[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.