Printing the paper saying we won't fill glasses used 48 times[1] more water than the water in the glass!
The amount of water used is so minuscule that you become a laughing stock just for suggesting it!
And CA made it a law....
> "cavalier auto-fill"
Please tell me that was your way of making fun of the law, and not that you actually support it.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/06/it-ta...
https://srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/rb/rb_srs171.pdf
Georgia and Alabama are #1 and 2 respectively.
https://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/rb/rb_srs194.pdf
California most likely imported that paper, so no loss. In fact, worrying about water used in paper production is itself entirely ridiculous. Paper production is better known for it's bad smell and release of toxins to the air and water. You must never have experienced the eye watering stench of a paper mill.
http://www.greenpressinitiative.org/documents/StateOfPaperIn...
California has water problems, but that's not attributable to their signage.
You would probably serve the public good more by encouraging them to drink water by putting it out by default. Thus increasing water intake and decreasing sugary drink consumption.
If you aren't encountering these sorts of things on a daily basis, you lose sight of the greater issues. However when the entire community is affected, it changes how people act and feel. People are much more likely to stand up and say something when they are personally affected (either by choice or by situation). Even if only a small percentage of people started caring more about conserving water because of these laws, I think it's a good thing.
These aren't impossible things to study, to determine the impact and optimize customs more appropriately, even though it seems likely that a minuscule capital outlay in the California water system would take care of drinking water and restaurant laundry and dish washing indefinitely.
The same goes for the psychological impact of the regulation. In popular treatments, any social science related statement is valid simply by being said. "Maybe" forgoing water at the table makes people feel that they've "done their part" and they are then more likely to do no more, and "maybe" they use up all of the energy they have to devote toward water issues. Given that dysphagia is notoriously unexpected, "maybe" the health impact of no water at the table far outweighs the zero-effect it has on water consumption.
All of these maybes are terrible ways to determine public policy. Instead, take a look at the relevant literature, and do some valid experiments.
I think these bad things get entrenched because people likely to get passionate about the issue aren't likely to explore the math, and people who have an intuitive sense of the numbers, don't want to sound crazy by getting worked up enough about the issues to balance out the people who have good intentions. Sure, it doesn't hurt that much to fine restaurants or make people ask for water, but if doesn't do anything productive then the net effect is still negative.
Blaming farmers is scapegoating. California doesn't have a water waste problem. Everyone there is trying to save water. California has a water supply problem. Which is inexcusable for a state with that much coast line. After 30 years of drought, only now are politicians deciding to build desalinization plants. They were perfectly happy to collect taxes and spend it on anything other than infrastructure to support the growing population.
But go ahead and "conserve" agricultural water. Watch the top soil and all its nutrients blow out to sea.
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/water_use/2010-california-water-us...
If that's the case, then wouldn't it just take 48 customers to a given table (who don't request water) to start saving water?
But you missed my point: The amount of water saved is so small as to be a joke. I was using paper printing to show just how little water it is.
They will support LITERALLY ANYTHING as long as a lawmaker tells them it's going to help them. They'll regulate ANYTHING for any reason.
It's been that way since at least the 40s, probably before then too though.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GSP_per_capita_in_20...
People like you ruin conversations about politics. I don't give half a shit how much money California pulls in, I'd never go back, I'll never hire a californian, so it has zero bearing to me.
I'd thank you for the info, but you only posted to try and prove me wrong about something I didn't even say in the first place.
Like you, I assume that these are stupid reasons which don't warrant making the law. But pretending that they don't exist is not a good way to think. Argue against something real.
I was using paper as an example of just how little water this law is saving, but people are using that example literally.
One sheet of paper can be cut up and used for over a dozen small notes so maybe it cost them 4 glasses of water per table which they may save every week easily. And while the paper could have come from California, it's much more likely to have been made elsewhere in a non-drought area.