4 ms·

Urban users cannot reduce water usage enough to solve the problem.

• s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I think that is debatable. A lot of urban water is wasted on lawns, pools, and parks. It is not unthinkable that it could be reduced by 25-50% per person if you banned these things. Church and government water use you mention also fall under the control of the urban governments. That said, there is always the 2nd option of purchasing more water.
  • masklinn 4y ago
    > I think that is debatable. It's not. Saving the great salt lake requires a water consumption reduction larger than total urban consumption in Utah. You can't get 1.5 million acre-feet out of a box which contains half a million. > A lot of urban water is wasted on lawns, pools, and parks. It is not unthinkable that it could be reduced by 25-50% per person if you banned these things. That's literally pulled out of your ass with no supporting evidence, and even if it were true it'd still be nowhere near what's needed. > That said, there is always the 2nd option of purchasing more water. No there is not always the option of purchasing the thing everyone lacks.
    • s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I think we are talking about two different subjects. I was talking about ensuring enough water for urban users to live and you are talking about maintaining the great salt lake. This seems to be the confusion.
      • thebooktocome 4y ago
        Maintaining the Great Salt Lake is the topic of the article.
        • s1artibartfast 4y ago
          Yes, but much of the discussion is of urban vs agricultural usage, and which group should bear the burden.