I do wonder how much or that discount is due to it being non potable water with no treatment or complex distribution network. Not saying it’s a good idea but comparing canal water for irrigation with fluorinated chlorinated potable water piped directly to your house doesn’t seem reasonable.
It's worse than what you propose. In Arizona at least, the existing water rights allow agriculture to pump fresh, clean, ancient ground water as a less expensive alternative to surface water transported via canal. Because agriculture won't use it, the canal water has to be made potable and distributed in the municipal water supply.
Although I would note the California case still makes me wonder, as it’s not apples to apples, even if it’s a stupid waste regardless of the actual metric.
No debate there. It’s a stupid waste regardless. But that’s not my point.
However it’s hard to see unlike units and be ok with that. Maybe my physics teachers were too mean to me, or my work in quantitative fields has twisted me, but reading otherwise well reasoned stuff that makes unfair comparisons hurts the entire line of reasoning in my mind.
So my question still stands out there - but I would note whatever savings over municipal water they have or don’t have, that doesn’t make it a good idea. Just because you pay a fair price to destroy something of incalculable value doesn’t mean the price reflects the costs.
