How much Water does one MAN Need???

[DawnCt1]

This guy lives alone in this Atlanta mansion and is consuming 2000 gallons of water per day during a drought. His lawn is lush and green, although no one has caught him watering. Perhaps the water company needs to consider a flow meter for water pigs that would limit him to at least what a family of 12 would use.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3848139

 

[Oreo Cookie]

What an idiot. How can he live there and use that much water during drought? He's one person, I just don't get it. I'm so tired of selfish people, who only worry about themselves, and as long as they can afford it, they'll do it.

I also don't get the "We haven't seen him watering his lawn" arguement. Really, what other evidence do they need? Plush green lawn, hmmmm

 

[DawnCt1]

Near the end of the summer, water was in short supply but I had at least 3 neighbors who had lush, green lawns. We have wells but we all tap into the same aquafir so I didn't think it was fair. All it took was two "rains" to green up our lawn. We don't water so the grass roots run deeper and green up very quickly.

 

[Fitswimmer]

That's true, but if you take that logic out to other things-how many cars does one man need, how many houses does one person need, how many clothes, how many trips to WDW...you get the idea. We are a society that believes if you can pay for it, then you can have it.

Should necessities be held to a different scale? Sure, I think so, but then who defines necessity? I include water, food, housing and heathcare in my list of necessities. However, many would argue with me about limiting access to any of those items in order to have more equitable distribution and they would definately argue with any additional government assistance to provide for those that don't have them.

 

[mylightshines]

We're in a drought too. About two months ago, a water pipe burst in the street. When the city finally fixed it, they left dirt all over the street. Well, my next door neighbor proceeded to water down the street. We've had a lot of problems with this neighbor so at first I ignored it. Well, after about two hours. The police finally showed up. They sent a car over. Talked to him for about 30 and then he proceeded to continue watering down the street. He'll wash his cars all the time. I hope he has a $1,000 water bill!!

It just makes me so angry that people need water to bathe, drink, etc. and who knows when it's going to get better and he thinks it's more important to get the dirt off the street.

 

[leafette]

Unfortunately, his county authorized his water meter (which would service an entire strip mall). And since there are not yet any bans on indoor use, there is not much that can be done unless he's caught violating the outdoor bans. They are talking about giving him a $2000 monthly surcharge on his bill. However, he is apparently so wealthy that it is unlikely to serve as a deterrent.

 

[CheshireVal]

That's true, but if you take that logic out to other things-how many cars does one man need, how many houses does one person need, how many clothes, how many trips to WDW...you get the idea. We are a society that believes if you can pay for it, then you can have it.

Should necessities be held to a different scale? Sure, I think so, but then who defines necessity? I include water, food, housing and heathcare in my list of necessities. However, many would argue with me about limiting access to any of those items in order to have more equitable distribution and they would definately argue with any additional government assistance to provide for those that don't have them.

Well, the thing about it is.... we're in a severe drought. No one needs that much water no matter how you define "need." He's being morally irresponsible.

 

[DawnCt1]

That's true, but if you take that logic out to other things-how many cars does one man need, how many houses does one person need, how many clothes, how many trips to WDW...you get the idea. We are a society that believes if you can pay for it, then you can have it.

Should necessities be held to a different scale? Sure, I think so, but then who defines necessity? I include water, food, housing and heathcare in my list of necessities. However, many would argue with me about limiting access to any of those items in order to have more equitable distribution and they would definately argue with any additional government assistance to provide for those that don't have them.

During a drought there are restrictions on water use. It is hard to imagine that he is not violating the restrictions of water use by watering his lawn. We are not talking about what one is able to pay for or how one choses to spend his money, but the overuse of an actual resource that deprives others of the use of a resource.

 

[Fitswimmer]

During a drought there are restrictions on water use. It is hard to imagine that he is not violating the restrictions of water use by watering his lawn. We are not talking about what one is able to pay for or how one choses to spend his money, but the overuse of an actual resource that deprives others of the use of a resource.

Couldn't that logic be applied to other resources? What about gasoline? Could we not argue that those of us who drive SUV's are overusing a resource? The more of us that have and use large vehicles which take a LOT of gasoline to power means that there is less gasoline available for others. We've always made the arguement that we're willing to pay the high cost, so we should be allowed to have it. If gasoline was rationed like in WWII, more would be available for everyone and the bonus prize would be that the price would go down.

What about housing? Why should someone have 3 houses when that means that 2 of them sit empty for a good portion of the year? Isn't that reducing the number of houses available? If everyone only had one house, that would mean more houses available for others, and with more on the market the prices would be lower and more people could afford them.

How about food? Some of us have access to large quantities of food while others have limited access. Why should one family have all that extra food stored in their pantry when others have none? If we all only bought what we needed, there would be more for others, and again, the price would go down and more people could afford more options.

I agree that this guy is being greedy and should be stopped, but because I feel that way I started to think about how consistent my position is in regard to other resources.

 

[rgrgirl]

I heard about this guy too. We were talking about him at work. It is ridiculous. And evidently he does not care if he gets charged a fine. There has got to be more that can be done to him.
Hopefully GA gets some rain today though. Not that that guy cares....

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

First I've heard of the story, but a couple of thoughts come to mind...
1) The guy is behaving as an inconsiderate pig.
2) He apparently has every right to do so as long as he isn't violating water usage restrictions.

 

[shortbun]

I heard a news story about people in the city drilling wells so they have a supply that can not be controlled by the city water department. However this man is getting his water, he's a thoughtless idiot and should be stopped.

 

[1rockinmamato2]

I also don't get the "We haven't seen him watering his lawn" arguement. Really, what other evidence do they need? Plush green lawn, hmmmm

Well, they haven't seen him physically watering his lawn because I'm sure he has the pop-up sprinklers installed that are set to water at about 1 a.m.!

I'm appalled that he's using so much water when such a dire situation is close at hand in that area. I hope his water gets cut off and his grass dies and gets crunchity brown.

 

[yeartolate]

First I've heard of the story, but a couple of thoughts come to mind...
1) The guy is behaving as an inconsiderate pig.
2) He apparently has every right to do so as long as he isn't violating water usage restrictions.

That sounds about right.

And FWI,w Fits, I agree with your logic. It is difficult to single out one guy when there are other resources being run into the ground.


In San Francisco, we were the one house on the block ith a lush lawn. We changed laundry detergents and we drained the laundryand dish water (and sometimes bathwater )to the lan and garden. We alays kept under our allowance. e got nasty stares, but then my dad helped the neighbors do the same.


But then again, te biggest SF lawn isn't all that big.

 

[CheshireVal]

Couldn't that logic be applied to other resources? What about gasoline? Could we not argue that those of us who drive SUV's are overusing a resource? The more of us that have and use large vehicles which take a LOT of gasoline to power means that there is less gasoline available for others. We've always made the arguement that we're willing to pay the high cost, so we should be allowed to have it. If gasoline was rationed like in WWII, more would be available for everyone and the bonus prize would be that the price would go down.

What about housing? Why should someone have 3 houses when that means that 2 of them sit empty for a good portion of the year? Isn't that reducing the number of houses available? If everyone only had one house, that would mean more houses available for others, and with more on the market the prices would be lower and more people could afford them.

How about food? Some of us have access to large quantities of food while others have limited access. Why should one family have all that extra food stored in their pantry when others have none? If we all only bought what we needed, there would be more for others, and again, the price would go down and more people could afford more options.

I agree that this guy is being greedy and should be stopped, but because I feel that way I started to think about how consistent my position is in regard to other resources.

It almost seems like you're overthinking this. People can't live without water, and we're running out. So yeah, restrictions should be put in place. Our household uses in one month what he uses in a day.

And yeah, people who drive 10 mpg SUVs are being irresponsible with resources, too, since you asked.

 

[Fitswimmer]

It almost seems like you're overthinking this. People can't live without water, and we're running out. So yeah, restrictions should be put in place. Our household uses in one month what he uses in a day.

And yeah, people who drive 10 mpg SUVs are being irresponsible with resources, too, since you asked.

So, since we want to criminalize what this man is doing about water, we should also criminalize SUV drivers? (mine gets 21 mpg, so maybe I'm ok.)

 

[DawnCt1]

Couldn't that logic be applied to other resources? What about gasoline? Could we not argue that those of us who drive SUV's are overusing a resource? The more of us that have and use large vehicles which take a LOT of gasoline to power means that there is less gasoline available for others. We've always made the arguement that we're willing to pay the high cost, so we should be allowed to have it. If gasoline was rationed like in WWII, more would be available for everyone and the bonus prize would be that the price would go down.

What about housing? Why should someone have 3 houses when that means that 2 of them sit empty for a good portion of the year? Isn't that reducing the number of houses available? If everyone only had one house, that would mean more houses available for others, and with more on the market the prices would be lower and more people could afford them.

How about food? Some of us have access to large quantities of food while others have limited access. Why should one family have all that extra food stored in their pantry when others have none? If we all only bought what we needed, there would be more for others, and again, the price would go down and more people could afford more options.

I agree that this guy is being greedy and should be stopped, but because I feel that way I started to think about how consistent my position is in regard to other resources.

Actually, I lived through the gasoline rationing of the Jimmy Carter era, but that is besides the point. All of the products and commodities you have mentioned are not rationed. There is no restriction on the use of food, cars, gas, houses, etc. There is a restriction on water use. It sounds like your overthinking is leading you to, "From each according to their ability to each according to their need". Not the same.

 

[DawnCt1]

So, since we want to criminalize what this man is doing about water, we should also criminalize SUV drivers? (mine gets 21 mpg, so maybe I'm ok.)

Why? there are no restrictions on gasoline use?

 

[Bob Slydell]

I've always wondered about water restrictions -- are they, in any way, legally binding. I mean, it seems like every summer, we have some sort of "water ban", but as far as I know, it's a request, not a law.

The guy's certainly being a water hog, but is there a legal way to stop someone?

 

[CheshireVal]

So, since we want to criminalize what this man is doing about water, we should also criminalize SUV drivers? (mine gets 21 mpg, so maybe I'm ok.)

As much as I like that idea, I'm not sure you can really compare the two.