The USGS Water Science School
Let's look at some Ups and Downs of this option:
If you don't let that new factory and mall be built, then you will save the water that they would have used.
It doesn't (directly) cost anything to restrict new development. You don't need to spend your current funds on anything.
By letting your citizens know that the new mall cannot be built because of the lack of water, maybe they will become more water conscious, meaning they might begin water-conservation practices.
A certain portion of your citizens will like you (and might vote for you) because you are keeping more unwanted urban sprawl out of their backyard.
A certain portion of your citizens want the new jobs, the new mall, and new houses -- they won't be happy.
You might be taken to court for not allowing new development -- you could be sued.
You are losing out on potential tax revenues that the homes and malls would be paying. Taxes that could be used to build a nice, new reservoir.
What do you think? After reading this page, do you think restricting development would be a good way to save water? Would it cause more problems than it solves, though? What do your classmates think?
What do you think? Would you raise the price of water in order to save water? What do your classmates think?
Go back to the opinion survey page