Sure, but your complaint is that it's punishing the poor.
The reason we need to properly price water isn't to increase costs for municipal use. Those rates can stay the same, or even be reduced.
The problem is that the agricultural sector is paying a fraction of the prices that municipalities pay -- or in some cases they are paying nothing at all.
My complaint isn't that it punishes the poor, it's that it doesn't deter the rich, who are - in the context of the article - the primary issue. I just invoked an old saying to draw attention to the disparity. A tiered pricing model would likely not change anything for the poor.
Agriculture and overuse of water is a different discussion that this restrictor does not presume to address.
The rich aren't the primary issue, though. The total water used by wealthy people in their own homes is utterly negligible.
The article cites celebs like Kevin Hart, who has used (gasp) 150% of what LA would prefer him to use. This is simply a non-issue. It does not need to be addressed, at all.
The reason we need to properly price water isn't to increase costs for municipal use. Those rates can stay the same, or even be reduced.
The problem is that the agricultural sector is paying a fraction of the prices that municipalities pay -- or in some cases they are paying nothing at all.