H2O Guy's comment is a good example of how someone can (I think sincerely in this case) be confused about the facts.

H2O Guy tells us that providing water "is not a free process". Measure X does not fund water. Measure X taxes water to fund general City programs. That's the whole problem.

H2O Guy tell us that water "should be expensive to encourage less frivolous use". That's exactly right. There should be a graduated pricing scheme, so that people who consume more water will pay higher prices and have an incentive to conserve. The City claims to have such an arrangement, but the true pricing scheme is just the opposite: those who use the least water pay the highest price per gallon. To put it a different way, you have an incentive to use at least 225 gallons a day. Below that, the less you use, the higher the price. 225 gallons a day is a lot of water for a sensible 1- to 4- person household.

H2O Guy tells us that UCSC has "pushed out" people. On the contrary. Having lost major employers like Texas Instruments, Lipton, and Salz Tannery, the City of Santa Cruz has no economy left. The Boardwalk (!) is our largest private employer. Without UCSC, there would be even fewer jobs, and the local economy would be even smaller. People are pushed out due to supply and demand. Santa Cruz is an attractive place to live, which drives up demand, which drives up prices. We are reaching the breaking point, though, because there is insufficient economic activity to support the high prices.

Finally, H20 Guy says, "Don't like it leave." The whole point of an election is to let citizens make choices. Presumably, it's okay for citizens not to accept the officially-recommended choice.