How can anyone of average intelligence accept a water-rationing scheme that bases allotments on water usage of a household in 1986? The changes in the nature of the occupants, their habits and attitudes could be overriding in that period of time.
Children could grow up and leave the household. Grown children could come home to live, bringing many of their own children with them. Aging parents could be brought home to receive care. Divorces, deaths and bedridden illness could have occurred.
Also, some households wasted water in 1986, while others were very frugal with its use. This plan will reward the wastrels and punish those who were careful.
In my case, I retired in 1986, shut down the house, let the lawns die out, and traveled for six months. Also, in 1986, there were only two adults residing in the house, whereas today, two grown daughters have moved home again, increasing the household population to four! This would put us in the extremely unfair position from a penalty standpoint, should the "10% reduction from 1986" plan be adopted.
The only fair method to ration water should be based on the size of the house and grounds, and the number of residents. It should be simple enough to send out a questionnaire with the water bill to gather this information. Persons caught cheating on this questionnaire could be heavily fined and/or jailed.
ROBERT E. ANTLETZ, Lomita