almonds

If it means almonds and beef get more expensive, so be it.

It uses in sum more California water than almonds and you can grow it in many locations.

Global demand for almonds will continue to vastly outstrip what California can handle via traditional outdoor growing.

It means if you start charging farmers for water usage (rather than access) then almonds are a more attractive crop then others crops from a profit perspective.

And there are lots of other places to raise cattle or grow almonds than in a desert.

Nobody's going to starve if the price of water-intensive foods like avocado and almonds increase a little.

Among them Spain, areas of Australia and California (which produces most of the worlds almonds).

So, yes, it takes more water the produce a bushel of almonds then it does to produce a bushel of <whatever>.

This accounts for more water than almonds that seem to always be the scapegoat.

I suspect that cattle and other livestock far outstrip almonds and intoxicants both in sheer quantity and relative wastefulness.

For example cattle are far more water intense than even almonds (which are water intensive) yet have no requirement to be in CA.

Chicken is at least close to almonds, which people are freaking out about since its several times other options, but beef is 3x chicken.

However, pinning the blame on almonds and livestock is misplaced (and, in the latter case, characterizing them as "luxury" crops seems misplaced unless you consider basic nutrients like protein a "luxury").

Almonds should be near the top of the most productive agricultural uses of water.

Almonds also look rather nice - certainly much more interesting than alfalfa.

Almonds, as one of the other responders mentioned to your comment.