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

Alabama is one of 14 states opting out of the 2024 summer electronic benefit program.

As summer rolls around, there will be no programs in place to help low-income families with grocery costs.

LaTrell Clifford Wood, hunger policy advocate for the group Alabama Arise, said as a result, more than 500,000 children who usually receive free or reduced lunch could go without meals. She noted while summer feeding programs will be available, they will not reach everyone in need.

"Ninety-four percent of Alabama children who rely on free and reduced-price meals won't have access to them over the summer," Wood reported. "That means that only 6% of the children who rely on those meals during the school year are going to be fed through summer feeding programs."

Wood warned limited hours, transportation and strict program rules will hinder many families from benefiting from such vital programs. The Alabama Legislature did not allocate the necessary $15 million for the program by the end of the last session. However, Wood noted there is a chance the program will be funded in the summer of 2025.

As legislators focus on next year's budgets, Wood stressed the need for funding next summer's EBT program. She pointed out Alabama Arise is calling for lawmakers to allocate funds from the general fund or Education Trust Fund to combat child hunger, affecting one in four children in the state.

"This is a program that's been tested for 13 years," Wood emphasized. "It's had three rigorous evaluation periods, and it was shown to improve the diet of children and decrease children's food hardship by a third."

Wood believes prioritizing children's needs and addressing food insecurity is a form of preventive care and serves as an early investment in the state's overall wellness.

The Food Research and Action Center said funding the e-benefits program would also benefit the economy - adding anywhere from $98 million to $117 million. The Alabama Senate Finance and Taxation Education Committee is expected to vote on the budget next week.

California's program helping low-income families buy fresh fruit and vegetables is on the chopping block and health care advocates are asking legislators to save the Market Match program.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed cutting most of the program's $35 million budget to help close the state's budget shortfall.

Sophia Vaccaro, a participant in Market Match from Echo Park, said she depends on Market Match in more ways than one.

"It helps people being able to stretch their budget further," Vaccaro explained. "Then, I think it helps the community, in that it creates a sense of camaraderie at the farmers' market and makes people more invested in the community itself."

The program matches every dollar CalFresh customers spend on fresh fruits and vegetables at a farmer's market up to between $10 and $20 per day. It is active at 294 sites across the state and is partially paid for through federal matching funds.

Dr. John Maa, surgeon at Marin Health Medical Center and board member of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the American Heart Association, said Market Match promotes healthy eating and boosts the local farm economy.

"An improved diet really will have long-term meaningful impacts on health, and also reduce health care costs," Maa explained. "It really helps to sustain the growers and the merchants. I guess it's a win-win-win."

Siu Han Cheung, outreach coordinator for the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation and board member of the Heart of the City Farmers' Market, argued the program is vital to residents across the state.

"If the Market Match will be cut, that is terrible," Cheung stressed. "That means they have less money to buy their food. So, Market Match is very important for the low-income families and the seniors."

Legislators and the governor are working toward the May budget revisions, and must pass a balanced budget by June 15.

South Dakotans face high prices at the grocery store and some are working to ease the burden.

A new report from the Federal Trade Commission finds some grocery retailers used the supply-chain disruptions of the pandemic to raise prices and collect bigger profits, even after supply chains regulated.

One South Dakota group is trying to reduce sticker shock by targeting the state sales tax on groceries. Dakotans for Health is sponsoring a citizens ballot initiative to repeal the 4.2 % tax.

Rick Weiland, co-founder of the group, said lower food bills would make a meaningful difference for some.

"People of modest means, or low income hardworking families, disproportionately spend upwards of 30% on food," Weiland pointed out. "This is going to be helpful."

South Dakota is one of only two states in the country to apply its full state sales tax rate to groceries with no exemptions, Mississippi being the other. More than 9% of South Dakotans are considered food insecure, meaning they do not always have access to enough healthy food.

The grocery tax has been a popular topic among state legislators in recent years. Republican Gov. Kristi Noem even campaigned on the promise to repeal it. Critics have said proposing a tax cut without a way to finance it is irresponsible.

Weiland pointed out Gov. Noem had a formula spelled out when she brought forward her bill in 2023, which was voted down.

"She had no problem defending her position in front of the Legislature, in terms of how much revenue the state was going to lose and where they could make it up," Weiland recounted.

The initiative needs about 17,500 signatures by next month to appear on the November ballot.