I made no claim that it was a huge contributor. I use it as an example of needless waste. Only once we are willing to deal with the truly frivolous uses of water (golf, fountains etc) can we hope to deal with more utilitarian uses.
And I totally dismiss logic dictating that we must only deal with the largest and most contentious contributors to a problem before all others. That is only a delay tactic.
And I totally dismiss logic dictating that we must only deal with the largest and most contentious contributors to a problem before all others. That is only a delay tactic.
If I have a limited budget and am trying to reduce water use in California, pissing off a load of rich executives, judges and lawyers who can prove, in court, that their contribution to the problem is negligible, would not be my first move.
edit - and fountains? Are you the reincarnation of John Calvin?
And I totally dismiss logic dictating that we must only deal with the largest and most contentious contributors to a problem before all others. That is only a delay tactic.