms. Farmers do not like most bugs but in some cases, they can help.

Tricia Engelbrecht, a flower farmer at Engelbrecht Farm near Waverly, introduced ground beetles, lacewings and parasitic wasps into the habitat, to stay ahead of the pests that like to feed on her flowers.

"I can never get rid of pests," Engelbrecht acknowledged. "They are just part of the ecosystem. But if I could manage them, that would be very helpful to me. Like aphids, they suck the plant. They're like eating the plants. Some bugs go after the blooms."

Engelbrecht uses native "insect strips" and "beetle banks," which allow the good bugs to integrate into the habitat and keep the pests under control.

The bugs also reduce the need for chemicals, which in the end, creates healthier flowers. She admitted things do not always go as planned when she introduces good bugs, likening it to an eighth grade science project.

"It's not always foolproof," Engelbrecht pointed out. "Last year, I put all those egg sacs out. It comes on like a strip of paper to keep them off the ground. I hung it up and something ate all of the eggs. I don't know if a rodent or something came and ate all the eggs. I came the next day and everything was gone."

It was not a complete loss. Engelbrecht gets new shipments of healthy bugs every few weeks and Practical Farmers of Iowa pays for the habitats so she is getting financial help from the program, while striking a balance with Mother Nature.


get more stories like this via email

By Nina B. Elkadi for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Mark Moran for Iowa News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

The “Got Milk?” campaign is one of the most infamous advertisements campaigns funded by the food industry. Though the images of people sporting milk mustaches were once practically ubiquitous, consumers may have difficulty pinpointing who exactly funded the project. The source was a unique agricultural marketing partnership of both industry and government commonly referred to as “checkoffs.” Today, checkoffs promote a wide range of foods — eggs and pork, and also watermelon and Hass avocados — but a growing number of critics, including farmers, are raising objections to the mandatory payment scheme. Some critics have even called for Elon Musk’s DOGE to curb checkoff programs, yet that kind of cut may not be popular, or legal.

Historically, checkoffs were a way for farmers to “self-tax” — paying a fee into a consolidated pool to market their product — University of Iowa agricultural resource economist Silvia Secchi tells Sentient. Once a voluntary practice, farmers could elect to pay into the checkoff to support their own commodity — agricultural products sold at a large scale, like corn, beef and hogs. The funds would go toward one big marketing pool, and the checkoff was to promote and provide information about the commodity rather than a particular brand — selling milk rather than DairyPure, for instance.

The first commodity checkoff was the formation of the Cotton Board in 1966, eventually institutionalized by Congress in 1996, when lawmakers officially sanctioned the use of “industry-funded, Government-supervised” commodity checkoff programs. More than a quarter-century later, checkoffs have ballooned into a combined pot of almost $1 billion supervised by the United States Department of Agriculture but operated by commodity boards. It is mandatory for producers selling cattle to pay $1 per head to the checkoff. Beef imported to the U.S. is “self-taxed” too. Ready to capitalize on the sweeping governmental changes, some farmers and farm groups are calling for a change.

Signs the Trump Administration Might Slash Checkoffs 

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which is moving through federal agencies slashing positions and programs, put out a call on X (formerly known as Twitter) asking for the public’s help with what to cut from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Some advocacy groups, like Farm Action, asked DOGE to investigate illegal checkoff spending on lobbying. They also penned a letter to USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins asking her to halt checkoff expenditures, which she has neither confirmed nor denied she will do.

Checkoffs were a target of Project 2025, where author Daren Bakst wrote that “Marketing orders and checkoff programs are some of the most egregious programs run by the USDA. They are, in effect, a tax — a means to compel speech — and government-blessed cartels. Instead of getting private cooperation, they are tools for industry actors to work with government to force cooperation.” Bakst called for the elimination or reduction of checkoff programs.

“That could’ve come out of the mouth of Senator Sanders or Senator Warren,” Austin Frerick, antitrust expert and author of “Barons: Money, Power, and the Corruption of America’s Food Industry,” tells Sentient. Frerick sees checkoff reform as essential. “We can’t make meaningful reforms in the American food system until we bring in the checkoffs, because they’re just too much money. They’re too much of a slush fund. They control the conversation too much.”

What Checkoff Programs Do

The goal of checkoff programs is to increase the reputation of and desire for a commodity, like beef, among consumers. Checkoffs tend to promote food made by large-scale, industrial agriculture, Secchi says; there are overwhelmingly the kinds of farms that produce most of the feed crops and meat consumed in the U.S. “If you’re the kind of farmer who is doing a lot to promote soil health on their farm, or who is really concerned about animal welfare and things like that, the checkoff doesn’t really benefit you,” she says. “The checkoff benefits the commodity, right? And the commodity, by definition, is homogeneous.”

Checkoffs also fund a hefty amount of university research. This industry-funded research is not a behind-the-scenes aspect of checkoffs, either. In fact, the USDA labels these programs under a “research & promotion” umbrella.

It’s also not an insignificant sum. According to reporting by Investigate Midwest, “between 2012 and 2022, the pork checkoff gave $17,184,763 in funding to land-grant colleges across the country. More than half went to research at Iowa State University…” In the same time period, the National Cattleman’s Beef Association gave $6.4 million and the dairy checkoff, Dairy Management Inc., gave almost $5.8 million to land-grant colleges.

How Checkoffs Can Skew Academic Research

Industry-funded research is ubiquitous in the field of agriculture. While defenders of the practice say working with conventional agriculture is a way to improve it, critics say industry-funded research ends up favoring questions of interest to industry over other research areas. And a growing body of industry-funded research is going toward messaging to defend the meat industry — like building trust in the pork industry, for instance. 

“I actually think checkoffs are the main reason why our efforts in climate change and agriculture have been largely a farce,” says Frerick. Agriculture is one of the largest contributors to climate change, responsible for around a third of all greenhouse gas emissions, most of which is driven by beef. Frerick says industry-funded research is often focused on the false solutions. “We’re getting a lot of dumb scholarship, like ethanol and airplanes and other digesters for industrial animal facilities. And as all that, to me, is being driven and led by checkoffs.”

One recent paper claims that the beef industry (via the checkoff funded National Cattlemen’s Association) “planned to obstruct efforts to shift U.S. diets to reduce emissions,” funding university research that downplayed the effects of the industry on climate change. Frerick says research is what drives hiring in academia, and some researchers may feel pressured to write favorably about the big-funders.

“If you write a bunch of articles about how you squeeze more hogs into a metal shed, you’re probably more likely to get tenure than if you are talking about the fact that Iowa has the second-highest cancer rate in America,” he says. “The structures are really, really broken right now.”

Secchi is critical of the kinds of research land grant institutions are investing in. “The research that this kind of money finances is what I call small science research that perpetuates the practices of conventional agriculture,” she says. “It basically is just increasing demand for these products without any thinking about their environmental impact [or] their human health impact in a real way.”

Some Farmers Say Checkoffs Offer Them Little

On February 25, 2025, the USDA released a radio broadcast talking up the benefits of checkoffs, telling listeners that they do not know the extent to which the checkoff touches their lives, citing campaigns like “Beef, it’s what’s for dinner,” and educational programs such as “Pork Loin Roast vs Tenderloin.” The checkoff can also support events, the host said, such as the American Lamb Board’s Lamb Jam, “a tour of cities where local restaurants feature their best bites of lamb, along with games, music and giveaways to attract audiences and potential new customers of lamb.”

But not all farmers are convinced. Iowa farmer John Gilbert wrote to Sentient that, “Check off taxes are built on a faulty premise that prices can be increased by working only on the demand side.”

He wrote that the checkoff system “went to crap” when it became mandatory, causing the revenue to “invariably [shift] to the organization’s preservation, self promotion and influence peddling.”

“The checkoffs invariably led to the commodity cartel that has a stranglehold on Iowa politics and agriculture,” he wrote.

Aaron Lehman, President of the Iowa Farmers Union, wrote to Sentient that “Commodity checkoff programs must be accountable to the needs of family farmers,” noting that the term “checkoff” implies that they should also all be voluntary, “or at the very least should have built in regular farmer elections regarding the collection of funds from farmers.”

In conversations with farmers, Frerick has heard similar complaints. For decades, he says, many farmers have vocally opposed the checkoff, feeling like “their own money is being used against them.”

DOGE As Enforcer?

When the advocacy group Farm Action took to X to blast checkoffs, they highlighted the “lack of transparency and oversight.” Yet even though Project 2025 called for the elimination, or complete reform of the program, DOGE cannot (legally) single-handedly eliminate checkoffs, Secchi says.

“I have never been a fan of the checkoffs. But I think what’s really dangerous here is to concede that the process doesn’t matter,” she says. “If they get rid of the checkoffs, that’s not good, because that’s illegal. That’s not their job to get rid of the checkoffs.”

Moreover, checkoffs are not funded by the average taxpayer, they are funded by the farmer, making the DOGE goal of saving the average taxpayer money moot.

“It is not conducive to good policy to think that eliminating the subsidies in the system we have now is going to result in good outcomes,” Secchi says. “The people who are going to survive are the people who are already big.”

Project 2025 likely targeted checkoffs because, at its core, the plan calls for less government and more free market ideology, Secchi explains. But the entire agricultural market in the U.S., as Secchi explains in a recent paper, is based on government-driven extraction of the land; things like railroads to ship pigs across the country and corn yield advancements because of land grant university research.

“This tech bro idea that the market exists in a vacuum, and it’s this ideal that we have to aspire to is really not based in any reality,” she says. “The market is created by institutions like the state.”

DOGE aside, Frerick does not believe that much is likely to change at USDA with Brooke Rollins at the helm. “Her whole career is being a hack for [corporations] and the oligarch class, so I just don’t expect her to find the light all of a sudden,” he says. “But who knows?”

Based on an initial review of the DOGE website, one contract within the Agricultural Marketing Service has been terminated. It is unclear how this might affect checkoffs.

When asked if checkoffs were on the chopping block, Rollins told Farm Journal, “That is to be determined … I have not even begun to look at those. I know we’ve got a team looking at them. We’re going to get through the next few weeks and then we’ll start evaluating.”


Nina B. Elkadi wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

The South Dakota region has seen some wet weather in recent days, but the entire state is still in varying levels of drought status.

That has farmers prepping for a potentially dry planting and growing season.

Data show persistent droughts have become a headache for farmers in this part of the country, even with South Dakota's long history of dry conditions.

Jim Faulstich farms in the central part of the state. After nearly losing his ranch during a devastating drought in 1976, he's learned to adapt over the years.

Faulstich said diversifying his business model by welcoming hunters has eased the pressure, as well as planting "warm season grasses."

"The warm season grasses are a lot deeper rooted," said Faulstich, "they tend to stay greener into the summer."

He said that spreads out the grazing season for livestock. And if cows are in better shape, he said that means consumers have a better beef product at the grocery store.

Faulstich said he hopes emerging farmers and ranchers embrace sustainable practices so they, too, can withstand periods of drought and help their communities thrive.

Faulstich, also vice-chair of the South Dakota Grassland Coalition, said this holistic approach to managing a healthier landscape means farmers aren't caught flat footed when weather disasters strike.

"These weather cycles have been really extreme the last few years, and we don't give up," said Faulstich. "It's just a way of life, and we have to be prepared for it."

He said improving soil quality also benefits surrounding waterways for things like outdoor recreation.

Faulstich said that's important because much of the state still struggles with water quality in lakes, rivers and streams, despite recent progress.

That overview is reflected in a recent summary from the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources.