By Caleigh Wells for KCRW.
Broadcast version by Suzanne Potter for California News Service reporting for the KCRW-Public News Service Collaboration

When Scott Beylik's grandfather started the now four-acre Beylik Family Farms in Fillmore in the 1970s, it was a radical idea to grow tomatoes indoors without soil. Back then, they were pioneers of what has since become a growing trend in the agriculture industry: hydroponic farming.

The technology involves lacing water with all the nutrients a plant needs, which eliminates the reliance on soil. That means no water is wasted in keeping dirt moist. This type of farming uses less than 10% of the water needed to grow tomatoes in the field, according to the National Park Service.

Since Beylik mostly grows tomatoes, it made more sense to grow them in a place where they'd thrive year-round. In the fall when his outdoor competitors sell the last of their summer tomato crop, Beylik keeps making money.

"In a way, it balances out. We're able to grow 365 days. With ... crops in the field, you're only going to do maybe one a year because it's seasonal," he says.

On a typical day, Scott Beylik walks between rows of tomato vines that climb wires strung in a greenhouse. He reaches down and checks on a water dropper that drips some life into the plants' stunted roots every second.

As the drought drags on, the future of water-loving crops like tomatoes hangs in the balance. And as water in drought-ridden California gets more scarce and more expensive, that option isn't just good news for the planet - hydroponics seem more affordable for some farmers than ever.

But the cost of growing a tomato is more complicated than it seems.

About a third of fresh tomatoes in the U.S. are grown hydroponically. But that doesn't account for the bulk of the tomatoes grown nationwide. Most tomatoes are "processing" crops - meaning they get canned, bottled and jarred into soups, ketchups and salsas. And hydroponic technology isn't catching on at all in that sector. That's because the cost of water - used sparingly with hydroponics - pales in comparison to the cost of labor - which hydroponics relies on heavily to function.

Companies that provide processing tomatoes have machines that can pick for them outside - so they have lower labor costs. Moving the tomatoes inside and using hydroponics would require paying people to pick them. And people are more expensive than machines.

"If the water price doubles, that raises the cost of production by 5%. Not because the water is cheap for them, but because the labor and the capital of a greenhouse, for example, is so much more than the water cost," says agricultural economist Dan Sumner.

He says processing tomatoes still make money in California for now, but if their profitability is ever threatened, they likely won't move to greenhouses. They'll move to somewhere like Mexico, where labor is cheaper.

"I haven't heard anyone talk about a period of time in which we'd grow indoor tomatoes in California for processing. It's much more likely that they might be grown somewhere else, some other part of the world," he says.

Hydroponics has the best chance of catching on with the small, local farms, where big machines and international relocation aren't really an option.

Because yes, hydroponics are catching on, but they don't make financial sense for all growers yet. Samantha Watson with Sunrise Organics in Santa Barbara says greenhouses are a big investment.

"At the size that we are, they're very expensive," she says. "We deal with a lot of wind in our community as well. So you could spend days building them, pay your whole crew, and then you get a bad wind and you're like, 'There goes the greenhouses.'"

For now, Sunrise Organics makes more money selling tomatoes seasonally, and other crops the rest of the year.

Caleigh Wells wrote this article for KCRW.


get more stories like this via email

As Colorado lawmakers grapple with $1.2 billion in budget cuts, child nutrition advocates are turning to voters to protect funding for the state's Healthy School Meals for All program.

Dr. Sandra Hoyt Stenmark, clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado, said when a child has inadequate nutrition, they are more susceptible to acute and chronic illness, and more likely to miss school and fall behind academically and socially.

"We know that malnourishment and stress impair a child's immune function, and worsens chronic diseases such as asthma," Hoyt Stenmark explained.

Healthy School Meals for All serves more than 600,000 meals every school day, regardless of a student's ability to pay. Funding was meant to come from capping tax deductions on people earning $300,000 or more per year but the program's popularity has driven up projected costs. House Bill 1274 would put two measures on November's ballot asking voters to maintain existing funding and ensure long-term stability.

Thai Nguyen, executive director of Kaizen Food Rescue in Denver, said investing in students now will help them be better prepared to land jobs that pay enough to be financially independent as adults. She pointed out for many Colorado kids, the only real meal they get all day is at school.

"It improves students' academics performance," Nguyen emphasized. "Once they have full stomachs, they tend to focus better, score higher on assessments and have fewer behavioral problems."

The ballot measures would also expand the Local Food Purchasing Program, which allows schools to purchase fresh foods directly from Colorado farmers and ranchers.

Roberto Meza, a first generation farmer and CEO of the food distributor Hearty Provisions, believes the program is critical to maintain the viability of independent food producers.

"They have a reliable market for their product," Meza stressed. "That just eases so much stress and uncertainty on the farmer's part. And to know that it's going to feed kids, is just that extra layer of purpose and meaning."


get more stories like this via email

North Dakota's governor this week signed a bill maintaining state funding for rural communities in dire need of thriving grocery stores.

The state launched a specialized grant program in 2023, setting aside $1 million for smaller communities to share if their local grocery store was in danger of closing its doors, a problem seen in many rural counties.

For example, one small community used its share to match funds for the purchase and reopening of a local convenience store, which added groceries and a restaurant.

Ellen Huber, rural development director for the North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives, spoke in support of the new bill extending the grant opportunities.

"Without action, our rural communities are becoming increasingly reliant on distant markets for basic needs and are paying the transportation and fuel costs," Huber pointed out.

Huber told lawmakers since 2014, North Dakota has lost 47 rural grocery stores, leaving only 90 operating around the state. Like the initial funding cycle, the grant program receives $1 million to cover the next two budget years. The bill received overwhelming support in the Legislature but there were some "no" votes as competing rural investment plans surfaced this year.

Just like water, emergency services and health care, Huber argued grocery stores are essential to small-town survival.

"To attract people to live in communities, (those residents) need ready access to healthy, affordable food," Huber emphasized.

Huber and policy experts said shifts in federal law have given bigger chains an edge in buying products in bulk at cheaper prices. It has inspired efforts in parts of North Dakota to establish local grocery store co-ops, where a handful of smaller shops buy items in bulk together.


get more stories like this via email

Two leading Colorado nonprofits working to end hunger are collecting hand-written letters from a wide range of people who would be directly impacted if Congress cuts funding for SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. The letters will be delivered to Colorado's congressional delegation on May 6th.

Carmen Mooradian, senior public policy manager with Hunger Free Colorado, said lawmakers need to see that these cuts are not just about abstract budgets and datapoints.

"We're talking about the real-life effect of cuts on real people. And so we want to hear from Coloradans what impacts SNAP cuts would have on them, and how SNAP has shaped their life," she said.

Letters can be uploaded at 'endhungerco.org' until next Tuesday. Republicans have charged the Agriculture Committee that oversees SNAP to cut $230 billion to pay for priorities such as mass deportations and extending tax breaks. The committee's chairman says SNAP won't see cuts because savings can come from reducing fraud. But some Republicans say the scale of the cuts would require changes to SNAP.

President Donald Trump is currently facing the worst economic approval rating of his political career, according to a new CNBC survey, and cutting SNAP may not improve economic outlooks.

Dayana Leyva, policy manager with Colorado Blueprint to End Hunger, said state and local economies would take a big hit.

"It's an economic engine. For every dollar that is invested into the SNAP program we can expect between $1.50 to $1.80 in local economic activity," she explained. "Currently in Colorado, there are 3,100 authorized SNAP retailers."

Some 600,000 Coloradans currently depend on SNAP to put food on the table. Mooradian said cuts would put even more pressure on the state's already overstressed food pantries. She adds that SNAP cuts would also impact public health.

"SNAP participation is linked to better overall health, especially among children and older adults and people with chronic health conditions. And food insecurity, on the other hand, is tied with higher rates of illness, including asthma in children and more frequent emergency room visits," she continued.