People having food to eat and people having green lawns aren't even remotely equivalent dude, come on.
Literally the whole point of "we should use less water on lawns" is so we'll have more water for food, for humans. Because lawns contribute nothing that humans want or need.
I mostly wanted to call attention to the lazy argument that we shouldn't do things that require human intervention.
"Use less water on lawns so we have more water for food, for humans".
That is a very one dimensional take. California's non-residential water usage doesn't just get used for human food, nor human food for Californians. Famously it gets bottled by Nestle, it gets used by Saudi Arabia to grow alfalfa for their cows, and it's used to grow almonds and other products that are exported outside of California.
So we have all these organizations using water in California, making a profit, exporting water from the state. (It's something like an 80/20 split for agriculture vs residential/urban water usage by the way).
So no, I don't agree that individual Californians should need to justify a patch of grass so that corporations and foreign nationals can continue exploiting our water resources. Sacramento should go fix literally all of that first.
Literally the whole point of "we should use less water on lawns" is so we'll have more water for food, for humans. Because lawns contribute nothing that humans want or need.