Poor choice of word "survive" there. I meant economically survive in high-priced-water areas such as what California might be if it had a free water market. I agree with you that people a willing and should pay more for luxuries like lawns in the desert.
For drinking, you won't be living there in the first place if you can't afford the water bill, so nobody's going to die of thirst. That, and drinking water is a negligible proportion of water that people use domestically overall.
> For drinking, you won't be living there in the first place if you can't afford the water bill, so nobody's going to die of thirst.
That's the problem. Millions of people are already living in places where water is scarce / becoming scarce. This would call for a mass exodus from the desert, an infeasibility for almost all and the communities they belong to. Workers would abandon local economies and have to enter ones that most likely have no room for them.
Chances are that the people that will need to abandon their homes do not have the economic means to do so nor have the skills to enter a new market and find work.
> That, and drinking water is a negligible proportion of water that people use domestically overall.
People need to bathe and wash their clothing / dishware as well.
> I agree with you that people a willing and should pay more for luxuries like lawns in the desert.
Ideally, that wouldn't be an option because regulations would be set to prevent excess waste of a vital resource.
For drinking, you won't be living there in the first place if you can't afford the water bill, so nobody's going to die of thirst. That, and drinking water is a negligible proportion of water that people use domestically overall.