1. This doesn't seem to have been done out of any natural conservation considerations, but rather electricity generation considerations. Not saying the latter isn't important, but it's still sad that that seems to still be the only considerations that matter.
2. This is literally a debt in clean water that will be repaid by generations to come, as the article mentions. What is being done to make sure it can be repaid? Not just the first year or so of water restrictions, but a sustainable plan to reduce consumption.
Overall this reads like they just kicked the can upstream, down the road.
2. This is literally a debt in clean water that will be repaid by generations to come, as the article mentions. What is being done to make sure it can be repaid? Not just the first year or so of water restrictions, but a sustainable plan to reduce consumption.
Overall this reads like they just kicked the can upstream, down the road.