> but you are seriously suggesting that 30k gallons/day in Los Angeles (also desert; contrary to your implication) is OK if you are sitting right next to a rese

> but you are seriously suggesting that 30k gallons/day in Los Angeles (also desert; contrary to your implication) is OK if you are sitting right next to a reservoir? I specifically said it doesn't make it right for some people to ignore the drought and use that much water. But the point was that the district was meeting its conservation quotas, so it wasn't issuing fines. It's not some conspiracy to let Bel Air residents use more water because they're rich. It just makes sense that if the drought conditions are not as severe for a certain district, it would react differently to people who use too much water. As I also laid out, I do think there should be some state-wide solidarity fine even in places with access to more water. The money collected could go towards some of the billions the state wants to spend on drought preparedness (there was a ballot initiative last year). > It might make more sense for everyone to get a daily ration of water. It might make sense for everyone in a district to get their daily ration of water (averaged over the course of the month), but it doesn't make sense to set a global ration when certain districts need to set lower per-capita usage than others.