As usual, the focus is on *municipal use*, which accounts for the smallest percentage... compared
to Ag (#1), and commercial. We taxpayers pay for the State and Federal Water Projects, and yet
municipal users seem to be "last in line".

Over the last several years, we've seen orchard after new orchard of almonds being planted. These,
grapes, and other crops cannot be "fallowed" in dry years. Clearly there is an expectation by these
agricultural interests that they will be "protected".

Just remember when you hear the phrase "Water Rights", that's a synonym for *Political
Corruption*.

So entertaining to see people act like agriculture is the demon when water is discussed. I wonder if that is being done by people who have sworn off eating.

The main reason we have issues is that not one city in this area ever bothers to consider the infrastructure required to support the MASSIVE increases in housing they insist upon. The Voice is full of stories about multiple-family dwelling being constructed, as well as stories about how other city should be shamed or threatened into doing the same. The thing that is NOT in the Voice is the actions of the city council to increase public services to support the thousands of people they are enabling to fill every nook and cranny of the city.

We are not increasing the number of police nor fire service. We are barely increasing the number of classrooms (increased by LASD) and that is only after MAJOR fights to override the city council. But none of these actions is quite as good as the city of Mountain View approving the sale of water rights to East Palo Alto for a pittance.

It is sickening to see the city council act as if they are champions in dealing with issues when the reality is that they cause most of the problems they seek to "solve" with mandates and increased taxation. Sadly. many fall for the fiction they create.

Agriculture uses 80% of the state's water and the majority of the food is for export. Almond are the biggest cash crop that uses massive amounts of water, and we grow them mainly for Asia. Wunnnerful.

We're in an interesting situation where this year Southern California reservoirs are full but the usual supplies in the North are quite low. There's loads of infrastructure to delivery Northern Califonia water to farmers in the central part of the state and to municipal users in the South, but not much for the other direction. Climate change is reversing the needs for water transport, as much as it is reducing the supplies.

One thing I have noticed is that Silicon Valley water is billed out at 10 times the rates found in Orange County. Why is SoCal water so cheap by comparison? I have to think it's because Agriculture gets all the cheap rates for Norcal water, and we residential users pay dearly for what we use. You really have to consider how much is the subsidy to Agriculture borne by residential users of the Northern supplies.