How about making the price graduated. Each household has a low price up to a certain point (a reasonable amount for indoor use of the household) and after that it's market price.

I don’t know that any such tiered pricing needs to be down to the liter.

I think it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that agricultural water from individual farms dwarfs that of individual residences, so you just need to find the cutoff at which residential allowance stops applying.

Get an estimate of the maximum people/bedroom in the area, then judge each house based on that. I think the city already knows how many bedrooms each house has.

People die without water to drink. Nobody dies without water to grow artichokes.

As a bonus, not using all that water to grow artichokes leaves more water for people to drink.

So, yeah. Like samatman said, "Let's try making it efficient first, and then see if we need to add equity."

Don't be ridiculous. No one is seriously proposing completely cutting people off from water. Flow restrictors still allow customers enough water for personal consumption and hygiene.

When were we ever talking about flow restrictors?

You were defending a market-based solution to water usage, which I asserted would be inequitable and therefore immoral.

Flow restrictors are pretty anti-market, and I think they're a great solution to penalizing those who repeatedly break the rules.

Yes ideally free markets should be used to allocate limited resources. What's your point?