The state should have much more public transportation so that people can build in lower cost areas and still commute to their jobs. In time, with better transportation, companies will move out of the overly crowded population centers to enjoy the lower cost of operations in outlying areas.

The best thing one can do is set a good example. 

As a licensed mechanical engineer, I have an intimate knowledge of water systems. Water conservation needs to be further promoted in all areas of life.   We need to continue water minimization in yards, bathroomn and kitchens through appropiate building codes, and incentivize older buildings to upgrade to modern conservation methods.  Also, we need to work with the agricultural communities to invcenivize water saving techniques that are common in drier parts of the world.  Lastly, there has not been enough effort to work with industry and business to create water plans. For example, how many restaurants have low flow devices on their faucets, either in the kitchens or bathrooms?  Their is room for improvement with littel pain.  I believe in the 80/20 rule. Most of the additional water saving gains can be had with a small effort.

Many estimates are that the Silicon Valley population will grow by 30% in the next 10 years.  This is  a bad idea for many reasons.  Nonetheless, there is no plan for 30% more water resources for the people.  Some of this must be had by additional savings.  Incentivizing low flow facilities through rebates is much cheaper than finding new water sources, if they even exist.

Next water storage is vitally important.  CA needs to stop messing around and build the water storage that was funded in 2014 by Prop. 1. We lose too much water through a lack of storage.

CA has the largest number of people living in poverty in the United States. It is not an easy problem, but the solution starts with a plan. We need to set strict standards of performance for school districts, administrators, and the teachers in economically challenged areas. After that, each district will have to formulate plans that are specific to their regions.  I do not believe in a one plan fits all approach that comes down from the State.  Nonetheless, the State does need to set some performance standards.   Fix the process or fix the people.  If the district, including administrators and teachers together can't achieve results, then they should be replaced.  The children's education come first, not the state employees (adminstrators and teachers) who are paid to educate them.  The bottom five performing districts should probably be dissolved and reformed each year.  They are failing our chlidren. 

We already spend more on education per person than most of the other States, so throwing money at it will not necessarily solve the myriad of issues. Solving the problem involves doing a better job and holding the districts accountable to the state.  There should be some additional training in dealing with students living in poverty.