Stan The Man wrote:
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.

Without stats, I agree. But I proceeded on the assumption that the dry
weather persisted after the ban was introduced and so exacerbated the
conditions.

We continue to agree that the system is badly mismanaged.

--
Mike.