> A better plan would be to let the market allocate water. If people want golf courses, lawns, almond trees, microchip plants, etc. let them pay market prices for the necessary water.
Those who use lots of water on such things also have tons of money to spend on it without caring much, or at all. So it won't conserve any water, but it will price out all the poor and middle class people who can't play that game.
Except market driven allocation by and large works, despite the sheer denial going on here. Not every user of water is uncaring of price, and water prices demonstrably work. I don’t understand the resistance against such a measure, this is probably a textbook example of where market-driven allocation would work well. Most people don’t need enough water for even reasonably high prices to be a serious issue.
> Except market driven allocation by and large works, despite the sheer denial going on here.
Could you please link to some studies or articles showing how it produces intended results, instead of just asserting it works?
From observation here (norcal) where rates are quite high, it is clear that the rates are already too high for poorer people and yet the rich do not see any disincentive yet to stop wasting water on lawns. It would take much higher rates to make the price-insensitive consumers to stop wasting on lawns, but at that point could any poor or middle class families afford any water?
Progressive pricing is already a thing in other utility markets. Set tiers such that any single household can afford enough water to live and ramp up from there.
Those who use lots of water on such things also have tons of money to spend on it without caring much, or at all. So it won't conserve any water, but it will price out all the poor and middle class people who can't play that game.