Because the sacrifice should be shared by all water users, and homeowners are far from the primary consumers of water.

When agriculture uses most of the water, and the most water in agriculture goes to luxury foods like almonds and pistachios, it’s ridiculous to be investigating homeowners while not asking farmers to reduce consumption.

They literally constitutionally cannot ask the farmers, and you need a very mobilized populace to change the constitution. That's only going to happen when people see the consequences of inaction, and its probably better that happen gradually for useless laws then suddenly for all drinking water.

That's not the only way ballot measures and propositions have been passed. Previous governors have advocated for measures, got them on the ballot, and encouraged people to vote for them. The current governor could do the same.

> They literally constitutionally cannot ask the farmers...

The California constitution disallows the government mandating water restrictions for luxury crops?

> luxury foods like almonds and pistachios

"Luxury foods" oversells them a bit. The retail price per pound is close to ground beef.

That's because their retail price doesn't reflect the externalities. Cheap subsidized water makes them much cheaper than if the farmers had to pay a fair price.

Ground beef - all meat, really - is a luxury food.

Beef also uses a ton of water, probably more than almonds.

Sound like they would be more expensive if the farmers didn't have such advantageous water rights.

Because the farmers don't have to pay for the water they use...

More like 3-4 x as much.

The people with the green lawn are already punished far more than agriculture. A farmer can literally grow 400 acres of lawn and not pay anything for the water.