The answer to your first point is going to be maths and the water cycle.

I read more of the study I linked to, which actually seems to support the first claim you linked to, at least partially. Essentially, almost all groundwater capacity estimates are based on deeply flawed assumptions that were criticized in the 90's. These old estimates over estimate by orders of magnitude the amount of water available.

The study says that it is possible to acquire accurate measurements of total storage capacity with direct measurement using a particular system, but so far that has not generally been done, so we still don't have truly accurate measurements, but the old ones are definitely overestimating what highly agricultural/industrial areas have (it mentions that in places that did not have an agrarian revolution, like Africa, the amount of groundwater is quite stable, and is not in danger of being depleted.

So...Yeah that actually paints a pretty dire situation, and my shallow deep dive conclusion of that was wrong. But as there really doesn't seem to be enough data, it doesn't seem possible to give an exact estimate of 40% overcapacity.

I’m sure they’ll love it, even if it isn’t as profitable!

While No-till definitely seems to not be as profitable until 10 years of application, in the minimal tilling article one of the options is Strip tilling, which gives comparable yields to traditional tilling while keeping most of the benefits of No-till:

In one study, yields were higher in the strip-tilled area than in the area where no-till was practiced. In a low phosphorus site, yield was 43.5 bushels/acre (2,925.5 kg/hectare) in strip-till compared to 41.5 bu/a (2,791 kg/ha) in a no-till system.[7] Yield is comparable to that of intensive tillage systems — without the cost.

It does have some disadvantages compared to traditional tilling, but none that are showstoppers. Would farmers willingly adopt this new technique on mass of their own volition for the sake of the soil itself? Probably not. As the topsoil article I linked to mentioned, the only reason agricultural media sources started reporting on NASA's study at all is because it estimated how much money the topsoil erosion would cost the farmers per year. Maybe if they feel their livelihood is truly at risk, they may be more willing to adopt these new methods.

Alternatively, these new methods could be legally mandated, or subsidized (Pay the farmers to use the new methods), just like the government did to combat the dust bowl.

Though the part below that in the article isn't super promising...

Patrick Allitt recounts how fellow historian Donald Worster responded to his return visit to the Dust Bowl in the mid-1970s when he revisited some of the worst afflicted counties:

Capital-intensive agribusiness had transformed the scene; deep wells into the aquifer, intensive irrigation, the use of artificial pesticides and fertilizers, and giant harvesters were creating immense crops year after year whether it rained or not. According to the farmers he interviewed, technology had provided the perfect answer to old troubles, such of the bad days would not return. In Worster's view, by contrast, the scene demonstrated that America's capitalist high-tech farmers had learned nothing. They were continuing to work in an unsustainable way, devoting far cheaper subsidized energy to growing food than the energy could give back to its ultimate consumers.

I guess the only difference now is that they won't have any other options but to try other methods once the ground water is used up and their yields are reduced from lack of viable topsoil.

I’ll find you some ‘better sources’ tonight

I realized just now that when referencing the second link, I said "Again, no sources or studies cited, just a claim." which makes it sound like I was directing that at you. Sorry about that, I didn't mean to direct at you, I was referring to the UN FAO making that claim without sources or studies, and edited my comment to make that more clear.