Mostly horses would be without alfalfa and there would be less avocados and almonds. I think these are the main offenders iirc.
The problem with almonds isn't so much that the trees require water (like anything else). It's that they're inevitably planted where water is a particular problem. Like, needing to pump and deplete groundwater.
You could feed many more people with higher yielding trees, like apples or even citruses. But then again, the almond is such an integral part of the upper middle class suburbia which makes up so much of California that we literally have expression around it: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=almond%20mom
I'd like your assistance in classifying other items, such as
1: upholstered furniture 2: refridgerator 3: wheat mixed with water, non-baked 4: bread
IIUC, it takes more water to produce a single almond (~7 calories) than an orange (~45 calories).
Almonds are a great source of protein. Oranges are negligible by comparison.
Almonds are a good source of vitamin E. Oranges contain none by comparison.
Almonds are high in healthy monounsaturated fats. Oranges contain none by comparison.
So now compare water per the above metrics and see where Almonds stand.
Almonds and Oranges are both unique and valuable in their own way.
A ag product should be priced to reflect their 'externalities', and that includes things like water use, but perhaps we should be subsidizing healthy stuff like produce over field corn and soybeans
Biggest problem with soy is that 77% is consumed by animal agriculture, which is causing much harm in the world (deforestation, pesticides/herbicides, runoff, biodiversity loss, co2 emissions, ...).
Almonds are closer to 1 gallon per ~6 calories - or almost 4 times worse.
It's almost as if there's reason almonds are expensive and tomatoes and oranges and lemons and limes aren't.
From what I can gather a single tomato uses on average 3.3 gallons of water and a single almond is 1.1 gallons. That is 35 calories vs 7 calories. It comes out to 10 calories per gallon vs 6 calories per gallon which is not nearly as bad as your example. I'm not saying these numbers are 100% accurate, but I'm very skeptical it is 4 times as much water.
Its true, planting them in deserts (the central valley of california) is a bad idea. I only point out that there's nothing particularly bad about an almond tree vis-a-vis any other tree. Planted elsewhere, there would likely be no issue.
Except the context is very important here. California is routinely struggling with water availability. Planting trees, of any kind, in a Californian desert in this environment and climate is stupid and self defeating, no matter how much profit it brings into some farming company's hands, and there's not really a reason to defend that. Plenty of places in the US have enough water to support massive tree planting efforts, and also cheaper labor than California and fewer environmental regulations to work through. There's zero reason to plant a tree in a Californian desert.