The acre-foot in the desal prices would be $715. All you are proving is that $17 is an unsustainable price and not what non-ag consumers pay at all. California as a landmass has sunk measurably during the few years because of these unsustainable practices.
If you were to buy water at real unsubsidized prices in any metro area, you would not be able to find $17/acre-foot.
I am noting that present levels of ag activity are in fact predicated on that price. And that (as is prominently noted in the article) water is the limiting factor for virtually all California ag.
And that any significant increase (other contemporary news articles are talking of "only" 10x increases in water costs) would be devastating to existing operations.
I'm finding your views charmingly optimistic. But highly unrealistic.
The price isn’t the only limiting factor. Right now there isn’t water at any price that you can buy in unlimited quantities through the current watering system.
As the result, new land development of more sustainable ag is effectively blocked by more senior water rights.
We even legislate into our consumer laws that you cannot use water for your landscaping at any price beyond a certain amount or risk being completely cut off.
I find this absolute limit situation highly questionable, because as we have a physical ability to not have these limits in a much more sustainable sense.
If you were to buy water at real unsubsidized prices in any metro area, you would not be able to find $17/acre-foot.