Your message seems to imply that its consumers fault for paying to little for food from California; that's a silly way to think about this problem.
California allows the disruption of true prices of water. If water is scarce, it should be more expensive.
If the water at true market value is so expensive that prices of goods produced with that water are now no longer competitive on the market, then that means that agriculture is not sustainable nor feasible in California and will be correctly priced out of the market by those who are able to produce the same quality product for less.
It implies nothing of the sort, just points out that many parties critical of California's handling of the drought are also enjoying the benefits of that mishandling.
California allows the disruption of true prices of water. If water is scarce, it should be more expensive.
If the water at true market value is so expensive that prices of goods produced with that water are now no longer competitive on the market, then that means that agriculture is not sustainable nor feasible in California and will be correctly priced out of the market by those who are able to produce the same quality product for less.