> Maybe filling big pools with water just so you can swim around will be seen as disgusting waste.

I have seen that being discussed recently, but I wonder: is it really a significant waste?

How much water does it consume, compared to say having a garden, or a green lawn?

Most pools have filtration systems and rarely require to be fully emptied then refilled.

It seems a class-based attack on people who can own pools, and therefore a dogwhistle, because the same attack could be made on taking a shower every day.

Less than a lawn, more than a water efficient garden. https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-pool-haters-20140913-sto...

Most people don't have water efficient gardens, and may refuse the concept.

Also, after reading the article:

> But some of those agencies are walking back the rules as they make a surprising discovery: Pools aren’t the water wasters some have made them out to be.

So I insist: it isn't a large waste. It's a politically motivated move, and therefore a dogwhistle.

I believe it would be better to invite pool owners to reduce evaporation by adopting a system to cover the pool, than to shame them: otherwise, we should shame people having a lawn (and people taking a shower, and people wasting electricity on videogames...)

That’s interesting about a pool compared to a lawn, though I was thinking about a municipal pool in a UK context (barely anyone has a swimming pool and lawns don’t need watering). Maybe we’ll reach a point where the idea of using that much water for recreation seems overly indulgent?