Water is indeed an important resource, but it's not a particularly scarce one in many areas. It's not a waste to use something one is paying for, in those circumstances.
I've lived in areas where water is terribly scarce, and places of plenty, such a I do now. In the places of plenty, some municipalities subsidize the price of water because it's politically popular. Under the guise of helping the poor, they help the middle class that is most of their electorate. Others do not. The ones that subsidize scream about scarcity and waste. That doesn't make it true. Subsidies distort the market.
I don't see your point here. Encouraging waste because a resource doesn't have scarcity seems a bit strange. Perhaps it can be piped to areas that have scarcity? Many rivers etc are dammed to provide municipal water; so oversupply might encourage some muncipalities to un-dam water and let it flow naturally again, which is an env++.
Most importantly, it's good to be in the habit of conserving water, recycling and such because when you move into areas of scarcity, you don't have to force-change your habits and suffer quickly, but instead act responsibly all the way through.
I note your handle is 'capitalist' - being responsible isn't hippy anti-capitalism. Saving a few bucks here and there by using less subsidized water might mean that people will stop expecting subsidy, and instead want the money redirected elsewhere...
and everyone is still richer.
EDIT: i don't disagree that subsidies distort markets, but it's tangental to the parent post.
Usage is not waste. Simply because you don't agree with his usage of a tub of water to cool his room doesn't make it waste. He chooses on what to spend his money. As for the ad-hominem attack on my handle, I'll simply say it's unwarranted.
is it not a waste for someone to open a fire-hydrant so they can bathe their dog's paws? Your definition of "usage is not a waste" is really questionable.
BTW, there was no ad-hom attack on your handle, but rather an observation of your potential leaning -- i'm a capitalist too ( i think most HN'ers are) so I figured i'd respond to make sure you weren't going to write me off as a hippy-enviro.
I've lived in areas where water is terribly scarce, and places of plenty, such a I do now. In the places of plenty, some municipalities subsidize the price of water because it's politically popular. Under the guise of helping the poor, they help the middle class that is most of their electorate. Others do not. The ones that subsidize scream about scarcity and waste. That doesn't make it true. Subsidies distort the market.