But where you are located isn't what matters, it's where the water was consumed.
It does not matter where you are eating Californian almonds; those almonds still used Californian water.
It does not matter where you are eating Californian almonds; those almonds still used Californian water.
Then you can say that a single almond grown in CA uses $.001 H2O, but in VA it's $.0001 H2O, or something like that.
It's just a thought experiment, of course. But it seems like a worthwhile one, if only to introduce the idea of accountability for the cost of water consumption in various foods.
Because the issues are so complex, the legal terrain so unclear, and the consequences of an adverse court ruling so substantial, not to mention the politics, legislators are reticent to impose such strong measures.