Cropland repurposing as a tool for water sustainability and just land transition in California: review and best practices

Abstract

There is not enough water in California to support current water uses and preserve healthy environments. California aquifers have been chronically depleted over decades, causing household water insecurity, degrading groundwater-dependent ecosystems, affecting small and medium farmers, and inducing subsidence. The California government enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act more than a decade ago to prevent declining aquifer levels to continue causing undesirable results, which has driven the necessity to reduce irrigated agriculture by about half million hectares. If this change is left to market forces alone, cropland retirement could disrupt local economies and vulnerable communities, increasing the levels of injustice for local residents and threatening farmer and farmworker livelihoods. However, when cropland repurposing is strategically organized and managed in collaboration among all the involved groups, it can enhance quality of life in agricultural disadvantaged communities, diversify regional economies, generate local socioeconomic opportunities, and improve environmental health while simultaneously fostering food and nutrition security and advancing water sustainability. In this study, we present a systems-level, coproduced Framework of best practices in cropland repurposing to achieve socioenvironmental and economic benefits for all. The Framework is informed and supported by peer-reviewed science, authors' first-hand experiences, and public engagement about the topic for several years. Our team includes scientists, community leaders, and other experts in cropland repurposing, socioenvironmental justice, agriculture, climate change, land trusts, disadvantaged communities, energy, nonprofit work, Indigenous knowledge, and ecosystems. The Framework includes guiding objectives, best practices, and implementation strategies to overcome co-occurring challenges. We conduct an extensive literature review of the current status quo to support the best practices identified in our Framework. This review and coproduced Framework aim to provide best practices for developing new solutions without causing new problems, while fully considering the impacts on all groups affected firsthand by cropland repurposing.

1 Introduction: water, socioenvironmental justice, and cropland repurposing in California

California is experiencing a water crisis that has compromised cropland use over the last decades. From pre-Gold Rush era issues to current overallocation of water resources and climate change, California faces many historical, structural, and environmental challenges. These challenges have disproportionately affected health, justice, and socioeconomic development for rural disadvantaged communities, Tribes, and the environment, while creating economic risk and disparities among farmers. California and southwestern North America are also experiencing a multidecade megadrought (Liu et al., 2022). Since 2000, the region has experienced the driest period in the last 1,200 years, with 46% attributed to anthropogenic climate change (Williams et al., 2022). Acute droughts (2012–2016, 2020–2022) led to water restrictions across the state, thousands of dry wells (Pauloo et al., 2020; Rodriguez-Flores et al., 2023), income losses for California agriculture between 2.6% and 5.9%, and losses of up to 3.8% of farmworker and agricultural processing jobs (Howitt et al., 2014; Medellín-Azuara et al., 2022). Climate projections estimate that multiyear droughts similar to those in 2012–2016 and 2020–2022 will be 3–15 times more frequent by the end of the century as heat-trapping emissions rise (McEvoy et al., 2020).

Consequences from chronic groundwater depletion during the acute 2012–2016 drought led the State of California to enact the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA, 2014) to protect groundwater resources and achieve groundwater sustainability by mid-century. Agriculture represents 80% of the water use in California (DWR, 2024) and 90% in the San Joaquin Valley (Hanak et al., 2017). Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), created to implement SGMA and responsible for groundwater sustainability, are incorporating different strategies locally to manage groundwater demand, such as pumping fees and allocation plans. While these local actions will reduce groundwater demand, they will also reduce irrigated cropland. If the transition away from irrigated cropland is not equitably managed, it can disproportionately affect small and medium-sized farmers, and the residents of agricultural disadvantaged communities. Other external market forces may also negatively affect regional resilience, including foreign investments in cropland by non-farmers, farm consolidation, and unregulated industrial development in agricultural areas.

Strategic cropland repurposing is one tool for managing this transition and can address problems that would otherwise be created by cropland retirement alone, while generating multiple benefits for the groups involved and for society as a whole. This includes new job opportunities and income sources from a green economy, ecosystem resilience, water security, and socioenvironmental justice (EDF, 2021; Espinoza et al., 2023; Fernandez-Bou et al., 2023).

For years, many practitioners have sought a science and practice-based framework to guide cropland repurposing efforts in California at the systems level. Systems level thinking means holistically considering interactions and impacts on various subsystems—social, ecological, economic, and agricultural—across a region. Here we present a systems-level, coproduced Framework of best practices in cropland repurposing to facilitate socioenvironmental and economic benefits for all, and a glossary for key definitions (Table 1). This work is informed by peer-reviewed science, authors' first-hand experiences, and public engagement about the topic for several years. The Framework includes guiding objectives and best practices for overcoming co-occurring challenges, illustrating how different topics are intertwined and interdependent. We conduct a literature review of the current status quo and to support the best practices identified in our Framework. Our audience includes scientists, policymakers, practitioners, and anyone working in this novel field of study and practice. Our motivation for this review and the participatory science-based Framework is to ensure that anyone following these best practices can develop new solutions without causing new problems or exacerbating existing ones, while fully considering the impacts on all groups affected firsthand by cropland repurposing.

2 Status quo and climate change

This section summarizes the environmental, social, and economic challenges, and the legacy of injustice in California's agricultural regions, especially the Central Valley, exacerbated by climate change. These challenges highlight the agricultural sustainability crisis and the urgent need for transformative action, while also presenting opportunities for a just land transition.

2.1 Historical land transitions and current land ownership

California's agricultural landscape has evolved over the past centuries driven by settler expansionist goals, market demands, labor shifts, technological advances, water infrastructure investments, environmental regulations, and climate change. The first major transition was the forced displacement and genocide of Native Americans by settlers (CA Executive Order N-15-19, 2019), dispossessing the original Indigenous Peoples of land and water in favor of Western land ownership and management and commercial agriculture (Almaguer, 2009; Whyte, 2016). By the 1850s and early 1900s, wheat and hay were the main crops, while fruit and nut trees dominate at present (Olmstead and Rhode, 2017). This shift toward high-value crops like nut trees led to unsustainable practices, particularly large monocultures, where reliance on chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and groundwater overpumping have degraded environmental and public health.

Water scarcity prompted the California government to incentivize water-efficient practices such as drip irrigation. However, this measure unintentionally allowed for the expansion of agriculture to marginal lands, particularly for water intensive perennial crops like almonds and pistachios, reducing groundwater recharge from flood irrigation and increasing soil salinity (Ward and Pulido-Velazquez, 2008; Mall and Herman, 2019; Pérez-Blanco et al., 2021). Perennial crops require consistent irrigation, reducing water management flexibility during droughts compared to annual crops that are less water dependent and can be idled during dry years. Nut crops also demand less labor due to mechanization.

The 2012–2016 drought showcased the gravity of these issues, as thousands of wells dried and urban areas enacted water conservation measures. Small and medium farmers were also negatively affected, while larger landowners expanded their holdings (Rempel et al., 2024), and agricultural revenues and perennial crop surface area increased to record levels in 2013 and 2014 (Cooley et al., 2015). However, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted almond exports, with massive price drops after 2020 (USDA, 2023). In 2023, the land area of bearing almond orchards decreased for the first time since 1995 (Almond Board of California, 2024), and in 2024 some almond-investing corporations in California declared bankruptcy (James, 2024).

Since the 2000s, farmland purchases by limited liability companies (LLCs) have surged, reflecting land ownership consolidation (Rempel et al., 2024). Between 2017 and 2022, thousands of small and mid-size farms disappeared, while farms over 1,000 acres grew in number (USDA, 2024), leading to the displacement of small and tenant farmers. Small-scale farmers in California often grow annual crops for local consumption and lease land with shallower irrigation wells that are the first to dry out when groundwater is overextracted (Rempel et al., 2024). Small farms increase food quality and access, diversification, yields, indirect employment in rural areas, and food sovereignty at local levels (household and individual) (Mayfield, 1996; Ntihinyurwa and de Vries, 2021; Ricciardi et al., 2021). However, socially disadvantaged farmers have not been properly engaged in groundwater sustainability planning, despite being more likely to adopt regenerative practices such as soil health improvement and efficient water management (Carlisle, 2016; Atume and Voss-Gonzales, 2022). These vulnerable farmers face growing challenges due to slim profit margins, unpredictable water access, lack of representation in policy-making processes, and farm consolidation.

The large-scale farm consolidation in California poses public risks, such as promoting excessive water use, monoculture, and food insecurity, reducing consumer choices, raising food prices, and threatening the resilience of the food system (Woodall and Shannon, 2018). Unlike other rural areas like the Sierra Nevada, which are largely public lands, most land in agricultural regions is privately owned. Despite efforts by land trusts to conserve agricultural land, most of California's farmland lacks permanent conservation protections, raising concerns about the future of small farms and sustainable agricultural practices.

2.2 Legacy of socioenvironmental injustice

California faces multiple socioenvironmental injustices that disproportionately impact low-income communities of color, particularly in rural areas of the San Joaquin, Coachella, and Salinas Valley (Fernandez-Bou et al., 2021b; London et al., 2021). These injustices include failures to uphold the human right to water, inadequate household water infrastructure, unsafe air quality, illegal pesticide exposure, poor housing, lower life expectancy, underrepresentation, limited educational opportunities, limited access to healthcare and public transportation, and lack of green spaces, streetlights, and sidewalks (Gifford and Valdés, 2006; Eissinger, 2008; De Vore, 2009; Balazs et al., 2011; Flegal et al., 2013; Balazs and Ray, 2014; Kissam, 2020; Tejada-Vera et al., 2020; Fernandez-Bou et al., 2021a,b; Flores-Landeros et al., 2022).

2.3 Air quality

California has the worst air quality in the United States, and major agricultural regions (Bakersfield, Visalia, and Fresno-Madera-Hanford) have the worst air quality in California (American Lung Association, 2024). In rural agricultural areas with inadequate environmental monitoring, air quality can become so bad that residents report nosebleeds (Fernandez-Bou et al., 2021b).

Agriculture is the main source of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley, followed by traffic, pollution from the Bay Area, and wildfire smoke (Cisneros et al., 2017). Aerial or ground pesticide spraying in close proximity to, or directly over, people, homes, and schools, especially when pesticide applications fail to comply with regulatory and public health standards (Bennett et al., 2024) are a main concern for community residents. Due to pesticide drift entering homes, people are also afraid to sleep with their windows open, preventing those unable to afford air conditioning from cooling down during summer nights and exacerbating other health issues (Flores-Landeros et al., 2022). Applying pesticides by plane is allowed in California, although it is banned in multiple countries for being a major threat to public health (Zwetsloot et al., 2018).

Pesticide-laden dust is another major concern. Dust is released during and after farm operations such as tillage (Chow et al., 1992; Clausnitzer and Singer, 1996; Nordstrom and Hotta, 2004; Sharratt et al., 2010) and almond harvesting (for example, Faulkner et al., 2009; Moran et al., 2014; Arzadon et al., 2023). Dust turns the sky of the San Joaquin Valley brown when the almond harvest starts, which in some years is exacerbated by smoke from wildfires.

Fertilizers are major contributors to air pollution. About 10% of the nitrogen from fertilizers becomes gas (Harter et al., 2012), mostly the potent heat-trapping gas N₂O, and a small but significant fraction of NOx, a precursor of ozone, also known as smog (UCS, 2025). The N₂O emissions from agricultural fertilizers in California are around 66 Gg (Xiang et al., 2013; Fernandez-Bou et al., 2023), which represent a social cost around $3,560 million (2020 US$) (EPA, 2023). This amount does not include the cost of other heat-trapping gasses such as methane, of which livestock is the largest emitter in California (CARB, 2024).

The fossil fuel industry, particularly in Kern County, further degrades air quality with its more than 156,000 oil and gas wells, many of them inside and surrounding disadvantaged communities (data available at https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/wellstar-oil-and-gas-wells). Wildfires do not normally burn in the Central Valley due to the lack of forests, although the smoke from fires elsewhere can significantly degrade air quality in the summer and fall, whereas wood burning dramatically decreases air quality in the winter. Agricultural valleys often experience a nocturnal boundary layer inversion that traps pollution along with their topography and stagnant meteorology (Pun and Seigneur, 2001; Brown et al., 2006), increasing health risks for residents.

2.4 Water security and climate change

California's water supply is primarily delivered in a small number of winter storms. After groundwater, the snowpack is the main water storage in state. California's precipitation is projected to fluctuate more between extremely wet and dry years due to climate change (Pendergrass et al., 2017; Swain et al., 2018; Williams et al., 2024). The state's primary water storages—soils, snowpack, and surface water reservoirs—are affected by warmer temperatures, which shift precipitation from snow to rain, reducing snowpack and causing earlier snowmelt (Shukla et al., 2015; Berg and Hall, 2017; Hatchett and McEvoy, 2018; Mote et al., 2018). More precipitation falling as rain and earlier snowmelt forces dams to release water before the main agricultural growing season to avoid major flooding, prompting increased groundwater pumping in the summer. Unsustainable groundwater pumping has created the worst land subsidence in the United States (Levy et al., 2020) and the drying out of thousands of disadvantaged community and small farmer wells in the San Joaquin Valley, threatening groundwater-dependent ecosystems (Saito et al., 2021) and increasing sea water intrusion in coastal areas.

2.4.1 Water rights

California's surface water rights consist of appropriative rights based on the date of first permitted use, and riparian rights tied to land ownership adjacent to water courses (Börk, 2022). Like many Western states that have not adjudicated historic water claims, there are more water rights allocated than actual water supply in many years. The historical overallocation is up to 1,000% of natural surface water supplies in tributaries to the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (Grantham and Viers, 2014). More recent water rights are subject to curtailment during drought years, making their holders switch to groundwater pumping during dry years. About 86% of San Joaquin Valley irrigation districts are overdependent or rely only on groundwater (Espinoza and Viers, 2024).

California's groundwater rights follow a different legal doctrine, wherein overlying users of a common water source share the resource. Yet, this doctrine of “correlative use” has been hard to enforce outside of a legal adjudication, leading to rapidly declining groundwater levels. In response, California passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in 2014. Groundwater basins experiencing the most severe overdraft must achieve groundwater sustainability by 2040 (California Code of Regulations Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 4.5).

2.4.2 Agricultural water use and climate change

Climate change is impacting agriculture in California at multiple levels with different consequences, including water demand. Higher temperatures during the dry months increase evaporation demand from dam lakes and canals. Additionally, higher temperatures have increased evaporative demand (known as reference evapotranspiration) over land surfaces (Albano et al., 2022), leading to greater irrigation demand (Qin et al., 2020; Moyers et al., 2024), and reducing soil moisture (Diffenbaugh et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2015). Agricultural water demand in the San Joaquin Valley in the early 2020s has increased by 4.4% (0.8 km³/year or 650,000 acre-feet/year) compared with the 1980–2011 period because of increased evaporative demand caused by climate warming (Moyers et al., 2024). Reference evapotranspiration is projected to increase for the Central Valley, particularly during hot, dry summer months (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Higher temperatures during the wet months have decreased the number of chill hours, which are needed by some crops (e.g., pistachios and walnuts) that can no longer be grown in some regions (Pathak et al., 2018). Extreme heat can also kill crops and livestock (Parker et al., 2020).

2.4.3 Domestic wells in agricultural disadvantaged communities

Water supply and security are deeply intertwined with issues of social equity and environmental justice, particularly for disadvantaged and rural farmworker communities (London et al., 2021; Flores-Landeros et al., 2022). These communities often rely on shallower domestic wells that go dry first as groundwater levels decline due to agricultural over-extraction (Perrone and Jasechko, 2017; Rodriguez-Flores et al., 2023). The continued decline of groundwater threatens public health by compromising access to clean drinking water while exacerbating economic and social inequities, as disadvantaged communities suffer water scarcity as large agricultural operations continue to overdepend on groundwater (Espinoza and Viers, 2024).

2.4.4 Nitrate and groundwater quality

Nitrate is a major groundwater contaminant in California. Cesspits and corrals at intensive livestock operations are by far the main pollution sources per unit area of nitrate leaching to aquifers (>3,500 kg nitrate per hectare and year or 3,123 pounds per acre and year), followed by fields irrigated with manure from livestock operations (>2,000 kg per hectare and year or 1,784 pounds per acre and year) (van der Schans et al., 2009). Industrial agricultural crops also contribute to nitrate leaching (for example, almonds leach about 450 kg per hectare and year or 400 pounds per acre and year). Crops account for the largest nitrate contribution at the basin scale, with 54% of the total from synthetic fertilizers and 33% from manure (Harter et al., 2012). In the San Joaquin Valley, rural disadvantaged communities of color experience the highest burden in nitrate contamination (Balazs et al., 2011). There, about 51% of the nitrogen applied as fertilizer leaches to groundwater and 5% becomes runoff (Harter et al., 2012). This inequity in drinking water quality implies a high risk for human health, as long-term intake of elevated nitrate concentration in water can cause serious health hazards in children (such as blue baby syndrome) and other vulnerable populations (Ward and Brender, 2019).

2.5 Other public health threats

2.5.1 Extreme heat is worsening

Extreme heat is increasingly exacerbated by climate change, with more frequent and intense heatwaves posing significant public health risks, especially for vulnerable populations like the elderly, outdoor workers, and low-income communities (Dahl et al., 2019; Licker et al., 2022; Rosas et al., 2024). Climate models predict more frequent and severe heat events, worsening drought conditions and straining public health infrastructure (Diffenbaugh and Burke, 2019). Extreme heat decreases air quality by generating more ground-level ozone, increasing hospitalizations and mortality (Schwarz et al., 2021; Rahman et al., 2022).

2.5.2 Mental health impacts are increasing

Climate change is worsening mental health, particularly in rural and agricultural areas where rising temperatures, drought, and wildfires cause stress, anxiety, and depression among farmers, farmworkers, and communities who face economic instability and environmental degradation (Hayes et al., 2018; Rosas et al., 2024). Climate-induced disasters, such as floods, prolonged droughts, and wildfires, disrupt communities, leading to increased rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (Zhao et al., 2024).

2.5.3 Food and nutrition insecurity affects farmworkers

Food and nutrition insecurity is common among farmworkers and low-income communities in agricultural areas of California. It is associated with income, education, age at immigration, and depressive symptoms (Matias et al., 2020). Contributing factors include international trade and immigration policies, low wages, undocumented status, land consolidation (Brown and Getz, 2011; Minkoff-Zern, 2014), lack of access to healthy food, and systemic inequities in food access (Ro and Osborn, 2018). Food and nutrition insecurity increase public health costs for California by increasing cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity, especially among women (Ro and Osborn, 2018). In parallel, around 30% of the available food in the United States is wasted (Cuéllar and Webber, 2010; Dalke et al., 2021), leading to massive waste of water, energy, and pollution of natural resources.

2.5.4 Mosquitoes are bringing new diseases under climate change

Agricultural expansion and urbanization can disrupt natural landscapes, reducing biodiversity and altering ecological dynamics, which often regulate mosquito populations. The decline in biodiversity, particularly natural predator species, creates conditions that support the proliferation of disease vectors like mosquitoes, leading to an increase in vector-borne diseases, including malaria, dengue, West Nile virus, and Zika, some of which are already present in California (Kilpatrick et al., 2010; Ostfeld and Keesing, 2012). Agricultural intensification and human-altered landscapes can create optimal breeding grounds for mosquitoes by increasing standing water and breeding sites while reducing predator populations (Guo et al., 2019).

2.5.5 Valley fever (Coccidioidomycosis) prevalence is growing

This fungal disease, caused by Coccidioides spores found in soil, is becoming more prevalent as climate change leads to drier conditions and more dust storms in agricultural regions of California, especially affecting Hispanic farmworkers. When soil is disturbed (normally by tillage and other agricultural activities), spores become airborne, increasing infection risks. Inhalation of spores can cause respiratory symptoms including fever, cough, and fatigue. The disease affects the lungs and can lead to severe respiratory issues, especially in immunocompromised individuals (Gorris et al., 2019; McCurdy et al., 2020).

2.6 Subsidence

Subsidence is the sinking of the ground, primarily caused by excessive groundwater extraction in agricultural areas like the San Joaquin Valley. As aquifers are overdrawn, the compacting of underground sediments leads to land subsidence, which can damage infrastructure, reduce water storage capacity, and increase flood risks (Levy et al., 2020; Fernandez-Bou et al., 2022). This issue has worsened due to prolonged droughts and continued groundwater depletion, especially over San Joaquin Valley's Corcoran clay layer. By 2019, subsidence in California had caused 15% of permanent groundwater storage loss (158 km³ or 128 million acre-feet). This permanent loss is approximately equivalent to the water capacity of the 12 largest dam lakes in California (Faunt et al., 2024).

2.7 Ecosystems

California is one of the most biodiverse regions in the world, yet its biodiversity is threatened, and some rare species have already been lost forever (Zachos and Habel, 2011; California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2021). Following the arrival of Europeans to California, especially after the Gold Rush Mining Era in the 1850's, the loss of tribal land stewardship and the reconfiguration of California's landscapes led to a loss of California's biodiversity and natural resilience to extreme events, such as floods, droughts, and extreme heat (Anderson, 2005). Agricultural regions were dramatically transformed. For example, the San Joaquin Valley lost 95% of its original wetlands (Garone, 2011).

Inadequate resource management and California's growth have threatened ecosystems, especially rivers. Human alterations have caused persistent ecological problems, such as disrupted environmental flows and water temperatures critical for species like salmonids, whose climate resilience has declined due to habitat degradation (Munsch et al., 2022). Historical human activity complicates ecosystem restoration, highlighting the need for informed management (Scarborough et al., 2022). Regulatory challenges and hydrologic variability further complicate setting effective environmental flow targets, as past water management has disrupted natural streamflow patterns (Lane et al., 2017; Dourado and Viers, 2024). Addressing these socioecological dynamics requires transdisciplinary approaches.

The California Environmental Flows Framework (CEFF) emphasizes the need for a statewide approach to protect ecological functions by establishing flow metrics that account for the natural variability of river systems (Grantham et al., 2022). However, while these frameworks aim to enhance ecological integrity, the challenge of implementing them effectively across diverse landscapes remains, as many streams still lack adequate flow protections due to funding and interest disparities (Stein et al., 2021). In addition, human-caused climate change has roughly doubled the area burned in Western US forests (Abatzoglou and Williams, 2016), with 37% of the area burned since 1985 directly attributable to the 88 largest fossil fuel and cement manufacturers in the world (Dahl et al., 2023). Climate change also altered species evolution through selection pressures such as more frequent droughts. These conditions lead to heritable earlier flowering times in plants, which disrupts the patterns of migratory animals and pollinators that depend on them (Franks et al., 2007; Kudo and Cooper, 2019).

2.8 Energy

The energy sector's reliance on fossil fuels has heavily contributed to severe climate change impacts and other environmental and public health issues. California's power sector contributes 16% of the state's carbon emissions (CARB, 2024). While the state no longer operates coal plants, gas plants made up 40% of the in-state electricity generation in 2023 (SEIA, 2024). The impact of climate change, notably the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, has serious impacts to grid reliability, energy security, and energy affordability. Water-related electricity use in California represents about 19% of the total electricity used in the state. Water end uses (heating, cooling, pressurizing, and industrial processes) represent about 14%. California water agencies consume 5.1% of the state's electricity, making them one of the main electricity users in California (Todd et al., 2020).

In California, the growing number of heatwaves, wildfires, and atmospheric rivers reveal the significant impact of extreme weather events on the power grid. For example, a massive heatwave in August 2020 resulted in a drastic increase in electricity demand, which eventually led to rolling blackouts affecting over 800,000 households across the state. Subsequent summers have also seen close calls for rolling outages.

The growing risk of wildfires has led to more frequent Public Safety Power Shutoffs, planned power outages by utilities to reduce wildfire risk from electricity infrastructure. While there are protections for California residents against shutoffs when temperatures exceed or fall below certain hot and cold thresholds, respectively, there is still the risk of customers having power shutoffs in hot temperatures below those thresholds (CEPC and NEADA, 2024). While issuing a Public Safety Power Shutoffs can reduce the ignition risk of destructive wildfires, the decision is based on risk-benefit analysis, as Public Safety Power Shutoffs can shut power off to vulnerable populations (e.g., elderly) reliant on electric medical equipment or extreme heat prevention (e.g., through air conditioning) (Huang et al., 2023).

Energy affordability is another major issue as electricity bills in California have rapidly increased, primarily driven by utilities' investments in wildfire mitigation, and infrastructure upgrades and additions. Low-income communities and communities of color are particularly impacted by this growing energy insecurity (Memmott et al., 2021). For example, wealthier community members can invest in solar and battery storage to avoid rising costs, but lower-income communities often lack such means. Despite the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of solar dropping from $250/MWh in 2010 to $45/MWh in 2022, major utility rates have risen an annual average of 8% across the three largest utilities (SDG&E 9%, PG&E 7%, and SoCal Edison 6%).

The transition to clean energy will require land to accommodate new resources and transmission infrastructure. California's planning agencies estimate approximately 25% of the 39 GW of additional solar resources will be built in the San Joaquin Valley by 2035.

2.9 Economy in agricultural regions of California

Agriculture carries plenty of economic risk due to shorter-term impacts (e.g., yearly water allocation, acute drought, floods) and longer-term trends (soil salinization, warmer winters with insufficient chill hours). That is why some agricultural regions such as the San Joaquin Valley have a vulnerable economy because of their dependence on agriculture (Medellín-Azuara et al., 2011; Welle and Mauter, 2017; Pathak et al., 2018). Farmers can partially offset crop losses with crop insurance, but insurance does not normally pay farmworkers' job loss.

California's prevailing agricultural model has incentivized growing and protecting profit, often contributing to negative externalities. This approach conflicts with the Sustainable Development Goals, as its environmental and social costs can outweigh the benefits (Gomiero, 2018; Cook et al., 2023). However, there are opportunities and public recognition for agriculture to deliver positive environmental and social externalities, such as ecosystem services and improvements in quality of life (Baylis et al., 2008; Cook and Davíðsdóttir, 2021; Fabian and Pykett, 2022). This may involve reducing emissions; as of 2018, the social cost of CO₂-equivalent emissions of agriculture (8% of California's total emissions) was approximately $6,500 million per year (EPA, 2023; CARB, 2024).

Farmland consolidation and absentee land ownership are generalized economic risks in agricultural regions. Non-local corporations typically contribute less to community economies than local farmers who live and spend their earnings locally (MacCannell, 1977). Local farmers and landowners create more positive and larger multiplier effects for the local economies than when local wealth is given to external investors. Active local economies create positive socioeconomic effects and opportunities beyond the agricultural sector. Agricultural communities without local farmers or local landowners tend to lack local economic resilience (MacCannell, 1977; Theodoropoulos, 1990; O'Connell and Peters, 2021).

During the 2012–2016 and 2020–2022 droughts, idle land increased by 5% to 10% in the Central Valley, causing crop revenue losses of $900 million and $1,200 million, respectively (Lund et al., 2018; Medellín-Azuara et al., 2022). Drought-induced cropland idling primarily affected lower-value crops like field and grain crops, while high-value crops such as fruits, nuts, and vegetables, which generate 85% of California's crop farming revenue, were less impacted (Lund et al., 2018). However, every drought differs in its effects. The 2012–2016 drought primarily affected the San Joaquin Valley, while the 2020–2022 drought impacted the Sacramento Valley, particularly rice fields (Medellín-Azuara et al., 2022). Lower-value crops, like irrigated pasture and corn silage for livestock, reduced production due to water scarcity, impacting dairies and beef cattle operations (Escriva-Bou et al., 2024). Low-income agricultural workers were disproportionately affected by the economic impacts, often requiring state assistance to cope with unemployment and childcare needs during droughts (Fernandez-Bou et al., 2023). In a warming climate, these disparities are likely to increase, necessitating stronger safety nets and support systems for vulnerable communities (Medellín-Azuara et al., 2024).

2.10 Education, outreach, and representation

Systemic inequities significantly impact education, training, and outreach in California. Disadvantaged communities face a variety of challenges, such as poverty, linguistic isolation, and lack of critical infrastructure (OEHHA, 2021). For example, many children in Central Valley farming communities struggle to concentrate in school due to hunger, unsafe living conditions, and lack of basic amenities like clean drinking water and transportation. Additionally, issues such as extreme weather conditions and poor infrastructure exacerbate educational inequities by making it difficult for students to attend school regularly or engage in learning environments (Gunier et al., 2017; Fernandez-Bou et al., 2021b). Even if schools in these areas receive adequate funding or state-of-the-art technology, the underlying socioeconomic issues continue to undermine educational outcomes (Pastor Jr et al., 2006). Family members' legal immigration status also affects children in farmworker communities, even if they are US citizens themselves. Fear of deportation for individuals of varying legal migration status creates an stressful environment for children, and it has led to school districts in the region reporting higher than average truancy statistics.

Language barriers and time constraints complicate outreach efforts and access to education for farmworkers and low-income residents, making it challenging for them to engage in training programs. Educational initiatives often fail to address the real needs of these populations, as they do not consider the everyday challenges residents face, such as transportation difficulties, job insecurity, and the cost of living. This disconnection between state-level educational reform efforts and local realities has perpetuated disparities in educational access and success (Drake, 2014; Cheney et al., 2022; Moctezuma, 2023).

Outreach programs designed to support students in underserved regions have shown some promise. However, outreach and training efforts remain insufficient, as many fail to fully leverage community-based knowledge or integrate broader systemic solutions into their initiatives. These challenges point to the need for more comprehensive and culturally sensitive approaches to improve representation, education, and training in California's disadvantaged communities (Fernandez-Bou et al., 2021a). Disadvantaged and unincorporated communities remain underrepresented in groundwater management, media, and scientific research, leading to inadequately designed policies (Bernacchi et al., 2020; Dobbin and Lubell, 2021; Fernandez-Bou et al., 2021b).

3 Framework

3.1 Methodology

This Framework was coproduced through literature review and our team's shared collective experiences during several years of engagement with California's growing cropland repurposing community of practice and scholarship. This work draws from participant observations at outreach events, community workshops, and direct interactions since 2019. This informal, iterative coproduction process combined with an evidence-based model for knowledge creation informed by experts and practitioners led to the development of the Framework that orbits around the necessities of the communities and groups it aims to serve (Balazs and Morello-Frosch, 2013; Djenontin and Meadow, 2018; Miles et al., 2022; Bandola-Gill et al., 2023; Hurst, 2023; Ornelas Van Horne et al., 2023).

This study supports the Framework with a literature review and the knowledge of our team, which includes scientists, community leaders, and other experts in cropland repurposing, socioenvironmental justice, water, drought, water policy, sustainable agriculture, climate, climate change, small and family farmers, land trusts, disadvantaged communities, nonprofit work from organizations ranging from grassroots to international, Indigenous knowledge, and environmental and habitat conservation and restoration. We employed a systems approach that includes diverse perspectives and priorities. We devoted careful attention to issues related to socioenvironmental justice in disadvantaged agricultural communities, the future of farming, and the fundamental limitations of our natural resources systems. In doing so, this study aims to provide a best practices framework to guide academics, policymakers, and current and future practitioners based on lived experiences, firsthand information, and peer-reviewed science.

In 2023, the core team outlined some ideas based on their shared knowledge and the exchange of information with participants of cropland repurposing outreach events. This outline aimed to guide the interactions with the whole team of coauthors and contributors (Table 2). From January to October 2024, the core team, coauthors and contributors reviewed and revised content through multiple virtual and in-person meetings. In May 2024, 33 team members reflecting a range of different participation roles—from core team to participants—attended a workshop facilitated by the Watershed Solutions Network, using consensus-building and systems thinking approaches to refine ideas. Agreement on the Framework was measured via a Likert scale (0 to 5), with an average score of 4.4. After resolving any outstanding disagreements, the Framework was finalized and revised between June and September 2024. All coauthors and contributors confirmed their support for the final version of the Framework.

A major venue of interaction for the Framework and study collaborators, since 2022, has been the Multibenefit Land Repurposing Program (MLRP) of the California Department of Conservation. MLRP has become the main platform for cropland repurposing policy coordination. MLRP enhances regional capacity to shift irrigated agricultural land toward uses that reduce groundwater reliance and provide community and environmental benefits, such as habitat restoration, green areas, and climate resilience. The Department of Conservation has awarded so far about $75 million over two rounds to eight regions (groundwater sub-basins), known as block grantees, working with diverse groups to address water scarcity and socioenvironmental justice. Several of our authors are involved in MLRP. All MLRP block grantees are required to engage with farmers, community members, environmental groups, and other interested parties. In 2024, California's Proposition 4 passed creating a $10 billion bond that will provide $200 million for MLRP.

3.2 The need for a just transition

The creation of this Framework is anchored on the just transition theory. A just land transition addresses polluting emissions, systemic injustices, and ecosystem recovery while providing equitable benefits to communities (UCS, 2025). This shift from unsustainable agricultural practices to holistic sustainability and local governance supports those most affected, including farmers, farmworkers, and landowners, through education, retraining, and resource access. It promotes socioenvironmental justice and ensures that the benefits of sustainable practices are shared equitably, fostering stronger local economies with minimal negative impacts. The just transition movement originated from labor unions and environmental justice groups in low-income communities of color to emphasize that changes to greener economies should not harm workers or community health (Newell and Mulvaney, 2013; Heffron and Heffron, 2021; Wang and Lo, 2021).

Since 2015, interest in just transition has grown in social sciences, with a focus on carbon-intensive industries like mining and fossil fuels, and to use it as a frame of analysis (Henry et al., 2020; Bainton et al., 2021; Stark et al., 2023). Agricultural regions of California can showcase the application of the just transition theory as both a frame of analysis and a basis for policy shifts while also expanding the application of just transition framing to examples beyond shifting from mining and fossil fuel industries to clean energy (Jenkins et al., 2020).

Our Framework also is inspired by targeted universalism (powell et al., 2019) for policy and social change. Targeted universalism recognizes that different groups have unique challenges in reaching universal goals. It involves setting universal goals for all, while developing targeted strategies that address the specific barriers and needs of different groups, ultimately working to eliminate structural inequities and to create more equitable outcomes across diverse populations.

3.3 How to use the Framework: objectives and best practices

The Framework introduced in the next two sections provides systems-level guidance to understand and implement cropland repurposing, based on local perspectives and expert practitioner experiences to optimize both public and private benefits. The overarching goal is to facilitate the transition to a water-sustainable agricultural sector by promoting green economic alternatives and a healthy environment in traditionally underserved agricultural regions. This approach aims to create equitable opportunities for local residents, enhance environmental health, and improve safety and security before extreme climatological events, while fostering resilience and reducing risks for local farmers and generating multiple benefits for society.

The Framework is founded on six objectives and specific details presented in Italics (Section 4: what we want to see). Objectives are guided by seven overarching best practices (Section 5: how we want the objectives to be achieved) recommended to help reach those objectives. Each of the main best practices has a set of specific implementation strategies presented in Italics at the end of each main best practice subsection. Using this set of best practices is particularly recommended when public funds are used to create public benefits by incentivizing cropland repurposing. This Framework is meant to be maintained dynamically through regular updates to incorporate diverse perspectives and needs, emerging technologies, and the results of new policies.

4 Objectives

This section outlines the objectives of our coproduced Framework. These objectives can serve as priorities of “what we want to see” in land repurposing decision making to guide the design of multibenefit actions and landscape planning. Additionally, they provide a reference for scientists, guiding research efforts toward developing robust and meaningful understanding of land repurposing, addressing the complexities of the system, accounting for climate change considerations, and supporting the implementation and adaptive learning.

4.1 Socioenvironmental and economic justice in the land surrounding vulnerable communities

Justice and equity for vulnerable communities by addressing historical injustices, ensuring compliance with the legal standards for water security (quality, quantity, affordability, and accessibility), air quality, odors, pesticide exposure, dust exposure, nitrate leaching, extreme heat exposure, climate justice, and other local public health risks.

New socioeconomic opportunities for local businesses, for farmworkers that may lose their job due to loss of irrigated cropland, and for the local population through green economy and sustainable development. Opportunities informed by community priorities, aligning economic activities with the health of communities and ecosystems, and supporting local and circular economies with the objective of reducing poverty and increasing the local median household income.

Equitable access to land and natural resources for local residents by expanding climate change resilience infrastructure such as green spaces, trees for shade, community resilience centers, and recreational opportunities. Water security for all in rural and urban areas, including on-farm farmworker housing. Respect and uphold tribal sovereignty and self-determination over ancestral tribal lands and water resources for Indigenous Americans.

4.2 Ecological resilience and sustainability

Restoration and permanent conservation of native habitats to enhance ecosystem functions considering a holistic multispecies approach for landscape-scale habitat connectivity and to protect endangered species. Respect and support for Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge.

Green infrastructure around agricultural communities to improve water security while reducing agricultural dust, pesticides, malodor, and wildfire smoke. Protection against extreme climate events such as wildfire, floods from extreme precipitation and rapid snowmelt, droughts, and extreme heat.

Responsible and sustainable management of natural resources to fulfill present needs while ensuring future generations can also meet theirs.

4.3 Sustainable agriculture based on agroecology principles

Healthy, economically, and ecologically sustainable farming practices for farmers, farmworkers, the agricultural sector, and collective wellbeing based on agroecology and equity.

Fair agricultural leases and prevention of land speculation to minimize the economic impact on leasing farmers. Economic resilience especially for small and medium family farmers and for farmworkers that minimizes negative socioeconomic impacts of loss of irrigated cropland on them. Sustainable agricultural water footprint. Healthy soils that require less fertilizer.

Improved employment conditions, public health, and safety for farmworkers. Improved access to financial support, markets, and technical expertise. Culturally and environmentally appropriate agricultural activities.

4.4 Funding, scalability, and replicability

Funding sufficient to holistically implement land repurposing at the scales required for equitable land, water, and air security, and for a well-planned transition to a green economy that creates job safety and job security. Initiatives that scale up from local to regional levels while respecting local priorities.

Landowner engagement and broad participation in cropland repurposing to facilitate scaling up projects and spatial project continuity. Market forces balanced with planned changes to support farmers' sustainability and transition.

Democratic and equitable access to information to avoid lack of preparedness to this change that can harm small and medium farmers. Green economy and clean energy approaches that equitably improve local economies.

4.5 Leadership, accountability, and representation

Collective action coordinated across government institutions for effective change. Bottom-up leadership and guidance with involvement from all interested parties, not just land or water owners. Plurality and representation of local people's points of view in regional development plans. Grassroots groups that have the capacity to organize locally and advocate for community needs.

Non-extractive information exchange with low-income and other vulnerable groups. Robust data monitoring and proof of benefits. Compliance with current law, including pesticide application regulations, Clean Water Act, and labor laws. Reduction of poverty and higher local median household income. Energy resilience for the regions where the energy is generated. Agricultural economic models that account for negative externalities.

4.6 Multiple benefits to address other social needs

Food and nutrition security by fostering crop production for a healthy human diet and by reducing food loss and food waste, and local farmers' markets to facilitate food access. Equitable access to land and resources, especially in areas experiencing systemic inequities in food access. Stronger relationships between the general society, agricultural communities, and the environment to foster better land stewardship. Connection between society and the sources of their food so that people can broadly understand the dynamics of agricultural communities and environmental justice for sustainable land management.

Solutions for co-occurring public health issues, including mental health, physical exhaustion due to extreme climate conditions, malnutrition due to lack of food access, asthma, affordability and access to health care, and other common problems. Affordable housing that addresses specific local needs and culture. Educational opportunities for local residents to increase the labor market options and to promote more local businesses.

Green economy development around disadvantaged communities coordinated with and approved by the communities after a transparent process including trusted local grassroots and community-based organizations. Green economy projects that address local economic, social, and environmental priorities, without creating negative side effects including pollution, odors, noises, excessive traffic, and other problems.

Local food production. Reduction in food waste and food loss. Just land transition that reduces heat-trapping emissions, rectifies systemic injustices, and delivers equitable benefits.

5 Best practices

This section discusses the best practices identified by our Framework to help implement holistic solutions that fulfill the objectives. Each subsection represents one overarching best practice that is discussed through literature review, and then we present specific implementation strategies (in Italics) with our coproduced recommendations within that overarching topic.

5.1 Prioritize public health

Cropland repurposing projects should ensure no harm to public health while prioritizing meaningful improvements to ensure compliance with water and air quality standards, and to promote climate justice. The holistic implementation of “One Health” approaches that integrate human, agricultural, and ecosystem health can enhance resilience and health security (Zinsstag et al., 2011; Destoumieux-Garzón et al., 2018; Miller et al., 2022), and decrease public health costs (Häsler et al., 2013).

Air quality in agricultural regions is influenced by land use practices (Box 1). Pesticide use near disadvantaged communities remains a health concern, but legislation (e.g., AB 1864 regulating pesticide near schools, Connolly, 2024) is advancing toward reducing toxic exposure for vulnerable populations. It is essential that pesticide regulations are enforced to stop illegal spraying over people, in close proximity to residential areas and schools, and with banned substances (e.g., Flores-Landeros et al., 2022; Bennett et al., 2024). Projects should decrease nitrogen losses to the environment as nitrate to groundwater and as N₂O and NOx gasses to the atmosphere. Nitrogen pollution reductions can improve air quality, water quality, and decrease heat-trapping gas emissions. Improving transportation near disadvantaged communities includes the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation (California Code of Regulations, Title 13, sections 2013 to 2016) to reduce transportation emissions by transitioning fleets to electric vehicles, yielding both climate and public health benefits.

Green infrastructure projects can be used for prevention and mitigation of natural disasters, such as floods and the effects of wildfire smoke, to improve air and water quality, and to protect communities before extreme heat and other threats intensified by climate change (Chen et al., 2019; Venkataramanan et al., 2019; Tomson et al., 2021). Developing infrastructure such as affordable drinking water systems, safe housing, and community resilience centers helps build resilience against the increasing frequency of extreme weather events (Pamukcu-Albers et al., 2021). Projects like these also support climate justice by addressing long-standing socioenvironmental inequalities.

Habitat restoration, including wetlands, helps control vector-borne diseases (Keiser et al., 2005). Increasing biodiversity supports mosquito predator populations and disrupts vector lifecycles, limiting mosquito populations and reducing prevalence of diseases like West Nile virus and dengue that are already present in California (Ostfeld and Keesing, 2012; CDC, 2024; WestNile.ca.gov, 2025). Sustainable land use practices such as agroforestry and rewilding disrupt vector habitats, reducing reliance on pesticides and improving ecosystem and public health.

Projects can also improve local food and nutrition security (Carney et al., 2012). In addition to increasing local food availability, food loss and food waste should be prevented. Recycling organic waste and promoting the sustainable management of food resources can reduce the environmental impacts of agriculture and improve the efficiency of food systems. Preventing food waste enhances food security and aligns with climate justice goals by reducing heat-trapping gas emissions associated with waste decomposition (Zedler and Kercher, 2005). Other technologies such as aeroponics can be a good solution to implement in community gardens in disadvantaged communities to increase food and nutrition security while decreasing crop water footprint and decreasing the reliance of land to grow food. Depending on the crop, aeroponics towers can reduce land use by 98%, water use by 95%, fertilizer use by 60%, and pesticide use by 100% while increasing plant yield and nutrition density (Lakhiar et al., 2018; Kumari and Kumar, 2019).

Success in adopting this best practice can improve quality of life in disadvantaged areas, decreasing taxpayer costs in public health and emergencies, decrease litigation costs by decreasing controversy, dramatically decrease the costs of disaster relief (wildfires, air quality, drought, floods) thanks to investments in resilience, and reduce hunger and food & nutrition insecurity for farmworkers and other vulnerable groups. Prioritizing this best practice can reverse the current status quo of a century old legacy of socioenvironmental injustice in agricultural regions (Dobbin and Lubell, 2021; Fernandez-Bou et al., 2021a).

5.1.1 Ensure water security, air quality, and climate justice

Repurpose cropland to ensure compliance with the legal standards or better for water security (quality, quantity, affordability, and accessibility), air quality, odors, pesticide exposure, dust exposure, nitrate leaching, extreme heat exposure, climate justice, and any other local public health risks.

5.1.2 Invest in fundamental and green infrastructure for justice and against extreme events

Develop fundamental infrastructure in underserved agricultural communities, including affordable drinking water, sewer systems, safe housing, health centers, community resilience centers, public transportation, parks, sidewalks, streetlights, broadband, education centers, and compost hubs. Create green infrastructure to reduce flood risk (e.g., from above-average precipitation to atmospheric rivers), drought effects, and exposure to extreme heat, including green areas, parks, trails, climate resilience centers, and community recreation areas. Promote climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies tailored to local conditions.

5.1.3 Promote safe agriculture around communities

If agriculture is maintained inside or around disadvantaged communities, it should be safe for residents to protect water and air security in revitalization belts (buffer zones) of about one mile around the communities, prohibiting the application of hazardous pesticides by aircraft (as it is forbidden in other countries) to dramatically increase health and environmental benefits and decrease public health costs for taxpayers.

5.1.4 Support food and nutrition security, and prevention of food waste and loss

Prevent hunger by making food available and promoting community gardens, especially in food deserts and areas affected by injustice in food access. Prevent food loss and food waste, promote recycling of all organic waste, and ensure food and nutrition security for agricultural workers.

5.2 Prioritize cropland repurposing in socioenvironmentally vulnerable locations

Systematically locating adequate cropland repurposing projects near disadvantaged communities is an opportunity to maximize multiple benefits with public funding (UCS, 2023). Projects including green economic activities, groundwater recharge basins, or floodplain restoration inside and around communities can promote environmental sustainability, enhance water resources, reduce emissions, provide open space recreational areas, socioeconomic benefits, and support biodiversity (Box 2). They can advance social equity and increase climate resilience by providing affordable clean energy, increase groundwater resources, create jobs, and empower vulnerable communities, while strengthening economic resilience, diversifying local economies, and building capacity for future challenges (Nuñez-Bolaño et al., 2025). Projects can also foster community engagement and encourage active participation, strengthening social cohesion and collective stewardship of natural resources. A recent socioenvironmental analysis about cropland repurposing inside and one mile around small disadvantaged communities of the Central Valley (154 communities, 600,000 inhabitants) estimated that investing $27 million per community for 10 years ($4,158 million per year) would annually increase total income by $11,617 million per year for 30 years and create 62,697 job positions paid 67% more on average (after losing 25,682 lower-paid jobs related to cropland retirement, with a positive balance of 37,015 new jobs). Water use could simultaneously be reduced by about 1.8 km³ per year (1.46 million acre-feet) (Fernandez-Bou et al., 2023). Repurposing floodplains to prevent floods can also protect people and is at least five times cheaper than the potential costs of disaster relief (Gourevitch et al., 2020). Combining floodplain restoration with other flood-prevention measures such as FIRO (Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations) and MAR (Managed Aquifer Recharge) can strengthen the state's resilience to climate change-induced water challenges (Table 3).

Improving socioeconomic and environmental justice in agricultural disadvantaged communities can improve job opportunities and salaries, foster safer working conditions, and increase property value. This can be achieved by increasing green economic opportunities and environmental resilience with sustainable agriculture, habitat restoration, and by promoting adequate infrastructure for project proponents and communities (e.g., streetlights, roads, sidewalks, and sewer systems). Antigentrification policies can also avoid the displacement of long-term residents and small farmers.

Managed aquifer recharge (MAR) for groundwater sustainability is a promising cropland repurposing strategy (Table 3). However, recharge near disadvantaged communities should prioritize clean and sufficient water benefiting community wells, and should be done carefully (Renteria and Lukacs, 2019; Community Water Center et al., 2025). More research is needed to ensure that groundwater in disadvantaged communities will not be polluted by aquifer recharge. Until clean water can be guaranteed within specific recharge sites, a general rule supported by community-based organizations is to avoid recharge in soils with polluting potential in the vicinity of drinking wells. This includes soils with nitrate near dairies, fruit and nut orchards (Lockhart et al., 2013), and sites with toxic pollutants like 123-trichloropropane (Hauptman and Naughton, 2021) and uranium (Renteria and Lukacs, 2019; Fendorf et al., 2020; Lopez et al., 2021). Aquifer recharge can decrease pollution by dilution or increase it by contaminant transport (Edwards et al., 2016; Maliva, 2020; Castaldo et al., 2021).

Returning land and water rights to California Native nations can address historical injustices and promote sustainable land management through indigenous stewardship. Empowering Native communities to apply traditional ecological knowledge fosters biodiversity, cultural heritage, and social equity (Risling Baldy et al., 2024) (Box 3). Integrating Native perspectives into decision-making enhances ecosystem restoration and resilience, and traditional knowledge like cultural burns can reduce wildfire risks and improve forest health (Kolden, 2019; Martinez et al., 2023). Combined with mechanical thinning and prescribed burns, these practices enhance resilience to fires, droughts, and increase water yield (Saksa et al., 2017; Guo et al., 2023).

5.2.1 Protect and enhance disadvantaged communities and their surroundings

Promote a non-extractive green economy with diversified and community-led economic activities. Prevent the displacement of long-term residents after investments in cropland repurposing inside and around underserved regions and disadvantaged communities. Foster agroecology and polyculture for small family farms inside and around agricultural communities.

5.2.2 Repurpose agriculture in sensitive environmental areas

Restore historical floodplains, land adjacent to wetlands, riparian zones, and areas near forests or conservation lands such as municipal, state, or federal parks. Create wildlife corridors to enhance habitat connectivity through multispecies approaches and enhance habitat for pollinators. When possible, lands less suitable for agriculture but capable of providing similar environmental benefits should be prioritized for repurposing. Multibenefit aquifer recharge can be compatible with habitat restoration, public health, and groundwater sustainability.

5.2.3 Indigenous sovereignty and justice

Promote tribal sovereignty over ancestral tribal lands and water resources for traditional uses, for permanent environmental protection, and allowing Tribes to choose how to use those resources.

5.3 Transition agricultural practices for sustainability and strategic farming

Cropland repurposing projects should reduce water use, pesticides, and fertilizers, while increasing agricultural ecosystemic functions within landscapes. Strategically planning the composition and configuration of agricultural landscapes can provide ecological and public health benefits by optimizing ecosystem functions (Haan et al., 2021). Transitioning from monocultures to diverse, multifunctional land uses—such as agroecological systems, agrivoltaics, and permanent vegetation cover—enhances biodiversity, improves soil health, and fosters more resilient agroecosystems (Butterfield et al., 2021). These landscapes serve as buffers against climate change by regulating water cycles, reducing erosion, and increasing carbon sequestration. They also promote habitats for pollinators and natural pest control, reducing reliance on chemical inputs like pesticides and fertilizers, which improves air and water quality (Khangura et al., 2023).

Complex landscapes, where natural areas are integrated with agricultural fields, attract more beneficial insects for pest control and support overall biodiversity (Bianchi et al., 2006). The arrangement and proximity of habitat patches are key to maximizing these ecosystem services, contributing to both agricultural sustainability and biodiversity conservation. Fine-grained landscapes, with smaller fields and habitat patches, allow for varied management practices and timing, providing crucial shelter and overwintering habitat for beneficial insects (Haan et al., 2020). Ecological intensification depends on the services provided by beneficial arthropods and other ecosystem contributors, including regulating, supporting, provisioning, and cultural services (Haan et al., 2021). The amount and spatial arrangement of semi-natural habitats—offering shelter, nectar, alternate prey/hosts, and pollen (SNAP)—are crucial at multiple scales, from small crop fields to whole farms, which affect neighboring landscapes (Gurr et al., 2017). Understanding timing and spatial distribution of SNAP resources across seasons enables farmers to optimize pest suppression and other ecosystem services. To fully maximize these benefits, careful planning of landscape composition and configuration can further enhance the value of on-farm habitat diversification. Strategic integration of seasonal wetlands within agricultural landscapes creates vital habitat for migratory birds and waterfowl while simultaneously providing flood management and aquifer recharge benefits. Even small plots of on-farm habitat can serve as critical wildlife corridors for migratory species that have lost most of their natural habitat in intensive agricultural regions. These species can support natural pest control and deliver other agronomic and ecological benefits. Additionally, crops like rice can significantly enhance habitat availability for birds while contributing to food security (Elphick et al., 2010).

Agroecology and regenerative agriculture are potential solutions for holistic sustainable crop and livestock production. Well-managed agroecological systems may result in water use reduction while reducing or eliminating toxic chemical pesticides and fertilizers, thereby reducing air and water pollution (Wezel et al., 2014; Altieri et al., 2017; Khangura et al., 2023). Regenerative practices such as integrating livestock, cover cropping, and maintaining non-crop habitat, have been applied to almond orchards in California, improving total soil carbon, soil nutrients, biomass, species diversity, ground cover, water infiltration rates, and profit (Fenster et al., 2021). Agroecological practices may enhance soil health by increasing soil organic matter content and improving soil structure, leading to improved soil water holding capacity and infiltration, ultimately benefiting the overall on-farm water balance and drought resilience (Sustainable Conservation, 2024). Agroecological practices that may enhance agricultural soil health in California include practices that reduce soil disturbance (e.g., no-till or reduced tillage), increase soil organic matter content through above or belowground biomass growth (e.g., cover cropping, intercropping, agroforestry practices), and increase soil organic matter content through direct organic matter amendment (e.g., compost or biochar amendment, mulching, residue retention). For example, biochar applications increase soil water retention and water use efficiency, and benefits for crop yield and mitigation of hydrological extremes are highest in water limited regions (Burrell et al., 2016; Xiao et al., 2016; Fischer et al., 2019). Biochar can reduce soil bulk density, nitrous oxide emissions, and nitrate leaching (Blanco-Canqui, 2017; Borchard et al., 2019; Kaur et al., 2023), and increase porosity, pH, and nutrient availability (Joseph et al., 2021; Bolan et al., 2023), while alleviating salinity (Ali et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2020).

Composting represents another land use opportunity to manage agricultural and urban organic waste that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially if organic material is co-composted with biochar (Harrison et al., 2024). When applied to soils, compost can improve soil health and increase soil organic matter content while decreasing reliance on synthetic fertilizers through organic nutrient provision (Malone et al., 2023; Hall et al., 2024). Community composting efforts can empower communities to establish a lower circular nutrient economy, by which they recycle locally generated organic waste into local agricultural systems, increasing food sovereignty (De Boni et al., 2022) (Box 4). Smaller, decentralized composting efforts may also have less overall climate impact when accounting for emissions to transport organic material to centralized, industrial composting facilities (Martínez-Blanco et al., 2010). Community composting efforts also present an opportunity for compliance with organic waste diversion laws such as SB 1383 (bill passed in 2016, effective from 2022).

Increased soil organic matter content, if maintained, may lead to soil carbon sequestration, an important climate mitigation strategy (Lal et al., 2015). Application of organic matter amendments such as biochar and compost can sequester soil carbon on agricultural land (Ryals et al., 2015). Improved soil health in agroecosystems has additional multibenefits, including reduced wind erosion from improved soil structure and increased soil cover (Nordstrom and Hotta, 2004), resilience to climate shocks (Lehmann et al., 2020), and improved financial resilience for farmers from diversified systems and silvopasture (Smith et al., 2022).

Cropland repurposing into agroecology, particularly for on-farm water savings, can be reasonably predicted (farmers can expect measurable water savings in a given timeframe) and meaningful (a non-negligible amount of water is saved). However, transitioning to agroecological farm management at scale requires sufficient investment in locally led technical assistance, farming incentives, and education to support farmers and farmworkers. A transition to agroecological management in California, especially in the San Joaquin Valley, can help mitigate challenges faced by a farming community that is very profitable but continuously threatened by farmland consolidation and climate change.

5.3.1 Transition from single soil use to multiple soil uses and agroecological practices

Foster multibenefit agricultural projects that maximize the prioritized public benefits by transitioning from single land use to a mosaic of multipurpose beneficial land uses, such as cropland managed with agroecological principles or agrivoltaics. Invest to support farmers' efforts to adopt agroecological principles.

5.3.2 Support the transition of irrigated farmland to sustainable agricultural water use

Transition to dryland farming, including non-irrigated, non-intensive grazing for positive ecological outcomes and climate benefits, and to less water-intensive crops, including native seed production for habitat restoration and conservation. Foster planting of cover crops or conservation cover.

Address barriers to transitioning to less water-intensive crops and to agroecological systems in general, including market access, technical expertise, labor availability, and financial support.

Facilitate climate-smart transitions in agriculture to create climate resilience and economic robustness for small and medium farmers.

5.3.3 Incentivize the transition in agronomic practices

Promote low or no tillage to decrease dust emissions and other practices to improve soil health. Transition away from reliance on excessive fertilizer. Improve biodiversity and pollinator habitat on agricultural lands, for example with hedgerows or windbreaks. Encourage organic matter amendment application and mulching when possible.

5.3.4 Incentivize voluntary strategic farming plans

Help farmers plan their cropping options within a state farming plan that guides a shift in crop types to ensure food and nutrition security and to decrease economic risk for farmers while minimizing agricultural water use and accommodating climate-smart goals. Prioritize local food.

5.4 Foster a sustainable agricultural economy

Cropland repurposing projects should protect the livelihoods of farming communities, farmers, and farmworkers, especially for small and mid-size farming operations and disadvantaged communities overdependent on agriculture. Ensuring the longevity of projects, especially for leased cropland, is important to sustain the multiple benefits that cropland repurposing can bring to a region. Reducing groundwater demand can help groundwater sustainability agencies to meet legal objectives locally. This transition requires repurposing cropland to less water-intensive uses while minimizing the negative economic impact to farmers and farmworkers. Considering options to maintain agricultural working lands can also help preserve the agricultural identity of agricultural regions, and having multiple uses for the land can facilitate this process. There are many types of agriculture practiced in California and the San Joaquin Valley, and certain farming practices, particularly by underserved farmers that produce food for local consumption, can be part of the solution for cropland sustainability.

Farmers can diversify their revenue streams or decrease their costs by allowing multiple uses of the soil. This approach can create opportunities for incentives, mitigation credits, payment for services, and private partnerships. For example, agrivoltaic systems (dual solar and agriculture systems) can either provide revenues for energy generation or significantly decrease the electricity bills (Abdallah et al., 2024; Fernandez-Bou et al., 2024) (Box 4). Land diversification also serves as a risk management strategy in response to water variability. By maintaining an optimal balance between annual and perennial crops, farmers can mitigate the impact of water shortages during droughts while expanding the area for annual crops when surface water is available (Wartenberg et al., 2021; Quandt et al., 2023).

Funding for conserving and restoring large contiguous areas for landscape-scale habitat connectivity and other ecological benefits can provide incentives for farmers (Rey Benayas and Bullock, 2012; Newton et al., 2021). This strategy involves aligning incentives for landowners in areas where cropland repurposing is most beneficial. Farmers may have different funding sources and incentives for cropland repurposing, depending on their access to surface water, local groundwater restrictions, and other factors. While groundwater scarcity, for example, is creating pressure to take land out of production, individual landowners need meaningful economic incentives to support the long-term conservation and restoration of their land. Incentives may include implementing conservation easements on the land that can help preserve farmers' stewardship of the land, agreements involving compensation over time for ecosystem services provided by restored farmland, or some combination.

Landowner operations can be protected with Safe Harbor Agreements (SHAs), which assure they will not face additional regulatory challenges if they or their neighbors enhance or restore habitats for endangered species. These agreements provide peace of mind for landowners by limiting their liability under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), even if endangered species move into restored habitats. Habitat restoration can directly benefit agricultural operations, including improved water management, enhanced soil health, and the potential for diversified revenue streams through ecosystem service programs. Initiatives like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and state conservation grants offer financial support for restoration efforts, allowing farmers to improve their land without bearing the total cost.

Incentivizing local food production or establishing food hubs to connect locally produced food with local markets connects local growers and consumers. These hubs can be planned to produce specialty crops that satisfy local demand, particularly in places where access to larger markets is limited and for cultural reasons (Box 4). Local food production has the potential to meet up to 90% of the US demand, showcasing the opportunity to decrease pressure over some agricultural regions in California that experience unsustainable practices while also decreasing the carbon footprint of transportation and creating agricultural opportunities in other regions (Zumkehr and Campbell, 2015).

The transition of agricultural lands to sustainable practices or other land uses (e.g., clean energy production and conservation) will create job opportunities that require large-scale workforce development and education. As conventional irrigated cropland is repurposed, skilled workers from rural areas and former farmworkers can transition into these roles, enhancing the local economy. For example, workforce development can help with agricultural technification for precision agriculture, agroecology, solar energy, conservation, and native plant production. This shift will create new employment opportunities and foster the development of a more resilient and sustainable economy in agricultural regions.

5.4.1 Protect small and mid-size farmers

Incentivize equipment sharing among small farmers and other initiatives such as cooperatives to facilitate success for small and mid-size farmers. Identify revenue or saving sources like agrivoltaics or decentralized composting for small farmers. Prioritize and enhance water access for farmers practicing socially and environmentally beneficial methods. Protect small and medium family farmers from water and land consolidation.

5.4.2 Prioritize long-term social, environmental, and economic sustainability

Understand the best ways to widely implement long-term sustainable and profitable agriculture practices such as simultaneous land uses like agrivoltaics and agroforestry. Ensure land designated for these projects and practices is under secure tenure for long-term ecological and social benefits, and to avoid the displacement of small, disadvantaged farmers. Agricultural economic models should account for the negative externalities of agriculture to avoid unintended negative effects.

5.4.3 Identify how urban California can support rural regions and agriculture

Urban California can invest in headwater protection and their own food security. For example, cities can invest in watershed and forest management to protect the source of their water, and that helps prevent wildfires too.

Foster urban agriculture and more local access to food production everywhere in the United States to make the country's food system less dependent on California, allowing the cropland transition in California to be safe for everyone.

5.5 Advance equity and center community leadership

Cropland repurposing projects need to follow a transparent process that uses full cost and benefit accounting, including side effects, to understand new land uses (UCS, 2023). A comprehensive accounting of strategic cropland repurposing will demonstrate tradeoffs and impacts on different interested parties, including Tribal nations, rural communities, farmers, landowners, the environment, and local industry. Such assessments should include both positive and negative impacts. The negative externalities of extractive agricultural activities already cost Californians billions of dollars, but they have been institutionally excluded from dominant agricultural economic models. Current and potential negative side effects include economic impacts of groundwater depletion on water security, health and economic costs of water and air pollution, infrastructure destruction due to subsidence, and the social costs of heat-trapping emissions (Fernandez-Bou et al., 2022; Flores-Landeros et al., 2022; EPA, 2023; Perrone et al., 2023). There is growing interest in designing the economy to serve both people and the planet, rather than the other way around, as defined by the concepts of a wellbeing economy and solidarity economy (Table 1, Box 1). This holistic interpretation seeks to prioritize human and planetary needs at the center of our activities, rather than pursuing economic growth as an end regardless of the costs. This approach aims to capture and address the major problems facing the world today, including poverty, inequality, environmental degradation, and climate change (Cook and Davíðsdóttir, 2021).

The distribution of these impacts is a critical concern. Distributive justice is a way of assessing the physical and economic distribution of costs and benefits, often using geospatial and economic analyses to map and measure who benefits and how much. Low-income communities and communities of color have been disproportionately exposed to environmental harm. They should be protected from such future harms and prioritized for specific, intentional benefits in ways that begin to remediate and transform ongoing damage (Siddiqi et al., 2023). But a focus on distributive justice alone cannot offer solutions that advance equity in this way (McDermott et al., 2013). Advancing more equitable planning, land use, and management necessitates attention to the ways that injustices are produced and reproduced. Procedural justice focuses on the social processes that allocate resources and resolve disputes. This can include the ways in which we develop and implement laws, projects, and plans. Procedural justice provides an intervention point to drive more equitable outcomes by broadening who is involved and improving how decisions are made (Seigerman et al., 2023). When done effectively, communities are more well-represented in the pursued benefits and the accepted costs. Procedural justice also involves enforcing legal protections, which is a major concern at present, with families and homes, even children, being illegally sprayed with pesticides, sometimes with highly toxic illegal substances such as chlorpyrifos that was banned from sale and possession in 2020 (Bennett et al., 2024).

At the root of procedural justice is recognitional justice (Seigerman et al., 2023). Equitable decision-making processes that lead to equitable outcomes depend on the recognition and integration of diverse voices and perspectives (Dobbin, 2021). In other words, equitable land use transitions center the leadership of impacted communities and meaningfully engage their expertise in charting a path forward. One main barrier to success is the lack of inclusivity. However there are resources available for similar collaborative processes (Dobbin et al., 2015; Koebele et al., 2024). For example, beyond collaborative governance processes, participatory research also offers a pathway by which frontline communities and their research collaborators can achieve structural change and work toward just outcomes through processes that are inherently non-extractive (Davis and Ramírez-Andreotta, 2021).

5.5.1 Ensure procedural and participatory equity

Develop plans and actions that reflect regional priorities, especially of the most underserved and underrepresented groups, and enforce current laws that protect people and the environment. Ensure that there is translation/interpretation of resources and materials, as well as multifaceted approaches to engaging with these plans and actions, such as public transit, childcare, and timing of the meetings. Encourage landowner participation through incentives and clear guidelines for land transfers/acquisition.

5.5.2 Incentivize diverse participation

Encourage representative involvement in land use planning and cropland transition implementation, including farmers, farmworkers, local businesses, environmental groups, and Indigenous communities. Draw on the expertise and experiences of those directly affected by land use decisions to devise robust, innovative, and locally relevant solutions that enhance economic stability, preserve local traditions, and ensure environmental sustainability, fostering a sense of shared responsibility and mutual benefit.

5.5.3 Develop equitable access to land, water, and natural resources

Facilitate access to land, water, and sustainable practices for small, beginning, and disadvantaged farmers incentivizing their use of agroecological practices. Pursue the models for land ownership and management that best facilitate public benefits. Use mechanisms like green bonds, land trusts, food commons, climate resilience districts, and other cooperative mechanisms.

5.5.4 Incentivize community led, clean economic development around disadvantaged communities

Communities should be part of the decisions related to new development around them. Weight of decisions should not be tied to acreage owned; instead, each affected person should have the same voting weight. Secure public and private funding for sustainability initiatives and to reward best practices.

5.5.5 Use non-extractive practices for information exchange

Information exchange should intentionally be non-extractive with low-income and other vulnerable groups. For example, if a community is asked to provide feedback about what kind of project they want to see around their community, they should also be provided with the necessary technical assistance and funding to develop a proposal for that project. When conducting outreach to explain a project, provide a meaningful tradeoff for their time. For example, if a community suffers from poor air quality, bring indoor air purifiers for the participants. Non-extractive outreach should be properly budgeted in multibenefit cropland repurposing projects.

5.5.6 Systems thinking

Understand interconnected systems and how changes to one element of a system can create ripple effects in other systems creating unintended consequences. Systems thinking helps to identify root causes of problems and to leverage the greatest positive impacts. Land use in California can be a massive driver for change, and both policies and funding sources can help that change in positive ways.

5.6 Pursue a just clean energy transition

A clean energy transition is critical to reducing fossil fuel emissions and mitigating the impacts of climate change. This transition can have a myriad of additional environmental, public health, and local economic benefits. However, it is important to consider where the benefits and possible negative impacts of clean energy projects are being directed with the ultimate goal of improving equity and justice for vulnerable communities.

In 2018, California's SB 100 was enacted, requiring the state to supply 100% of its electric retail sales with renewable energy and zero-carbon resources by 2045. Moving forward, California's clean energy plan involves building significant new resources, particularly solar resources, in rural areas such as the San Joaquin Valley (CPUC, 2023a). If the transition occurs as a collaborative partnership with communities, industry, state agencies, and conservationists, the clean energy buildout can be beneficial to all groups. Building a diverse portfolio of clean energy resources and associated infrastructure can improve grid reliability, while creating economic opportunities for local communities (Denholm et al., 2022; Stenclik et al., 2023). California is a leader in solar development with the highest cumulative solar capacity of any state (SEIA, 2024). However, significant additional solar resources are needed to reach the state's clean energy goals, and as more land is transitioned to use for clean energy, developers and other decision-makers should be proactive in their efforts to address equity and direct benefits to the local communities hosting these projects (CPUC, 2023b).

There are many operating models for solar projects to ensure landowners and host communities can receive more direct benefits from these local clean energy projects. For example, community solar is a project design in which households subscribe to a local solar project to receive the clean energy generated by the project via credits. These projects can reduce electricity bills for participating community members. Microgrids are another solution gaining traction as they can improve grid reliability and resilience for local communities (NREL, 2020). This is particularly useful in areas where Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS) are likely, as microgrids can disconnect from the main grid and continue providing power in the event of larger grid outages (Box 5).

Other mechanisms, such as community benefits agreements—binding agreements between developers and local community groups (Table 1)—can direct benefits to the local community, especially those that are not directly related to electricity supplies. These could include broader economic benefits such as workforce development programs and direct funds to the municipality, or input into the design to mitigate negative impacts from the project. In rural and farming communities, clean energy provides an option to repurpose cropland with benefits such as alternative revenue streams from land leases and net metering, or offsetting on-site electricity bills on farms.

A stronger cooperative approach also addresses increasing tension between clean energy developers and local communities that can often result in delays to a project and are increasingly a barrier to the clean energy transition. Local communities should have the opportunity to engage and provide input that can meaningfully shape the development of clean energy projects to support the needs of the community. Strong perceived procedural justice is critical for gaining local support and can positively impact community perceptions of clean energy projects (Mills et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2020). Securing these positive perceptions as well as receiving direct benefits from these projects could provide traction for broader cultural acceptance of clean energy projects in key areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley, where significant clean energy development will occur.

A clean energy future is critical to addressing the impacts of climate change and supporting the growing demands on the grid. As land is repurposed to support a clean energy transition, community partnerships should be foundational in planning and implementing the transition. There should be stronger efforts to ensure that the benefits of clean energy, particularly grid reliability and affordability, are directed toward the local communities that will host clean energy projects and those that have been disproportionately harmed by the fossil fuel energy system. The collaboration between the solar industry and communities will allow for more just processes in land use decision-making and will translate to longer-term equity, public health, environmental, and economic outcomes for all.

5.6.1 Incentivize multibenefit energy solutions

Focus on incentivizing multibenefit energy solutions to optimize land use and support nearby communities, environmental efforts, and the clean energy transition. When considering land repurposing for solar projects, ecovoltaics should become the standard for new facilities to minimize the environmental impact of solar panels. Additional designs, such as agrivoltaic solar systems, should be considered for repurposing cropland.

5.6.2 Require community benefit agreements and transparency

Large clean energy projects should have binding community benefits agreements and follow a transparent flow of information between developers, and grassroots groups and residents from the beginning of the project assessment. Community benefits agreements negotiations should involve a broad representation of the community and can include stipulations such as workforce development programs, local labor requirements, local economic investments, environmental protections, and affordable housing. Any new project should ensure to do no harm to disadvantaged communities.

5.6.3 Ensure local energy security

Clean electricity generated near disadvantaged communities should be partially used to improve energy security in the region where it is generated.

5.6.4 Incentivize multiple uses of the infrastructure

Besides promoting multiple uses of the land, promoting multiple uses of the infrastructure can optimize budgets and reduce impacts. For example, ecovoltaic systems in aquifer recharge basins that create green infrastructure (a park or a sports field) near disadvantaged communities. For example, solar panels over irrigation canals can reduce evaporation in the canals while increasing the efficiency of the solar panels.

5.7 Expand skill-building, outreach, and access to information

Cropland repurposing projects should bring new educational opportunities for the regions they affect, and adequate outreach to provide information equitably and in the preferred language of the affected populations. One key solution is expanding education and training programs that are tailored to meet the unique needs of farmworkers, low-income families, and other underserved groups (for example, Ortiz-Partida et al., 2020). This includes offering language-appropriate resources, flexible scheduling, and affordable or debt-free programs (Drake, 2014; Reese et al., 2014). For example, registered apprenticeship programs that provide a living wage can help workers upskill without incurring additional financial burdens (Gallup, 2024). Providing transportation assistance and access to necessary equipment, such as laptops and specialized tools, will ensure that participants can fully engage in training opportunities without facing logistical or financial barriers.

Part of this solution consists in aligning education and training with sustainable agricultural practices and socioenvironmental justice. For instance, programs focused on cropland repurposing can contribute to climate justice by reducing water usage and promoting environmentally sustainable farming methods. These initiatives can also address broader issues of land use and resource allocation, ensuring that the communities most affected by environmental degradation and water scarcity are included in decision-making processes. By involving local leaders and integrating community-based participatory research, these programs can foster more equitable and sustainable outcomes (Balazs and Morello-Frosch, 2013).

Collaboration between educational institutions, government agencies, and nonprofits is essential to provide comprehensive support systems for participants. For example, partnerships with community colleges and agricultural organizations like the California Agricultural Teachers Association (CATA) can help integrate sustainable farming practices and climate literacy into curricula. This ensures that both current and future generations are equipped with the skills and knowledge needed to address the intertwined challenges of environmental sustainability and social justice in agriculture. By focusing on holistic education and outreach efforts that prioritize both social and environmental justice, California can move toward a more equitable future where all residents have access to the tools and knowledge necessary for sustainable livelihoods.

In addition to technical education, there is a need for leadership development within these communities to empower residents to advocate for themselves at local and state government levels. Training local leaders in grant writing, policy analysis, and community organization will equip them to drive change from within, ensuring that the solutions developed are tailored to the specific needs of their communities (Morello-Frosch et al., 2005). Such efforts can strengthen the social fabric, allowing residents to maintain a sustainable and just relationship with their environment while addressing socioeconomic inequities.

5.7.1 Provide inclusive multigenerational education for grassroots leadership and workforce development

Provide multilingual, diverse, non-extractive, and culturally appropriate approaches to education and training. Education and outreach should encompass K-16 students and adults, and it should address the questions and concerns raised by local members. Foster leadership among community members and equip them with necessary skills. Facilitate workforce development and retraining opportunities for agricultural workers.

5.7.2 Data monitoring

The transition should be monitored for accountability purposes. In particular, encourage community monitoring of baseline and new conditions of air and water quality as different land repurposing strategies are implemented. Conducting community science for open-access environmental monitoring can empower participants and give agency to communities over their own data for local advocacy purposes.

5.7.3 Ensure fair compensation

Properly compensate those participants who contribute to the success of the plans and projects, especially to ensure representation from low-income participants. This can be achieved by compensating participants for childcare, mileage, and the time spent.

6 Conclusions

The consequences from decades of chronic groundwater depletion combined with current and future climate change threats make cropland repurposing an essential climate resilience strategy for California. For cropland repurposing to effectively contribute to the state's climate resilience, socioenvironmental justice, and sustainability in agricultural regions, the ongoing and planned cropland transition needs to advance equity and center justice, particularly for frontline communities. Cropland repurposing presents a transformative, transdisciplinary approach to revitalize local economies, advance socioenvironmental justice, and recover ecological resilience while preserving the agricultural identity of the most emblematic agricultural regions of California. By developing and implementing the right policies and adhering to best practices in cropland repurposing, California can envision a future where sustainable agricultural practices coexist with thriving rural communities; ecosystem services and biodiversity are restored; there is a diversification of socioeconomic and education opportunities for underserved communities—which would also be centered in decision-making processes; and water is adequately managed as a pillar to ensure long-term sustainability.

This study presents a systems-level, coproduced Framework of best practices in cropland repurposing with an extensive literature review to facilitate socioenvironmental and economic benefits for all. This Framework demonstrates how communities and key interested actors can actively participate in scientific research by building consensus around shared objectives and challenges, and by defining best practices. This approach helps shape future decision-making in land repurposing and sets the foundation for future research that is more aligned with community priorities, sustainability, and climate resilience.

References

• 1

  AbatzoglouJ. T.WilliamsA. P. (2016). Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.113, 11770–11775. 10.1073/pnas.1607171113

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  AbdallahT.BerosK.BercikC.ThoppeyJ.SaputraS.BrightA.et al. (2024). Marketing Analysis of Agrivoltaics in Kern County. New York, NY. Available online at: https://www.sustainability.ei.columbia.edu/_files/ugd/92e3aa_993501683d0b41b68b9e6545b2d3bf1d.pdf

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  Adamczewska-SowińskaK.SowińskiJ. (2020). “Polyculture management: a crucial system for sustainable agriculture development,” in Soil Health Restoration and Management, ed. R. S. Meena (Singapore: Springer), 279–319. 10.1007/978-981-13-8570-4_8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  AlbanoC. M.AbatzoglouJ. T.McEvoyD. J.HuntingtonJ. L.MortonC. G.DettingerM. D.et al. (2022). A multidataset assessment of climatic drivers and uncertainties of recent trends in evaporative demand across the continental United States. J. Hydrometeorol.23, 505–519. 10.1175/JHM-D-21-0163.1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  AliS.RizwanM.QayyumM. F.OkY. S.IbrahimM.RiazM.et al. (2017). Biochar soil amendment on alleviation of drought and salt stress in plants: a critical review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.24, 12700–12712. 10.1007/s11356-017-8904-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  AlmaguerT. (2009). Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy in California.Berkeley: University of California Press. 10.1525/9780520942905

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  AlmarazM.BaiE.WangC.TrousdellJ.ConleyS.FaloonaI.et al. (2018). Agriculture is a major source of NO_x pollution in California. Sci. Adv. 4:eaao3477. 10.1126/sciadv.aao3477

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  Almond Board of California (2024). Bearing almond acreage drops slightly – first time in decades. Available online at: https://www.almonds.com/about-us/press-room/bearing-almond-acreage-drops-slightly-first-time-decades (accessed October 7, 2024).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  AltieriM. A. (2018). Agroecology: the Science of Sustainable Agriculture. New York: CRC Press. 10.1201/9780429495465

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  AltieriM. A.NichollsC. I.MontalbaR. (2017). Technological approaches to sustainable agriculture at a crossroads: an agroecological perspective. Sustainability9:349. 10.3390/su9030349

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  American Lung Association (2024). State of the Air 2024. Available online at: https://www.lung.org/getmedia/dabac59e-963b-4e9b-bf0f-73615b07bfd8/State-of-the-Air-2024.pdf (accessed April 24, 2024).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  AndersonK. (2005). Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California's Natural Resources. University of California Press.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  ArzadonE. L.BaticadosE. J. N.CaparedaS. C. (2023). Measurement of visible dust emissions during almond nut-picking operations at various harvester settings. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc.73, 212–224. 10.1080/10962247.2023.2171155

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  AtumeN.Voss-GonzalesD. (2022). Underrepresented Farmers and SGMA 2.0.pdf. Clean Water Action. Available online at: https://www.cleanwateraction.org/sites/default/files/docs/publications/Underrepresented%20Farmers%20and%20SGMA%202.0.pdf (accessed September 29, 2024).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  BaintonN.KempD.LèbreE.OwenJ. R.MarstonG. (2021). The energy-extractives nexus and the just transition. Sustain. Dev.29, 624–634. 10.1002/sd.2163

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  BalazsC.Morello-FroschR.HubbardA.RayI. (2011). Social disparities in nitrate-contaminated drinking water in California's San Joaquin Valley. Environ. Health Perspect.119, 1272–1278. 10.1289/ehp.1002878

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  BalazsC. L.Morello-FroschR. (2013). The three Rs: How community-based participatory research strengthens the rigor, relevance, and reach of science. Environ. Just.6, 9–16. 10.1089/env.2012.0017

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  BalazsC. L.RayI. (2014). The drinking water disparities framework: on the origins and persistence of inequities in exposure. Am. J. Public Health104, 603–611. 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301664

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  Bandola-GillJ.ArthurM.LengR. I. (2023). What is co-production? Conceptualising and understanding co-production of knowledge and policy across different theoretical perspectives. Evid. Policy19, 275–298. 10.1332/174426421X16420955772641

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  BaylisK.PeplowS.RausserG.SimonL. (2008). Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: a comparison. Ecol. Econ.65, 753–764. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.034

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  BennettD. H.SellenJ.MoranR.AlaimoC. P.YoungT. M. (2024). Personal air sampling for pesticides in the California San Joaquin Valley. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol.24, 1–7. 10.1038/s41370-024-00708-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  BergN.HallA. (2017). Anthropogenic warming impacts on California snowpack during drought. Geophys. Res. Lett.44, 2511–2518. 10.1002/2016GL072104

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  BernacchiL. A.Fernandez-BouA. S.ViersJ. H.Valero-FandinoJ.Medellín-AzuaraJ. (2020). A glass half empty: limited voices, limited groundwater security for California. Sci. Total Environ.738:139529. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139529

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  BianchiF. J. J. A.BooijC. J. H.TscharntkeT. (2006). Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.273, 1715–1727. 10.1098/rspb.2006.3530

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  Blanco-CanquiH. (2017). Biochar and soil physical properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.81, 687–711. 10.2136/sssaj2017.01.0017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  BolanN.SarmahA. K.BordoloiS.BolanS.PadhyeL. P.Van ZwietenL.et al. (2023). Soil acidification and the liming potential of biochar. Environ. Pollut.317:120632. 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120632

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  BorchardN.SchirrmannM.CayuelaM. L.KammannC.Wrage-MönnigN.EstavilloJ. M.et al. (2019). Biochar, soil and land-use interactions that reduce nitrate leaching and N2O emissions: a meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ.651, 2354–2364. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.060

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  BörkK. (2022). Time limits for western water rights. Nat. Resour. Environ.37:17. Available online at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4472562

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  BrownS.GetzC. (2011). “Farmworker food insecurity and the production of hunger in California,” in Cultivating Food Justice: Race, Class, and Sustainability, eds. A. H. Alkon and J. Agyeman (New York: The MIT Press). 10.7551/mitpress/8922.003.0010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  BrownS. G.HyslopN. P.RobertsP. T.McCarthyM. C.LurmannF. W. (2006). Wintertime vertical variations in particulate matter (PM) and precursor concentrations in the san joaquin valley during the california regional coarse PM/Fine PM air quality study. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc.56, 1267–1277. 10.1080/10473289.2006.10464583

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  BurrellL. D.ZehetnerF.RampazzoN.WimmerB.SojaG. (2016). Long-term effects of biochar on soil physical properties. Geoderma282, 96–102. 10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.07.019

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  ButterfieldH. S.KelseyT. R.HartA. K. (2021). Rewilding Agricultural Landscapes: A California Study in Rebalancing the Needs of People and Nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 33

  California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2021). Atlas of the Biodiversity of California. Second. Available online at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=211302&inline (accessed March 14, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 34

  CARB (2024). California Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 2000 to 2022. Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. Sacramento: California Air Resources Board. Available online at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/nc-2000_2022_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf (accessed October 4, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 35

  CarlisleL. (2016). Factors influencing farmer adoption of soil health practices in the United States: a narrative review. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst.40, 583–613. 10.1080/21683565.2016.1156596

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  CarneyP. A.HamadaJ. L.RdesinskiR.SpragerL.NicholsK. R.LiuB. Y.et al. (2012). Impact of a community gardening project on vegetable intake, food security and family relationships: a community-based participatory research study. J. Commun Health37, 874–881. 10.1007/s10900-011-9522-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  CastaldoG.VisserA.FoggG. E.HarterT. (2021). Effect of groundwater age and recharge source on nitrate concentrations in domestic wells in the San Joaquin Valley. Environ. Sci. Technol.55, 2265–2275. 10.1021/acs.est.0c03071

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  CDC (2024). Increased Risk of Dengue Virus Infections in the United States. Available online at: https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2024/han00511.asp (accessed September 26, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 39

  CEPC and NEADA (2024). Crisis in Energy Affordability: Summer Shutoff Protections and Bill Support Fail to Adapt to a Warming World. Washington DC: Center for Energy Poverty and Climate and National Energy Assistance Directors Association. Available online at: https://energyprograms.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/shutoffprotections.pdf (accessed October 1, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  ChenJ.LiuY.GitauM. W.EngelB. A.FlanaganD. C.HarborJ. M. (2019). Evaluation of the effectiveness of green infrastructure on hydrology and water quality in a combined sewer overflow community. Sci. Total Environ.665, 69–79. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.416

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  CheneyA. M.BarreraT.RodriguezK.Jaramillo LópezA. M. (2022). The intersection of workplace and environmental exposure on health in latinx farm working communities in rural inland Southern California. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health19:12940. 10.3390/ijerph191912940

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  ChowJ. C.WatsonJ. G.LowenthalD. H.SolomonP. A.MaglianoK. L.ZimanS. D.et al. (1992). PM10 source apportionment in California's San Joaquin Valley. Atmospheric Environ. Part A. General Topics26, 3335–3354. 10.1016/0960-1686(92)90350-T

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  CisnerosR.BrownP.CameronL.GaabE.GonzalezM.RamondtS.et al. (2017). Understanding public views about air quality and air pollution sources in the San Joaquin Valley, California. J. Environ. Public Health2017, 4535142. 10.1155/2017/4535142

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  ClausnitzerH.SingerM. J. (1996). Respirable-dust production from agricultural operations in the Sacramento Valley, California. J. Environ. Qual.25, 877–884. 10.2134/jeq1996.00472425002500040032x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  Community Water Center Union of Concerned Scientists, Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, Central California Environmental Justice Network, and California Environmental Voters. (2025). Managed Aquifer Recharge Policy Recommendations. Community Water Center. Available online at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e83c5f78f0db40cb837cfb5/t/680679d0f8aa923d2b35c07e/1745254866690/Recharge_Policy_04.14.25.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 46

  Connolly (2024). AB 1864. Available online at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1864 (accessed October 1, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 47

  CookD.DavíðsdóttirB. (2021). An appraisal of interlinkages between macro-economic indicators of economic well-being and the sustainable development goals. Ecol. Econ.184:106996. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106996

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  CookD.KajiT. B.DavíðsdóttirB. (2023). An assessment of the scope and comprehensiveness of well-being economy indicator sets: the cases of Iceland, Scotland and New Zealand. Ecol. Econ.205:107728. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107728

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  CooleyH.DonnellyK.PhurisambanR.SubramanianM. (2015). Impacts of California's Ongoing Drought: Agriculture. Oakland: Pacific Institute. Available online at: https://pacinst.org/publication/impacts-of-californias-ongoing-drought-agriculture/ (accessed May 8, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 50

  CPUC (2023a). Modeling Assumptions for the 2023-2024. Transmission Planning Process.Sacramento, CA: California Public Utilities Commission. Available online at: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/integrated-resource-plan-and-long-term-procurement-plan-irp-ltpp/2023-irp-cycle-events-and-materials/modeling_assumptions_2023-24tpp_v02-23-23.pdf (accessed October 10, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 51

  CPUC (2023b). Order Instituting Rulemaking to Continue Electric Integrated Resource Planning and Related Procurement Processes. California Public Utilities Commission. Available online at: https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M525/K918/525918033.PDF (accessed October 10, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 52

  CuéllarA. D.WebberM. E. (2010). Wasted food, wasted energy: the embedded energy in food waste in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol.44, 6464–6469. 10.1021/es100310d

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  DahlK.LickerR.AbatzoglouJ. T.Declet-BarretoJ. (2019). Increased frequency of and population exposure to extreme heat index days in the United States during the 21st century. Environ. Res. Commun.1:075002. 10.1088/2515-7620/ab27cf

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  DahlK. A.AbatzoglouJ. T.PhillipsC. A.Ortiz-PartidaJ. P.LickerR.MernerL. D.et al. (2023). Quantifying the contribution of major carbon producers to increases in vapor pressure deficit and burned area in western US and southwestern Canadian forests. Environ. Res. Lett.18:064011. 10.1088/1748-9326/acbce8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  DalkeR.DemroD.KhalidY.WuH.Urgun-DemirtasM. (2021). Current status of anaerobic digestion of food waste in the United States. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.151:111554. 10.1016/j.rser.2021.111554

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  DavisL. F.Ramírez-AndreottaM. D. (2021). Participatory research for environmental justice: a critical interpretive synthesis. Environ. Health Perspect.129:026001. 10.1289/EHP6274

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  De BoniA.MelucciF. M.AccianiC.RomaR. (2022). Community composting: a multidisciplinary evaluation of an inclusive, participative, and eco-friendly approach to biowaste management. Cleaner Environ. Syst.6:100092. 10.1016/j.cesys.2022.100092

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  De LeónK. (2012). SB-535 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Available online at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB535 (accessed May 8, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 59

  De VoreB. M. (2009). Attitudes and perceptions of high school career and technical education in California's Central Valley. Pepperdine University.

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  DenholmP.BrownP.ColeW.MaiT.SergiB.BrownM.et al. (2022). Examining Supply-Side Options to Achieve 100% Clean Electricity by 2035.Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP6A40-81644. Available online at: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81644.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 61

  Destoumieux-GarzónD.MavinguiP.BoetschG.BoissierJ.DarrietF.DubozP.et al. (2018). The one health concept: 10 years old and a long road ahead. Front. Vet. Sci.5:14. 10.3389/fvets.2018.00014

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  DiffenbaughN. S.BurkeM. (2019). Global warming has increased global economic inequality. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.116, 9808–9813. 10.1073/pnas.1816020116

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  DiffenbaughN. S.SwainD. L.ToumaD. (2015). Anthropogenic warming has increased drought risk in California. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.112, 3931–3936. 10.1073/pnas.1422385112

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  DjenontinI. N. S.MeadowA. M. (2018). The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: lessons from international practice. Environ. Manage.61, 885–903. 10.1007/s00267-018-1028-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  DobbinK.ClaryJ.FirestoneL.Christian-SmithJ. (2015). Collaborating for Success: Stakeholder Engagement for Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Implementation.Visalia: Community Water Center. Available online at: https://cleanwater.org/sites/default/files/docs/publications/SGMA_Stakeholder_Engagement_White_Paper.pdf (accessed October 3, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 66

  DobbinK. B. (2021). Environmental justice organizing as commoning practice in groundwater reform: Linking movement and management in the quest for more just and sustainable rural futures. Elem Sci. Anth.9:00173. 10.1525/elementa.2020.00173

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  DobbinK. B.LubellM. (2021). Collaborative governance and environmental justice: Disadvantaged community representation in California sustainable groundwater management. Policy Stud. J.49, 562–590. 10.1111/psj.12375

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  DOE (2024). Viejas microgrid. Available online at: https://www.energy.gov/lpo/viejas-microgrid (accessed October 10, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 69

  DouradoG. F.ViersJ. H. (2024). Reliability and resilience of environmental flows under uncertainty: reconsidering water year types and inconsistent flow requirements in California. Environ. Res. Lett.19:094048. 10.1088/1748-9326/ad6d80

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  DrakeT. A. (2014). The effect of community linguistic isolation on language-minority student achievement in high school. Educ. Researcher43, 327–340. 10.3102/0013189X14547349

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  DWR (2024). Agricultural Water Use Efficiency. California Department of Water Resources. Available online at: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Agricultural-Water-Use-Efficiency (accessed May 29, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 72

  EDF (2021). Advancing strategic land repurposing and groundwater sustainability in California. Environmental Defense Fund. Available online at: https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/documents/EDF_Advancing%20Land%20Repurposing_March2021.pdf (accessed May 8, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 73

  EdwardsE. C.HarterT.FoggG. E.WashburnB.HamadH. (2016). Assessing the effectiveness of drywells as tools for stormwater management and aquifer recharge and their groundwater contamination potential. J. Hydrol539, 539–553. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.05.059

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  EissingerM. A. (2008). African Americans in the Rural San Joaquin Valley, California: Colonization Efforts and Townships. Fresno: California State University.

  • Google Scholar

• 75

  ElphickC. S.TaftO.LourençoP. M. (2010). Management of rice fields for birds during the non-growing season. Cowa33, 181–192. 10.1675/063.033.s114

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  EPA (2023). EPA Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases: Estimates Incorporating Recent Scientific Advances. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/epa_scghg_2023_report_final.pdf (accessed May 8, 2025).

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  Escriva-BouA.HanakE.ColeS.Medellín-AzuaraJ. (2024). The Future of Agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley. Available online at: https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/0223aeb-appendix.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 78

  EspinozaV.BernacchiL. A.ErikssonM.SchillerA.HaydenA.ViersJ. H. (2023). From fallow ground to common ground: perspectives on future land uses in the San Joaquin valley under sustainable groundwater management. J. Environ. Manage.333:117226. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117226

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  EspinozaV.ViersJ. H. (2024). The paradox of production: Surface water supply drives agricultural productivity but not prosperity in California's San Joaquin Valley. PLOS Water3:e0000192. 10.1371/journal.pwat.0000192

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  Eurostat (2024). Glossary: Fallow land. Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Fallow_land (accessed March, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 81

  FabianM.PykettJ. (2022). Be happy: navigating normative issues in behavioral and well-being public policy. Perspect. Psychol. Sci.17, 169–182. 10.1177/1745691620984395

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  FaulknerW. B.GoodrichL. B.BotlaguduruV. S.CaparedaS. C.ParnellC. B. (2009). Particulate matter emission factors for almond harvest as a function of harvester speed. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc.59, 943–949. 10.3155/1047-3289.59.8.943

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  FauntC. C.TraumJ. A.BoyceS. E.SeymourW. A.JachensE. R.BrandtJ. T.et al. (2024). Groundwater sustainability and land subsidence in California's Central Valley. Water16:1189. 10.3390/w16081189

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  FendorfS.SherrisA.HamannA.WellsA. (2020). Groundwater Quality in the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA): Scientific Factsheet on Arsenic, Uranium, and Chromium. Community Water Center. Available online at: https://web.archive.org/web/20240630080723/https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/communitywatercenter/pages/293/attachments/original/1592006984/CWC_FS_GrndwtrQual_06.05.20a.pdf?1592006984 (accessed July 11, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 85

  FensterT. L. D.OikawaP. Y.LundgrenJ. G. (2021). Regenerative almond production systems improve soil health, biodiversity, and profit. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.5:664359. 10.3389/fsufs.2021.664359

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  Fernandez-BouA. S.José ManuelR.-F.CuppariR. I.YangV. (2024). Agrivoltaics and Ecovoltaics: How Solar Power Can Deliver Water Savings, Farm Success, and a Healthier Environment. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists. 10.47923/2024.15501

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  Fernandez-BouA. S.Ortiz-PartidaJ. P.Classen-RodriguezL. M.PellsC.DobbinK. B.EspinozaV.et al. (2021a). 3 challenges, 3 errors, and 3 solutions to integrate frontline communities in climate change policy and research: lessons from California. Front. Clim.3:717554. 10.3389/fclim.2021.717554

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  Fernandez-BouA. S.Ortiz-PartidaJ. P.DobbinK. B.Flores-LanderosH.BernacchiL. A.Medellín-AzuaraJ. (2021b). Underrepresented, understudied, underserved: Gaps and opportunities for advancing justice in disadvantaged communities. Environ. Sci. Policy122, 92–100. 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.04.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  Fernandez-BouA. S.Ortiz-PartidaJ. P.PellsC.Classen RodriguezL. M.EspinozaV.Rodríguez-FloresJ. M.et al. (2022). Regional Report for the San Joaquin Valley Region on Impacts of Climate Change. California Natural Resources Agency. Available online at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/CA4_CCA_SJ_Region_Eng_ada.pdf (accessed May 8, 2025).

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  Fernandez-BouA. S.Rodríguez-FloresJ. M.GuzmanA.Ortiz-PartidaJ. P.Classen-RodriguezL. M.Sánchez-PérezP. A.et al. (2023). Water, environment, and socioeconomic justice in California: a multi-benefit cropland repurposing framework. Sci. Total Environ.858:159963. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159963

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  FischerB. M. C.ManzoniS.MorillasL.GarciaM.JohnsonM. S.LyonS. W. (2019). Improving agricultural water use efficiency with biochar – A synthesis of biochar effects on water storage and fluxes across scales. Sci. Total Environ.657, 853–862. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.312

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  FlegalC.RiceS.MannJ.TranJ. (2013). California unincorporated: Mapping disadvantaged communities in the San Joaquin Valley. Policylink Oakland, CA, United States.

  • Google Scholar

• 93

  Flores-LanderosH.PellsC.Campos-MartinezM. S.Fernandez-BouA. S.Ortiz-PartidaJ. P.Medellín-AzuaraJ. (2022). Community perspectives and environmental justice in California's San Joaquin Valley. Environ. Just.15, 337–345. 10.1089/env.2021.0005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  FranksS. J.SimS.WeisA. E. (2007). Rapid evolution of flowering time by an annual plant in response to a climate fluctuation. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.104, 1278–1282. 10.1073/pnas.0608379104

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  GallupA. (2024). What we know about registered apprenticeship: a systematic review and synthesis of 30 years of empirical research. Econ. Dev. Quart.38, 25–39. 10.1177/08912424231196792

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  García-GonzálezI.HontoriaC.GabrielJ. L.Alonso-AyusoM.QuemadaM. (2018). Cover crops to mitigate soil degradation and enhance soil functionality in irrigated land. Geoderma322, 81–88. 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.02.024

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  GaroneP. (2011). The Fall and Rise of the Wetlands of California's Great Central Valley. University of California Press. 10.1525/9780520948495

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  GhimireR.GhimireB.MesbahA. O.SainjuU. M.IdowuO. J. (2019). Soil health response of cover crops in winter wheat–fallow system. Agron. J.111, 2108–2115. 10.2134/agronj2018.08.0492

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  GiffordB. R.ValdésG. (2006). The linguistic isolation of Hispanic students in California's public schools: the challenge of reintegration. Teach. Coll. Rec.108, 125–154. 10.1177/016146810610801408

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  GomieroT. (2018). Agriculture and degrowth: State of the art and assessment of organic and biotech-based agriculture from a degrowth perspective. J. Clean. Prod.197, 1823–1839. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.237

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  GorrisM. E.TresederK. K.ZenderC. S.RandersonJ. T. (2019). Expansion of coccidioidomycosis endemic regions in the united states in response to climate change. GeoHealth3, 308–327. 10.1029/2019GH000209

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  GourevitchJ. D.SinghN. K.MinotJ.RaubK. B.RizzoD. M.WempleB. C.et al. (2020). Spatial targeting of floodplain restoration to equitably mitigate flood risk. Global Environ. Change61:102050. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102050

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  GranthamT. E.CarlisleD. M.HowardJ.LaneB.LusardiR.ObesterA.et al. (2022). Modeling functional flows in California's rivers. Front. Environ. Sci. 10. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.787473

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  GranthamT. E.ViersJ. H. (2014). 100 years of California's water rights system: patterns, trends and uncertainty. Environ. Res. Lett.9:084012. 10.1088/1748-9326/9/8/084012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  GunierR. B.BradmanA.HarleyK. G.EskenaziB. (2017). Will buffer zones around schools in agricultural areas be adequate to protect children from the potential adverse effects of pesticide exposure?PLoS Biol.15:e2004741. 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004741

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  GuoF.BonebrakeT. C.GibsonL. (2019). Land-use change alters host and vector communities and may elevate disease risk. Ecohealth16, 647–658. 10.1007/s10393-018-1336-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  GuoH.GouldenM.ChungM. G.NyeleleC.EgohB.KeskeC.et al. (2023). Valuing the benefits of forest restoration on enhancing hydropower and water supply in California's Sierra Nevada. Sci. Total Environ.876:162836. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162836

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  GurrG. M.WrattenS. D.LandisD. A.YouM. (2017). Habitat management to suppress pest populations: progress and prospects. Annu. Rev. Entomol.62, 91–109. 10.1146/annurev-ento-031616-035050

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  HaanN. L.IulianoB. G.GrattonC.LandisD. A. (2021). “Chapter Five - Designing agricultural landscapes for arthropod-based ecosystem services in North America,” in Advances in Ecological Research, eds. D. A. Bohan and A. J. Vanbergen (London: Academic Press) 191–250. 10.1016/bs.aecr.2021.01.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  HaanN. L.ZhangY.LandisD. A. (2020). Predicting landscape configuration effects on agricultural pest suppression. Trends Ecol. Evol.35, 175–186. 10.1016/j.tree.2019.10.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  HallA. L.PonomarevaA. I.TornM. S.PottsM. D. (2024). Socio-environmental opportunities for organic material management in California's sustainability transition. Environ. Sci. Technol.58, 9031–9039. 10.1021/acs.est.3c10711

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  HanakE.LundJ.ArnoldB.Escriva-BouA.GrayB.GreenS.et al. (2017). Water Stress and a Changing San Joaquin Valley. Available online at: https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-stress-and-a-changing-san-joaquin-valley/

  • Google Scholar

• 113

  HarrisonB. P.MooZ.Perez-AgredanoE.GaoS.ZhangX.RyalsR. (2024). Biochar-composting substantially reduces methane and air pollutant emissions from dairy manure. Environ. Res. Lett.19:014081. 10.1088/1748-9326/ad1ad2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  HarterT.LundJ. R.DarbyJ.FoggG. E.HowittR.JessoeK. K.et al. (2012). Addressing Nitrate in California's Drinking Water. Available online at: https://ucanr.edu/sites/groundwaternitrate/files/138956.pdf (accessed May 8, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 115

  HäslerB.GilbertW.JonesB. A.PfeifferD. U.RushtonJ.OtteM. J. (2013). “The economic value of one health in relation to the mitigation of zoonotic disease risks,” in One Health: The Human-Animal-Environment Interfaces in Emerging Infectious Diseases: The Concept and Examples of a One Health Approach, eds. J. S. Mackenzie, M. Jeggo, P. Daszak, and J. A. Richt (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer), 127–151. 10.1007/82_2012_239

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  HatchettB. J.McEvoyD. J. (2018). Exploring the Origins of Snow Drought in the Northern Sierra Nevada, California. 10.1175/EI-D-17-0027.1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  HauptmanB. H.NaughtonC. C. (2021). Legacy 1,2,3-trichloropropane contamination: a systematic review of treatments. J. Water, Sanitat. Hygiene Dev.11, 515–534. 10.2166/washdev.2021.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  HayesK.BlashkiG.WisemanJ.BurkeS.ReifelsL. (2018). Climate change and mental health: risks, impacts and priority actions. Int. J. Ment. Health Syst.12:28. 10.1186/s13033-018-0210-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  HeffronR. J.HeffronR. J. (2021). “What is the “just transition”?” in Achieving a just transition to a low-carbon economy, 9–19. 10.1007/978-3-030-89460-3_2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  HenryM. S.BazilianM. D.MarkusonC. (2020). Just transitions: histories and futures in a post-COVID world. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.68:101668. 10.1016/j.erss.2020.101668

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  HowittR.Medellín-AzuaraJ.MacEwanD.LundJ. R.SumnerD. (2014). Economic analysis of the 2014 drought for California agriculture. Center for Watershed Sciences University of California, Davis, CA. Available online at: https://watershed.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk8531/files/products/2021-05/DroughtReport_23July2014_0.pdf (accessed May 8, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 122

  HuangC.HuQ.SangL.LucasD. D.WongR.WangB.et al. (2023). A review of public safety power shutoffs (psps) for wildfire mitigation: policies, practices, models and data sources. IEEE Trans. Energy Markets, Policy Regul.1, 187–197. 10.1109/TEMPR.2023.3287027

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  HurstA. (2023). Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods. Oregon State University. Available online at: https://open.oregonstate.education/qualresearchmethods/ (accessed June 3, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 124

  IkazakiK.ShinjoH.TanakaU.TobitaS.FunakawaS.KosakiT. (2011). “Fallow Band System,” a land management practice for controlling desertification and improving crop production in the Sahel, West Africa. 1. Effectiveness in desertification control and soil fertility improvement. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr.57, 573–586. 10.1080/00380768.2011.593155

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  JamesI. (2024). After years of rapid growth, California's almond industry struggles amid low prices. Los Angeles Times. Available online at: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2024-03-04/bankruptcy-hits-california-almond-industry-amid-slump (accessed August 6, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 126

  JenkinsK. E.SovacoolB. K.BłachowiczA.LauerA. (2020). Politicising the just transition: linking global climate policy, nationally determined contributions and targeted research agendas. Geoforum115, 138–142. 10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.05.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  JosephS.CowieA. L.Van ZwietenL.BolanN.BudaiA.BussW.et al. (2021). How biochar works, and when it doesn't: a review of mechanisms controlling soil and plant responses to biochar. GCB Bioenergy13, 1731–1764. 10.1111/gcbb.12885

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  KaurN.KiefferC.RenW.HuiD. (2023). How much is soil nitrous oxide emission reduced with biochar application? An evaluation of meta-analyses. GCB Bioenergy15, 24–37. 10.1111/gcbb.13003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  KeiserJ.De CastroM. C.MalteseM. F.BosR.TannerM.SingerB. H.et al. (2005). Effect of irrigation and large dams on the burden of malaria on a global and regional scale. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hygiene72, 392–406. 10.4269/ajtmh.2005.72.392

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  KhanguraR.FerrisD.WaggC.BowyerJ. (2023). Regenerative agriculture—a literature review on the practices and mechanisms used to improve soil health. Sustainability15:2338. 10.3390/su15032338

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  KilpatrickA. M.FonsecaD. M.EbelG. D.ReddyM. R.KramerL. D. (2010). Spatial and temporal variation in vector competence of culex pipiens and cx. restuans mosquitoes for west nile virus. Am. Soc. Trop. Med. Hygiene83, 607–613. 10.4269/ajtmh.2010.10-0005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  KissamE. (2020). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on California farmworkers: better local data collection and reporting will improve strategic response. Statist. J. IAOS36, 867–898. 10.3233/SJI-200763

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  KnightR.SmithR.AschT.AbrahamJ.CanniaJ.ViezzoliA.et al. (2018). Mapping aquifer systems with airborne electromagnetics in the Central Valley of California. Groundwater56, 893–908. 10.1111/gwat.12656

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  KoebeleE. A.Méndez-BarrientosL. E.NadeauN.GerlakA. K. (2024). Beyond engagement: enhancing equity in collaborative water governance. Water11:e1687. 10.1002/wat2.1687

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  KoldenC. A. (2019). We're not doing enough prescribed fire in the Western United States to mitigate wildfire risk. Fire2:30. 10.3390/fire2020030

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  KudoG.CooperE. J. (2019). When spring ephemerals fail to meet pollinators: mechanism of phenological mismatch and its impact on plant reproduction. Proc. R. Soc. B.286:20190573. 10.1098/rspb.2019.0573

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  KumariR.KumarR. (2019). Aeroponics: a review on modern agriculture technology. Indian Farmer6, 286–292. Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342976865_Aeroponics_A_Review_on_Modern_Agriculture_Technology

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  LakhiarI. A.GaoJ.SyedT. N.ChandioF. A.ButtarN. A. (2018). Modern plant cultivation technologies in agriculture under controlled environment: a review on aeroponics. J. Plant Interact.13, 338–352. 10.1080/17429145.2018.1472308

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  LalR.NegassaW.LorenzK. (2015). Carbon sequestration in soil. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.15, 79–86. 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.09.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  LaneB. A.DahlkeH. E.PasternackG. B.Sandoval-SolisS. (2017). Revealing the diversity of natural hydrologic regimes in california with relevance for environmental flows applications. JAWRA53, 411–430. 10.1111/1752-1688.12504

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  LehmannJ.BossioD. A.Kögel-KnabnerI.RilligM. C. (2020). The concept and future prospects of soil health. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ.1, 544–553. 10.1038/s43017-020-0080-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  LevyM. C.NeelyW. R.BorsaA. A.BurneyJ. A. (2020). Fine-scale spatiotemporal variation in subsidence across California's San Joaquin Valley explained by groundwater demand. Environ. Res. Lett.15:104083. 10.1088/1748-9326/abb55c

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  LickerR.DahlK.AbatzoglouJ. T. (2022). Quantifying the impact of future extreme heat on the outdoor work sector in the United States. Elementa10:00048. 10.1525/elementa.2021.00048

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  LiuL.BoumanT.PerlaviciuteG.StegL. (2020). Public participation in decision making, perceived procedural fairness and public acceptability of renewable energy projects. Energy Clim. Change1:100013. 10.1016/j.egycc.2020.100013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  LiuP.-W.FamigliettiJ. S.PurdyA. J.AdamsK. H.McEvoyA. L.ReagerJ. T.et al. (2022). Groundwater depletion in California's Central Valley accelerates during megadrought. Nat. Commun.13:7825. 10.1038/s41467-022-35582-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  LockhartK. M.KingA. M.HarterT. (2013). Identifying sources of groundwater nitrate contamination in a large alluvial groundwater basin with highly diversified intensive agricultural production. J. Contam. Hydrol.151, 140–154. 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2013.05.008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  LondonJ. K.FenclA. L.WattersonS.ChoueiriY.SeatonP.JarinJ.et al. (2021). Disadvantaged unincorporated communities and the struggle for water justice in California. Water Altern.14, 520–545. Available online at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4613&context=faculty_scholarship

  • Google Scholar

• 148

  LopezA. M.WellsA.FendorfS. (2021). Soil and aquifer properties combine as predictors of groundwater uranium concentrations within the Central Valley, California. Environ. Sci. Technol.55, 352–361. 10.1021/acs.est.0c05591

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  LundJ.Medellin-AzuaraJ.DurandJ.StoneK. (2018). Lessons from California's 2012–2016 drought. J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.144:04018067. 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000984

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  MacCannellD. (1977). Tourist and the new community. Ann. Tour. Res.4, 208–216. 10.1016/0160-7383(77)90039-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  MalivaR. G. (2020). “Anthropogenic aquifer recharge and water quality,” in Anthropogenic Aquifer Recharge: WSP Methods in Water Resources Evaluation Series No. 5, ed. R. G. Maliva (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 133–164. 10.1007/978-3-030-11084-0_6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  MallN. K.HermanJ. D. (2019). Water shortage risks from perennial crop expansion in California's Central Valley. Environ. Res. Lett.14:104014. 10.1088/1748-9326/ab4035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  MaloneZ.BerheA. A.RyalsR. (2023). Impacts of organic matter amendments on urban soil carbon and soil quality: a meta-analysis. J. Clean. Prod.419:138148. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138148

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  MartinezD. J.SeraphinB.Marks-BlockT.NelsonP.VinyetaK. (2023). Indigenous fire futures: anticolonial approaches to shifting fire relations in California. Environ. Soc.14, 142–161. 10.3167/ares.2023.140109

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  Martínez-BlancoJ.ColónJ.GabarrellX.FontX.SánchezA.ArtolaA.et al. (2010). The use of life cycle assessment for the comparison of biowaste composting at home and full scale. Waste Manag.30, 983–994. 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.02.023

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  MarwahaN.KourakosG.LevintalE.DahlkeH. E. (2021). Identifying agricultural managed aquifer recharge locations to benefit drinking water supply in rural communities. Water Resour. Res.57:e2020WR028811. 10.1029/2020WR028811

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157

  MatiasS.MaroisM.SchenkerM. (2020). Prevalence and correlates of food insecurity in latino farm worker households in california's central Valley. Curr. Dev. Nutr.4:nzaa043_088. 10.1093/cdn/nzaa043_088

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  MayfieldL. H. (1996). The local economic impact of small farms: a spatial analysis. Tijdschrift voor Econ. Soc. Geogr.87, 387–398. 10.1111/j.1467-9663.1998.tb01571.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  McCurdyS. A.Portillo-SilvaC.SipanC. L.BangH.EmeryK. W. (2020). Risk for coccidioidomycosis among hispanic farm workers, California, USA, 2018. Emer. Infect. Dis.26, 1430–1437. 10.3201/eid2607.200024

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  McDermottM.MahantyS.SchreckenbergK. (2013). Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Policy33, 416–427. 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  McEvoyD. J.PierceD. W.KalanskyJ. F.CayanD. R.AbatzoglouJ. T. (2020). Projected changes in reference evapotranspiration in california and nevada: implications for drought and wildland fire danger. Earth's Fut.8:e2020EF001736. 10.1029/2020EF001736

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  Medellín-AzuaraJ.Escriva-BouA.GaudinA. C. M.SchwabeK. A.SumnerD. A. (2024). Cultivating climate resilience in California agriculture: Adaptations to an increasingly volatile water future. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.121:e2310079121. 10.1073/pnas.2310079121

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  Medellín-AzuaraJ.Escriva-BouA.Rodríguez-FloresJ. M.ColeS. A.AbatzoglouJ. T.ViersJ. H.et al. (2022). Economic Impacts of the 2020–22 Drought on California Agriculture. A report for the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Water Systems Management Lab. University of California, Merced 35p. Available online at: http://drought.ucmerced.edu

  • Google Scholar

• 164

  Medellín-AzuaraJ.HowittR. E.MacEwanD. J.LundJ. R. (2011). Economic impacts of climate-related changes to California agriculture. Clim. Change109, 387–405. 10.1007/s10584-011-0314-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  MemmottT.CarleyS.GraffM.KoniskyD. M. (2021). Sociodemographic disparities in energy insecurity among low-income households before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat Energy6, 186–193. 10.1038/s41560-020-00763-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  MilesS.RenedoA.MarstonC. (2022). Reimagining authorship guidelines to promote equity in co-produced academic collaborations. Glob. Public Health17, 2547–2559. 10.1080/17441692.2021.1971277

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  MillerS. A.FerreiraJ. P.LeJeuneJ. T. (2022). Antimicrobial use and resistance in plant agriculture: a one health perspective. Agriculture12:289. 10.3390/agriculture12020289

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  MillsS. B.BessetteD.SmithH. (2019). Exploring landowners' post-construction changes in perceptions of wind energy in Michigan. Land Use Policy82, 754–762. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.01.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  Minkoff-ZernL.-A. (2014). Hunger amidst plenty: farmworker food insecurity and coping strategies in California. Local Environ.19, 204–219. 10.1080/13549839.2012.729568

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  MoctezumaS. (2023). Excluded and Isolated: farmworker vulnerability to climate change, inadequate regulations, and takings claims. Tul. Env't L.J.36:183. Available online at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/tulev36&id=195&div=&collection=

  • Google Scholar

• 171

  MoranR. E.BennettD. H.GarciaJ.SchenkerM. B. (2014). Occupational exposure to particulate matter from three agricultural crops in California. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health217, 226–230. 10.1016/j.ijheh.2013.05.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  Morello-FroschR.Pastor JrM.SaddJ. L.PorrasC.PrichardM. (2005). “Citizens, science, and data judo,” in Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health, 371.

  • Google Scholar

• 173

  MoteP. W.LiS.LettenmaierD. P.XiaoM.EngelR. (2018). Dramatic declines in snowpack in the western US. NPJ Clim. Atmos. Sci.1, 1–6. 10.1038/s41612-018-0012-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 174

  MoyersK.AbatzoglouJ. T.Escriva-BouA.Medellín-AzuaraJ.ViersJ. H. (2024). An invisible water surcharge: Climate warming increases crop water demand in the San Joaquin Valley's groundwater-dependent irrigated agriculture. PLOS Water3:e0000184. 10.1371/journal.pwat.0000184

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 175

  MunschS. H.GreeneC. M.MantuaN. J.SatterthwaiteW. H. (2022). One hundred-seventy years of stressors erode salmon fishery climate resilience in California's warming landscape. Glob. Chang. Biol.28, 2183–2201. 10.1111/gcb.16029

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 176

  MurphyN. P.WaterhouseH.DahlkeH. E. (2021). Influence of agricultural managed aquifer recharge on nitrate transport: The role of soil texture and flooding frequency. Vadose Zone J.20:e20150. 10.1002/vzj2.20150

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 177

  NewellP.MulvaneyD. (2013). The political economy of the ‘just transition.' Geograp. J.179, 132–140. 10.1111/geoj.12008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 178

  NewtonA. C.EvansP. M.WatsonS. C. L.RiddingL. E.BrandS.McCrackenM.et al. (2021). Ecological restoration of agricultural land can improve its contribution to economic development. PLoS ONE16:e0247850. 10.1371/journal.pone.0247850

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 179

  NordstromK. F.HottaS. (2004). Wind erosion from cropland in the USA: a review of problems, solutions and prospects. Geoderma121, 157–167. 10.1016/j.geoderma.2003.11.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 180

  NREL (2020). Microgrids for resiliency. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available online at: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/75909.pdf (accessed October 10, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 181

  NtihinyurwaP. D.de VriesW. T. (2021). Farmland fragmentation, farmland consolidation and food security: relationships, research lapses and future perspectives. Land10:129. 10.3390/land10020129

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 182

  Nuñez-BolañoY.Flores-LanderosH.Rodríguez-FloresJ. M.Fernandez-BouA. S.Medellín-AzuaraJ.HarmonT. C. (2025). A participatory approach for developing a geospatial toolkit for mapping the suitability of California's Multibenefit Land Repurposing Program (MLRP) in support of groundwater sustainability. Front. Water7:1539834. 10.3389/frwa.2025.1539834

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 183

  O'ConnellD. J.PetersS. J. (2021). In the Struggle: Scholars and the Fight Against Industrial Agribusiness in California. New York: New Village Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 184

  OECD. (2021). Social Impact Measurement for the Social and Solidarity Economy: OECD Global Action Promoting Social & Solidarity Economy Ecosystems (2021/05; OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Working Papers, Vol. 2021/05).10.1787/d20a57ac-en

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 185

  OEHHA (2021). California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool: CalEnviroScreen 4.0. Available online at: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 (accessed September 16, 2024).

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 186

  OlmsteadA. L.RhodeP. W. (2017). A history of California agriculture. Davis (CA): Regents of the University of California, Giannini Foundation Information Series. Available online at: https://s.giannini.ucop.edu/uploads/giannini_public/19/41/194166a6-cfde-4013-ae55-3e8df86d44d0/a_history_of_california_agriculture.pdf (accessed May 8, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 187

  Ornelas Van HorneY.AlcalaC. S.PeltierR. E.QuintanaP. J. E.SetoE.GonzalesM.et al. (2023). An applied environmental justice framework for exposure science. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol.33, 1–11. 10.1038/s41370-022-00422-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 188

  Ortiz-PartidaJ. P.WeintraubC.Fernandez-Bou Angel SantiagoA. S.MaskeyM. L. (2020). Climate change in the san joaquin valley a household and community guide to taking action. Union of Concerned Scientists. Available online at: https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/UCS_CA_water_adapt_toolkit_Eng_201023a_web.pdf (accessed June 4, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 189

  OstfeldR. S.KeesingF. (2012). Effects of host diversity on infectious disease. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.43, 157–182. 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102710-145022

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 190

  Pamukcu-AlbersP.UgoliniF.La RosaD.GrădinaruS. R.AzevedoJ. C.WuJ. (2021). Building green infrastructure to enhance urban resilience to climate change and pandemics. Landscape Ecol.36, 665–673. 10.1007/s10980-021-01212-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 191

  ParkerL. E.McElroneA. J.OstojaS. M.ForrestelE. J. (2020). Extreme heat effects on perennial crops and strategies for sustaining future production. Plant Sci.295:110397. 10.1016/j.plantsci.2019.110397

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 192

  Pastor JrM.Morello-FroschR.SaddJ. L. (2006). Breathless: schools, air toxics, and environmental justice in California. Policy Studies J.34, 337–362. 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2006.00176.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 193

  PathakT. B.MaskeyM. L.DahlbergJ. A.KearnsF.BaliK. M.ZaccariaD. (2018). Climate change trends and impacts on California agriculture: a detailed review. Agronomy8:25. 10.3390/agronomy8030025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 194

  PaulooR. A.Escriva-BouA.DahlkeH.FenclA.GuillonH.FoggG. E. (2020). Domestic well vulnerability to drought duration and unsustainable groundwater management in California's Central Valley. Environ. Res. Lett.15:044010. 10.1088/1748-9326/ab6f10

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 195

  PendergrassA. G.KnuttiR.LehnerF.DeserC.SandersonB. M. (2017). Precipitation variability increases in a warmer climate. Sci. Rep.7:17966. 10.1038/s41598-017-17966-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 196

  Pérez-BlancoC. D.LochA.WardF.PerryC.AdamsonD. (2021). Agricultural water saving through technologies: a zombie idea. Environ. Res. Lett.16:114032. 10.1088/1748-9326/ac2fe0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 197

  PerroneD.JasechkoS. (2017). Dry groundwater wells in the western United States. Environ. Res. Lett.12:104002. 10.1088/1748-9326/aa8ac0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 198

  PerroneD.RohdeM. M.Hammond WagnerC.AndersonR.ArthurS.AtumeN.et al. (2023). Stakeholder integration predicts better outcomes from groundwater sustainability policy. Nat. Commun.14:3793. 10.1038/s41467-023-39363-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 199

  powellj. a.MenendianS.AkeW. (2019). Targeted Universalism: Policy and Practice. Berkeley, CA. Available online at: https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/2022-12/Targeted%20Universalism%20Primer.pdf (accessed March 7, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 200

  PunB. K.SeigneurC. (2001). Sensitivity of particulate matter nitrate formation to precursor emissions in the California San Joaquin Valley. Environ. Sci. Technol.35, 2979–2987. 10.1021/es0018973

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 201

  QinY.AbatzoglouJ. T.SiebertS.HuningL. S.AghaKouchakA.MankinJ. S.et al. (2020). Agricultural risks from changing snowmelt. Nat. Clim. Chang.10, 459–465. 10.1038/s41558-020-0746-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 202

  QuandtA.LarsenA. E.BartelG.OkamuraK.SousaD. (2023). Sustainable groundwater management and its implications for agricultural land repurposing. Reg. Environ. Change23:120. 10.1007/s10113-023-02114-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 203

  RahmanM. M.McConnellR.SchlaerthH.KoJ.SilvaS.LurmannF. W.et al. (2022). The effects of coexposure to extremes of heat and particulate air pollution on mortality in California: implications for climate change. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.206, 1117–1127. 10.1164/rccm.202204-0657OC

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 204

  ReeseL.JensenB.RamirezD. (2014). Emotionally supportive classroom contexts for young latino children in rural California. Elem. Sch. J.114, 501–526. 10.1086/675636

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 205

  RempelJ. L.BelferE.RayI.Morello-FroschR. (2024). Access for sale? Overlying rights, land transactions, and groundwater in California. Environ. Res. Lett.19:024017. 10.1088/1748-9326/ad0f71

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 206

  RenteriaA.LukacsH. (2019). Guide to Protecting Drinking Water Quality Under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.Visalia: Community Water Center. Available online at: https://web.archive.org/web/20220119090924/https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/communitywatercenter/pages/293/attachments/original/1559328858/Guide_to_Protecting_Drinking_Water_Quality_Under_the_Sustainable_Groundwater_Management_Act.pdf?1559328858 (accessed September 26, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 207

  Rey BenayasJ. M.BullockJ. M. (2012). Restoration of biodiversity and ecosystem services on agricultural land. Ecosystems15, 883–899. 10.1007/s10021-012-9552-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 208

  RicciardiV.MehrabiZ.WittmanH.JamesD.RamankuttyN. (2021). Higher yields and more biodiversity on smaller farms. Nat. Sustain.4, 651–657. 10.1038/s41893-021-00699-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 209

  Risling BaldyC.TullyC.RojasK. (2024). California #LandBack Special Report. Save California Salmon. Available online at: https://www.californiasalmon.org/_files/ugd/d97ff6_872841991d6f4030b2391e466e61c908.pdf (accessed May 8, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 210

  River Partners (2024). Dos Rios Ranch Preserve. Available online at: https://web.archive.org/web/20240829123743/https://riverpartners.org/project/dos-rios-ranch-preserve/ (accessed May 8, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 211

  RoA.OsbornB. (2018). Exploring dietary factors in the food insecurity and obesity relationship among latinos in California. J. Health Care Poor Underserved29, 1108–1122. 10.1353/hpu.2018.0082

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 212

  Rodriguez-FloresJ. M.Fernandez-BouA. S.Ortiz-PartidaJ. P.Medellin AzuaraJ. (2023). Drivers of domestic wells vulnerability during droughts in California's Central Valley. Environ. Res. Lett.19:014003. 10.1088/1748-9326/ad0d39

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 213

  RosasL. G.SheatsJ. L.KingA. C.Ortiz-PartidaJ. P.Aguilar-GaxiolaS.Oto-KentD.et al. (2024). “Sharing leadership with communities to promote mental health resilience in the face of climate change,” in Climate Change and Mental Health Equity, ed. R. J. Moore (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 415–438. 10.1007/978-3-031-56736-0_17

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 214

  RyalsR.HartmanM. D.PartonW. J.DeLongeM. S.SilverW. L. (2015). Long-term climate change mitigation potential with organic matter management on grasslands. Ecol. Applic.25, 531–545. 10.1890/13-2126.1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 215

  SaitoL.ChristianB.DiffleyJ.RichterH.RohdeM. M.MorrisonS. A. (2021). Managing groundwater to ensure ecosystem function. Groundwater59, 322–333. 10.1111/gwat.13089

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 216

  SaksaP. C.ConklinM. H.BattlesJ. J.TagueC. L.BalesR. C. (2017). Forest thinning impacts on the water balance of Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer headwater basins. Water Resour. Res.53, 5364–5381. 10.1002/2016WR019240

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 217

  Sanz-PérezA.GiraltD.RobleñoI.BotaG.MilleretC.MañosaS.et al. (2019). Fallow management increases habitat suitability for endangered steppe bird species through changes in vegetation structure. J. Appl. Ecol.56, 2166–2175. 10.1111/1365-2664.13450

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 218

  ScarboroughC.WelchZ. S.WilsonJ.GleasonM. G.SaccomannoV. R.HalpernB. S. (2022). The historical ecology of coastal California. Ocean Coastal Manag.230:106352. 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106352

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 219

  SchwarzL.HansenK.AlariA.IlangoS. D.BernalN.BasuR.et al. (2021). Spatial variation in the joint effect of extreme heat events and ozone on respiratory hospitalizations in California. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.118:e2023078118. 10.1073/pnas.2023078118

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 220

  SEIA (2024). California stale solar spotlight. Solar Energy Industries Association. Available online at: https://seia.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/California-1.pdf (accessed October 10, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 221

  SeigermanC. K.McKayS. K.BasilioR.BieselS. A.HallemeierJ.MansurA. V.et al. (2023). Operationalizing equity for integrated water resources management. JAWRA59, 281–298. 10.1111/1752-1688.13086

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 222

  SharrattB.WendlingL.FengG. (2010). Windblown dust affected by tillage intensity during summer fallow. Aeolian Res.2, 129–134. 10.1016/j.aeolia.2010.03.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 223

  ShuklaS.SafeeqM.AghaKouchakA.GuanK.FunkC. (2015). Temperature impacts on the water year 2014 drought in California. Geophys. Res. Lett.42, 4384–4393. 10.1002/2015GL063666

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 224

  SiddiqiS. M.Mingoya-LaFortuneC.ChariR.PrestonB. L.GahlonG.HernandezC. C.et al. (2023). The road to justice40: organizer and policymaker perspectives on the historical roots of and solutions for environmental justice inequities in U.S. cities. Environ. Justice16, 340–350. 10.1089/env.2022.0038

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 225

  SmithM. M.BentrupG.KellermanT.MacFarlandK.StraightR.AmeyawL.ordet al. (2022). Silvopasture in the USA: A systematic review of natural resource professional and producer-reported benefits, challenges, and management activities. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.326:107818. 10.1016/j.agee.2021.107818

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 226

  SohiS. P.KrullE.Lopez-CapelE.BolR. (2010). “A review of biochar and its use and function in soil,” in Advances in Agronomy (Elsevier), 47–82. 10.1016/S0065-2113(10)05002-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 227

  StarkA.GaleF.Murphy-GregoryH. (2023). Just transitions' meanings: a systematic review. Soc. Nat. Resour.36, 1277–1297. 10.1080/08941920.2023.2207166

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 228

  SteinE. D.ZimmermanJ.YarnellS. M.StanfordB.LaneB.Taniguchi-QuanK. T.et al. (2021). The California environmental flows framework: meeting the challenges of developing a large-scale environmental flows program. Front. Environ. Sci. 9. 10.3389/fenvs.2021.769943

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 229

  StenclikD.WelchM.SreedharanP. (2023). Reliably reaching California's clean electricity targets. GridLab. Available online at: https://gridlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/GridLab_California-2030-Study-Technical-Report-5-9-22-Update1.pdf (accessed May 8, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 230

  Sustainable Conservation (2024). Cover cropping in the SGMA era. Available online at: https://suscon.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/SC-Cover-Crop-SGMA-Report.pdf (accessed October 10, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 231

  SwainD. L.LangenbrunnerB.NeelinJ. D.HallA. (2018). Increasing precipitation volatility in twenty-first-century California. Nat. Clim. Chang.8, 427–433. 10.1038/s41558-018-0140-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 232

  TarjueloR.MargalidaA.MougeotF. (2020). Changing the fallow paradigm: a win–win strategy for the post-2020 Common Agricultural Policy to halt farmland bird declines. J. Appl. Ecol.57, 642–649. 10.1111/1365-2664.13570

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 233

  Tejada-VeraB.BastianB.AriasE.EscobedoL.SalantB. (2020). Life expectancy estimates by us. census tract, 2010-2015. National Center for Health Statistics. Available online at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data-visualization/life-expectancy/

  • Google Scholar

• 234

  TheodoropoulosH. (1990). The effects of agriculture and ethnicity of residents on the social conditions of rural communities in San Joaquin Valley, California.Davis, California: University of California Davis. Available online at: https://www.proquest.com/openview/c4faa1d3f83c36cf4bfc8f224a501f17/1?pq-origsite=gscholarandcbl=18750anddiss=y (accessed July 29, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 235

  ThorneM. E.YoungF. L.PanW. L.BafusR.AlldredgeJ. R. (2003). No-till spring cereal cropping systems reduce wind erosion susceptibility in the wheat/fallow region of the pacific northwest. J. Soil Water Conserv.58, 250–257. 10.1080/00224561.2003.12457540

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 236

  ToddM.UlaS.Martinez-MoralesA.PenchevM.GomezH. (2020). Water Sector Energy Efficiency Through an Integrated Energy Management System. Riverside: California Energy Commission. Available online at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/CEC-500-2020-003.pdf (accessed March 4, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 237

  TomsonM.KumarP.BarwiseY.PerezP.ForeheadH.FrenchK.et al. (2021). Green infrastructure for air quality improvement in street canyons. Environ. Int.146:106288. 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106288

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 238

  UCS (2023). Cropland Repurposing in California: How to Invest Public Funds to Benefit All. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists.

  • Google Scholar

• 239

  UCS (2025). Road Map Toward Accelerating a Just Land Transition in California. Berkeley, CA. Available online at: https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2025-05/roadmap-just-land-transition-ca-policy-brief.pdf (accessed June 14, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 240

  University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. (1994). Research update: Researchers try to arrest fugitive dust. California Agric.48, 5–8. 10.3733/ca.v048n04p5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 241

  USDA (2023). 2023 California Almond. Objective Measurement Report. Sacramento: National Agricultural Statistics Service. Available online at: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Specialty_and_Other_Releases/Almond/Objective-Measurement/2023almondOM.pdf#page=4 (accessed April 2, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 242

  USDA (2024). National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2022 Census of Agriculture. California State and County Data. United States Department of Agriculture. Available online at: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_State_Level/California/cav1.pdf (accessed October 1, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 243

  van der SchansM. L.HarterT.LeijnseA.MathewsM. C.MeyerR. D. (2009). Characterizing sources of nitrate leaching from an irrigated dairy farm in Merced County, California. J. Contam. Hydrol.110, 9–21. 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2009.06.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 244

  VenkataramananV.PackmanA. I.PetersD. R.LopezD.McCuskeyD. J.McDonaldR. I.et al. (2019). A systematic review of the human health and social well-being outcomes of green infrastructure for stormwater and flood management. J. Environ. Manage.246, 868–880. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.05.028

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 245

  WangX.LoK. (2021). Just transition: a conceptual review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci.82:102291. 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102291

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 246

  WardF. A.Pulido-VelazquezM. (2008). Water conservation in irrigation can increase water use. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.105, 18215–18220. 10.1073/pnas.0805554105

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 247

  WardM. H.BrenderJ. D. (2019). “Drinking water nitrate and human health,” in Encyclopedia of Environmental Health (Elsevier), 173–186. 10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.11245-X

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 248

  WartenbergA. C.MoangaD.PottsM. D.ButsicV. (2021). Limited economic-ecological trade-offs in a shifting agricultural landscape: a case study from Kern County, California. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.5:650727. 10.3389/fsufs.2021.650727

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 249

  WaterhouseH.AroraB.SpycherN. F.NicoP. S.UlrichC.DahlkeH. E.et al. (2021). Influence of agricultural managed aquifer recharge (AgMAR) and stratigraphic heterogeneities on nitrate reduction in the deep subsurface. Water Resour. Res.57:e2020WR029148. 10.1029/2020WR029148

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 250

  WaterhouseH.BachandS.MountjoyD.ChoperenaJ.BachandP. A. M.DahlkeH. E.et al. (2020). Agricultural managed aquifer recharge — water quality factors to consider. California Agric.74, 144–54. 10.3733/ca.2020a0020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 251

  WelleP. D.MauterM. S. (2017). High-resolution model for estimating the economic and policy implications of agricultural soil salinization in California. Environ. Res. Lett.12:094010. 10.1088/1748-9326/aa848e

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 252

  WestNile.ca.gov (2025). Counties with West Nile virus activity (number of human cases). Available online at: https://westnile.ca.gov/ (accessed May, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 253

  WezelA.BellonS.Dor,éT.FrancisC.VallodD.DavidC. (2009). Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev.29, 503–515. 10.1051/agro/2009004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 254

  WezelA.CasagrandeM.CeletteF.VianJ.-F.FerrerA.PeignéJ. (2014). Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev.34, 1–20. 10.1007/s13593-013-0180-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 255

  WhyteK. (2016). Indigenous Food Systems, Environmental Justice, and Settler-Industrial States. Available online at: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2770094 (accessed October 7, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 256

  WilliamsA. P.CookB. I.SmerdonJ. E. (2022). Rapid intensification of the emerging southwestern North American megadrought in 2020–2021. Nat. Clim. Chang.12, 232–234. 10.1038/s41558-022-01290-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 257

  WilliamsA. P.McKinnonK. A.AnchukaitisK. J.GershunovA.Varuolo-ClarkeA. M.ClemeshaR. E.et al. (2024). Anthropogenic intensification of cool-season precipitation is not yet detectable across the Western United States. J. Geophys. Res.129:e2023JD040537. 10.1029/2023JD040537

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 258

  WilliamsA. P.SeagerR.AbatzoglouJ. T.CookB. I.SmerdonJ. E.CookE. R. (2015). Contribution of anthropogenic warming to California drought during 2012–2014. Geophys. Res. Lett.42, 6819–6828. 10.1002/2015GL064924

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 259

  WoodallP.ShannonT. L. (2018). Monopoly power corrodes choice and resiliency in the food system. Antitrust Bull.63, 198–221. 10.1177/0003603X18770063

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 260

  XiangB.MillerS. M.KortE. A.SantoniG. W.DaubeB. C.CommaneR.et al. (2013). Nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from California based on 2010 CalNex airborne measurements. J. Geophys. Res.118, 2809–2820. 10.1002/jgrd.50189

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 261

  XiaoQ.ZhuL.ShenY.LiS. (2016). Sensitivity of soil water retention and availability to biochar addition in rainfed semi-arid farmland during a three-year field experiment. Field Crops Res.196, 284–293. 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.07.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 262

  YangA.AkhtarS. S.LiL.FuQ.LiQ.NaeemM. A.et al. (2020). Biochar mitigates combined effects of drought and salinity stress in Quinoa. Agronomy10:912. 10.3390/agronomy10060912

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 263

  ZaadyE.KatraI.ShukerS.KnollY.ShlomoS. (2018). Tree belts for decreasing aeolian dust-carried pesticides from cultivated areas. Geosciences8:286. 10.3390/geosciences8080286

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 264

  ZachosF. E.HabelJ. C. (2011). Biodiversity Hotspots: Distribution and Protection of Conservation Priority Areas. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 265

  ZedlerJ. B.KercherS. (2005). WETLAND RESOURCES: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.30, 39–74. 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144248

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 266

  ZhaoD.EpelE.AllenE.HwongA. R. (2024). Exposure to climate events and mental health: risk and protective factors from the California Health Interview Survey. PLOS Clim.3:e0000387. 10.1371/journal.pclm.0000387

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 267

  ZinsstagJ.SchellingE.Waltner-ToewsD.TannerM. (2011). From “one medicine” to “one health” and systemic approaches to health and well-being. Prev. Vet. Med.101, 148–156. 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.07.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 268

  ZumkehrA.CampbellJ. E. (2015). The potential for local croplands to meet US food demand. Front. Ecol. Environ.13, 244–248. 10.1890/140246

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 269

  ZwetslootH. M.NikolL.JansenK. (2018). The General Ban on Aerial Spraying of Pesticides of the European Union: The Policy-Making Process Between 1993-2009. Wageningen: Wageningen University, Rural Sociology Group.

  • Google Scholar