Well the regulations only need to be a little wrong for things to continue to be just as bad as they are now. Isn't California already teaming with ineffective regulations?

If no one waters their lawn will you be happy? Is solving the problem your goal or is this just a thrilling political device? That would really suck.

Read "The Bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and Our Gamble over Earth’s Future" and learn why this sort of thinking has been shown to be wrong again and again.

Or you could actually back up your post instead of a blind cite. But to save you the trouble of formulating an argument--because I looked through your recent posting history, it's mostly two-sentence talking-points stumping, I'm reasonably sure I won't actually get one--I happen to already know about Ehrlich and Simon's bet, even without Sabin's book, and I also know that that the lessons generally drawn from that by conservative thinkers--and ones not without merit on a sufficiently long time horizon--has remarkably little relevance to a literally incipient disaster scenario. There is simply no time left for human ingenuity to pull one out of our collective posterior. We have ignored the warning signs and we have committed probably irreparable damage, right now. It would be stupid to assert that water use reduction in California is not a solution, which is why it's very fortunate that I didn't make that assertion. Water limits exist to buy time for solutions to be formulated. And I'd bet against long odds that those solutions can be formulated. But not by next Wednesday.

Your black-and-white thinking--and the assumption that mine is as black-and-white as yours--kind of sucks, as does your cite-and-run dismissal. Can you please try to do better?