Does it guarantee improvements? Nope, but it does get more people on the side of conservation.
Any way to improve it would require increasing levels of government interference. Clearly people(industry included) aren't willing to self regulate their water usage or they would already be doing so.
And any way to improve it may require increasing levels of government interference, but increasing levels of government interference ≠ improvement.
I know it sounds obvious when put that way, but too many people fall into the trap of thinking that because something must be done, anything must be done. And, that because something was done, it was a good thing. Which is seldom true, unfortunately.
>And any way to improve it may require increasing levels of government interference, but increasing levels of government interference ≠ improvement.
Agreed but I think increasing interference in the "wrong"(as in not most effective place I.E. watering lawns) place will put pressure on them to also put pressure on the right places so the people under the first problem don't feel like they are over contributing.
That said I've not read any studies on this so really I'm just guessing blind here.
There was a period in Bay Area about a year ago, before some of the more strict regs were enacted, when the local papers were running front page stories almost daily about water shortage and the city's refusal to implement "common sense policies" and other such nonsense. No one said a peep about that bag of almonds which wasted as much water as your entire house would use that month, lawn watering included.
I see it as a means of subjecting the population toward ever increasing levels of scrutiny, control, and government interference. The drought is just an excuse. The policy has zero meaningful impact except to expand government largess and the populace's willingness to kowtow to authority.