Few things sum up twenty-first-century trend culture more than wine nights, shower oranges, and fancy $3.99 almond milk yogurt from Whole Foods. These fruit and nut products have exploded in popularity over the last few decades, while America continues to shift away from so-called “cereal crops” like corn or wheat (think of the rise of paleo, Whole 30, or ketogenic diets). But the shift comes at an unexpected cost. 

One would think that the boom in the fruit and nut industries would be good for farmers and their communities. However, an October 2019 study from researchers at the University of California, Davis found that increased demand for fruits and nuts has forced farmers in California’s Central Valley to a crossroads. They must choose between financial prosperity or water security. Both options are harmful in some way or another. 

Fruits and nuts grow on trees. All trees belong to a subset of plants known as “perennials”, which is a fancy way of saying that they survive the winter and continue to grow year after year. According to the study, rising market demand for fruits and nuts has caused the value of these perennial crops to increase by 40% over the last 40 years. For instance, the going rate for a pound of pistachios has increased in price from $1.16 in 1996 to $2.65 in 2018. It comes as no surprise, then, that farmers have switched from growing annual crops like wheat or cotton to perennial crops such as fruits and nuts. As a result, farmland devoted to perennial crops has nearly tripled in the Central Valley over the past 40 years. Farmers have reaped the economic gains. In an area that has long been plagued by chronic poverty and unemployment, this has served as a seed of hope amidst a history of struggle.

So what’s the problem? In short, there is not enough water. 

Perennial crops are thirsty. They use significantly more water per acre compared to annual crops. To make matters worse, because they are slow growing, often taking 5-10 years of cultivation before they produce a harvest, perennials are much less tolerant of drought. While an annual crop can simply be switched out for a different, less water-dependent annual crop during drier years (thus allowing farmers to adapt to variable climate), a perennial crop grows over a multiyear period, which locks farmers into a water guzzling operation for decades at a time. That makes a plot of perennial crops a high-risk, high-yield investment, requiring ~5 years of watering before any significant payoff occurs, plus a commitment to consistent watering for the remainder of the life of the plant. Using this line of reasoning, the study highlights that the new Central Valley requires a larger volume and a more consistent supply of water than it’s annual-filled predecessor ever did. 

Unfortunately for this water-hungry batch of crops, the amount of water supplied to the valley is finite, and it is likely decreasing. The researchers of the study cite previous scientific research to show that climate change is making an already dry climate even drier, and that surface water is increasingly scarce. This was made clear during the 2011-2017 California drought, one of the longest and most severe on record. Based on the study of this drought, scientific consensus predicts that surface water supply will become more and more unreliable. This has forced perennial farmers, who would face significant economic loss on investment if their perennial plants did not receive enough water, to tap into underground aquifers for agricultural use.

According to the study, the overuse and depletion of aquifers for agricultural water supply is harmful to the small rural communities that sit atop them, in two very different ways. First, when these aquifers run out of water, the empty aquifer will often fill with water from a nearby saltwater source. Consequently, drinking water wells that draw from these aquifers will pull up water that is too salty for human consumption. Most rural communities in the Central Valley are hundreds of miles away from another source of freshwater (The California government operates an extensive network of dams and canals to pipe surface water to dry cities like Los Angeles, but in recent years little to none of this freshwater has made its way to the Central Valley). Rural communities depend on wells for drinking water, and salt contamination threatens water security in a very serious way. The second harmful effect of aquifer depletion is land subsidence. In simple terms, this is when the ground sinks as the water underneath it is drained. According to the study, some areas of the Central Valley have sunk as much as 28 feet since groundwater pumping began in the 1920s. This is a safety hazard as well as an economic stressor because it can cause damage to buildings, homes, and other infrastructure. 

There have been several attempts to solve the groundwater crisis in California through state regulations. The 2014 State Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) proposes limits on groundwater use, to prevent aquifer depletion and protect local communities and ecosystems from the effects of water scarcity. However, these regulations are often vehemently opposed by the people they are meant to protect, because curtailing agricultural groundwater use will still harm the Central Valley regardless– just in a different kind of harm. Less water means less money. The proposed restrictions could cut farmer’s revenue by as much as 30%. Instead of struggling to find enough clean freshwater to support both farming operations and rural communities, farmers will be struggling to make ends meet financially, as crop yields will be limited and economic success halted under the proposed restrictions. For the farmers, stress and loss will simply be transferred from one form to another.

So, facing the reality of an increasingly unforgiving climate and the need to make a living, farmers have a choice to make– 1.) plant perennial crops, and choose financial security at the expense of water security, or 2.) forgo planting perennial crops, stick to annuals, and choose water security at the expense of financial security. 

It hasn’t always been like this– how did farmers end up stuck between a rock and a hard place? For one, our preferences have changed. America is eating fewer grains and more fruits and nuts. But on a second look, it’s not really our fault. The shift towards perennials is only a problem because the marketplace has turned a simple change in preference into an unregulated and environmentally-unchecked money game. As money games so often do, the burden falls on the least powerful–In this case, small rural farming communities, often thousands of miles away from the supermarkets they supply, and worlds away from the trendy concept of a shower orange. 

The study’s analysis compels us with a humanistic understanding of the situation at hand. For those of us lucky enough to indulge in almond-milk yogurt without giving it a second thought, we may never feel the effects of this structural oppression unless we go looking for them, and we will never solve the problems that arise unless we drastically rethink our approach to free markets and natural resource extraction. Pay the farmers enough money in the first place (government, we’re looking at you), and they won’t need to overdraw the aquifers needed for drinking water. The food system will supply just as much perennial crop product as nature can sustainably support. Until then, rural farming communities in the Central Valley will suffer one way or another, disproportionately paying the price in a system rigged against them.