Car washes are everywhere in Tampa Bay. In this drought, how much water do they use? 10%

By Jack Prator0%

7/10/2026, 12:01:43 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Availability Heuristic, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 26.3% saturation with 118 hits. Analysis detected 670 faulty-reasoning hits from 449 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 26.3% and a BS Rank of 10% (19,873 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 90.80% of the article peer group.

There are more than 2 million cars registered in the Tampa Bay area. 
And where there are lots of cars, there are lots of places to wash them. 
The proliferation of car washes in the area has some residents debating their ethics at public town halls and online Reddit threads during a regional drought. 
Water managers issued an “extreme water shortage” in April that’s still in effect. 
It limits residents’ water-use outdoors to one day a week, including driveway car washing. 
So why can commercial car washes spray down hundreds of cars a day with impunity? 
Michael Lynch, wetlands director for the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, says it’s a misconception that car washes use an exorbitant amount of water. 
He said car washes get permission from city or county governments to hook up to their water system. 
But then, they typically use very little from it. 
Most car washes recycle water in a “closed-loop” system that became common in the early 2000s, Lynch said. 
It’s much cheaper, greener and more efficient than how they used to operate. 
“I cannot think of a car wash in the last, gosh, I want to say maybe 20 years, that’s not changed to recycle,” he added. 
The Southwest Water Management District, the agency that sets drought restrictions, encourages people to turn toward businesses that recycle water and “use less gallons of freshwater than washing your car at home,” according to spokesperson Susanna Martinez Tarokh. 
Rich Super is the maintenance director for Woodie’s Car Wash, a Tampa-based chain with 18 locations across the area. 
Super says his car washes typically use 10 to 20 gallons of water per car. 
The other 60-80 gallons needed come from their recycling system. 
Their filters work by feeding the recycled water through three tanks before it goes through a “sand separator” that removes fine particles. 
The business uses biodegradable soap and energy efficient motors to further reduce their environmental footprint, Super said. 
“We build these things with environmental concerns in mind to leave as little of an impact on our natural resources as possible,” he said. 
In his travels to other car wash chains around the state, Super has seen companies employ unique sustainability methods. 
He recalled one Cape Coral business that filtered rainwater to offset their water use. 
“You know, we are in Florida, I think that’d be a pretty cool thing to get behind,” he said. 
The Tampa Bay Times launched the Environment Hub in 2025 to focus on some of Florida‘s most urgent and enduring challenges. 
You can contribute through our journalism fund by clicking here . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.2%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 1.3%Confirmation Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%Jack Prator: 4.9%Tampa Bay Times: 2.2%Availability Heuristic9.8%This article: 3.3%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic3.3%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Jack Prator: 4.6%Tampa Bay Times: 3.8%Framing Effect2.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.5%Jack Prator: 1.4%Tampa Bay Times: 2.7%Optimism Bias12.5%This article: 2.9%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.8%Pessimism Bias2.9%This article: 9.1%Jack Prator: 1.7%Tampa Bay Times: 3.8%Negativity Bias9.1%This article: 3.3%Jack Prator: 2.7%Tampa Bay Times: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Jack Prator: 1.9%Tampa Bay Times: 4.0%Halo Effect6.7%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.8%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.9%Recency Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 26.3%Jack Prator: 4.2%Tampa Bay Times: 2.6%Appeal to Authority26.3%This article: 3.3%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 1.4%False Dilemma3.3%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.2%Jack Prator: 1.7%Tampa Bay Times: 2.7%Hasty Generalization12.2%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.2%Jack Prator: 2.1%Tampa Bay Times: 4.4%Appeal to Emotion4.2%This article: 2.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.6%Begging the Question2.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 1.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 5.3%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature5.3%This article: 3.3%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.1%Composition/Division3.3%This article: 7.3%Jack Prator: 4.3%Tampa Bay Times: 1.4%Anecdotal7.3%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 5.6%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection5.6%This article: 6.2%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice6.2%This article: 2.4%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 1.0%Indoctrination2.4%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jack Prator: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Jack Prator: 1.2%Tampa Bay Times: 3.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.1%

449 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers66%attributed speech153writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Lynch • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Lynch • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageMichael Lynch • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Lynch • 25 words • 100.0% coverageSouthwest Water Management District • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWoodie’s Car Wash • 19 words • 0.0% coverageRich Super • 15 words • 0.0% coverageRich Super • 10 words • 0.0% coverageRich Super • 22 words • 0.0% coverageRich Super • 17 words • 0.0% coverageRich Super • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageRich Super • 14 words • 0.0% coverageRich Super • 19 words • 100.0% coverageTampa Bay Times • 21 words • 100.0% coverageTampa Bay Times • 11 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tampa Bay Times

100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words11% of attributed speech78% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination+34.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Tampa Bay Times: 34.4%34.4%Biased Writer Voice-5.9 ptsWriter: 5.9%Tampa Bay Times: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.