[zaroth]

I think just the opposite. You pass a law and think you've done something, but actually the problem remains exactly as large as is was the day before. And now you have another excuse for more bureaucracy, call lines for snitching on neighbors, excuses to fine people exorbitant fees which can hit a family very hard, etc. I think it's the worst possible action we could take.

There was a period in Bay Area about a year ago, before some of the more strict regs were enacted, when the local papers were running front page stories almost daily about water shortage and the city's refusal to implement "common sense policies" and other such nonsense. No one said a peep about that bag of almonds which wasted as much water as your entire house would use that month, lawn watering included.

I see it as a means of subjecting the population toward ever increasing levels of scrutiny, control, and government interference. The drought is just an excuse. The policy has zero meaningful impact except to expand government largess and the populace's willingness to kowtow to authority.

[sanswork]

For most people sure they will stop watering their lawn pat themselves on the back and be done with it. You won't ever get action from those people though so we can ignore them. There is a smaller group that will be annoyed that they are having to make sacrifices when industry/agriculture isn't and those people will be pushed to be more active.

Does it guarantee improvements? Nope, but it does get more people on the side of conservation.

Any way to improve it would require increasing levels of government interference. Clearly people(industry included) aren't willing to self regulate their water usage or they would already be doing so.

[ouchy]

It gets people thinking they're conservationists. It doesn't necessarily make them conservationists. In fact, I'd argue it has tended to produce the opposite effect, because it creates a mental barometer based on the wrong indicators.

And any way to improve it may require increasing levels of government interference, but increasing levels of government interference ≠ improvement.

I know it sounds obvious when put that way, but too many people fall into the trap of thinking that because something must be done, anything must be done. And, that because something was done, it was a good thing. Which is seldom true, unfortunately.

[sanswork]

I agree it will make lots of people think their conservationists when in reality they are just retweeters/fb likers but I disagree that it won't actually lead more people to being actual conservationists.

>And any way to improve it may require increasing levels of government interference, but increasing levels of government interference ≠ improvement.

Agreed but I think increasing interference in the "wrong"(as in not most effective place I.E. watering lawns) place will put pressure on them to also put pressure on the right places so the people under the first problem don't feel like they are over contributing.

That said I've not read any studies on this so really I'm just guessing blind here.