The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex to its manager."Last week, all the showerheads in the first three buildings of the Sunnyside Towers complex were modified to restrict maximum water flow to one-thi

The argument posited above does not make for a convincing call, as it has too much assumptions regarding usage of water, water cost, people's acceptibility and ultimate reduction in water consumption. These are major assumtions and if unwarranted, will likely result in the failure to increase profit for the corporation.

The argument says that, since the showerheads flow is restricted to one third of the usual, it will result in major water conservation and will also save them money. While this move will most likely reduce the water consumption, how much it will remains a question. What if the major share of water consumption in the society does not result from the use of showerheads, but rather from other activities such as cooking, washing, swimming pools etc. The argument has assumed that showerhead consume major share of water and focusing on it will cut down the total consumption. Unless and until we do not know the pattern of water consumption, this action may not harbour fruit.

More often than not, people residing in the complex are often ignorant of water conservation and do not pay attention to effective use of water. Reducing flow of showerhead will unlikely produce result, even in it is the major source of water consumption, till the people are made aware of the benefits of saving water. Restricting flow will only reduce the water consumption in a fixed period of time. People might start using showerheads for longer period and thus defeating the purpose. Again the validity of this lies on the premise that showerhead are major water consumer, an assumption.

The lack of water usage before and after the flow restriction also adds to the vulnerability of the argument. What if the water usage does not decline much? The result must be obtained and analysed , before taking any action for the other buildings. An adverse effect might be that, people starting to use even more water under the annoyance of the restricted flow. Even if we do consider that there is a major decline in water consumption, the cost of water must also be taken into consideration. If the cost of water is not much then concentrating just on saving water will not result in good profit. Owner of the sunnyside towers apartment must consider the overhead cost and what constitutes a major portion. Concentrating on that will result in fruitful profit.

The arguments clain that such an act will result in considrerable savings, without analysing on what actually is the reduction in water consumption is, without taking into account what is the current cost of water, is it major or minor and most importantly, such an act might annoy people in posterity, resulting into an adverse effect seems a very incompetent analysis.