In article , Mike Lyle
wrote:

The ban in question was imposed during a hot spell. There was no
logical reason to suppose that water consumption would have been
naturally higher during the ban than it was before the ban.

Huh? You don't _really_ think people as a whole use no more water during
a hot spell, surely? It must seem almost patronising to spell it out;
but I hope you'll forgive me for mentioning more baths or showers, more
plant-watering, and probably more chance of deciding to wash the windows
or the car, even the curtains and the underblanket. These seem pretty
logical to me.

Of course, all water use goes up in a hot spell. But you must have
missed my point: it was hot before the ban and hot during the ban. Iow,
the climate wasn't a factor in gauging the effectiveness of the ban.