A rant against making people pay for water.

[white_wolf]

Am i the only who finds this concept inherently fucked up? I mean really were going to cut off people's water supply if they can't pay on time? Its fucking water it should be free to everyone and the same goes for electricity. I have a friend who works for one of those companies and I flat out told her I could never work for a company that makes its money exploiting people and charging them for something so basic. I mean really of all the things that should not be charged money for basic drinking water and power should be on the top of the list right next to the Healthcare. Oh wait this America and "Invisible Hand" can do no wrong here. For the record I should state that I don't think it should be free so much as paid for by taxes and not to line the pockets of some private entity. It should be goverment ran and distributed to everyone and paid for by taxes.

[Blue-Jay]

1. Water IS free. You just have to dig your own well first.

[itsrobert]

77. I'll probably hit salt water

But hey, it's free.

[Matariki]

84. You can't legally dig a well in most city plots.

[EnviroBat]

2. Try living in a township wherer the water company charges $78.00

a month on AVERGE for water and sewer. We've been fighting them for years, but they have our PUCO in their pocket, and they basically rape us any way they see fit.

[white_wolf]

6. Thats just bullshit!

That should be considered criminal. It certainly falls under the morally bankrupt category.

[Moostache]

34. The list of things that SHOULD be criminal in the country is too long to recount.

I get sick on a daily basis reading about all the ways people have found to enrich themselves at the expense of the future and the common good. The founders are rolling their graves alright, but its not for any reason the tea-baggers and Rethugs might think...

[yellowcanine]

17. That's not so much. You probably pay more for cell phone, internet and cable.

Probably a lot more. You can live without a cell phone, internet and cable. You can't live without water and sewer.

[jtuck004]

30. They charge $3500 here to hook up to city water, and you do

all the plumbing on your side.

I liked Oklahoma City - the water is billed by one authority, the city. As opposed to here, where there are little public water districts all over the place. Pretty cheap.

Way too much overhead. I wonder if we could push for eminent domain and combine all those, fire all the extra managers and engineers we don't need to be paying for, maybe use the extra money for a public park or something useful.

[yellowcanine]

38. I would not want to drink water from a system where the managers and engineers were fired.

Safe public water is a lot more complex than people think. You start firing managers and engineers and everyone is going to have to boil their water before you know what happened - that is, assuming you have any water at all.

Do you have any idea of the havoc which results when regular inspections and proper maintenance is not done? Here you go....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061600548.html

[jtuck004]

49. Wow, people think no one else has ever been to school except them.

If you will remember with me the words, as best I recall, of government employees, and the financial wizards of Wall Street who, while pocketing the proceeds of their own Ponzi scheme (that has made millions of people homeless and exacerbated unemployment), as well as the largesse provided by close associates who work for the People, (that is, Federal employees) as well as former employees of their companies, who now work for the People, (that is, the U.S. Government), helping make policy and effectively working as lobbyists for the financial industry, sometime while being a paid employee of the taxpayers...

"It's too complicated for you to understand. You have to keep us in place or the whole economy goes up in flames".

No it wasn't, as it turned out. :rofl:

Perhaps it's time to bury that argument?

I have been through technical schools, junior colleges, got an MEd. Plumbing school and school for working as an intermediate paramedic included. I was and am aware of the effort, rules, and results of providing municipal supplies of water and sewer, as well as sanitation and what all those products look like to the house. Did some contract work for the sewer department, so I got to see water provision from one end to the other, as well as treatment. Worked single and multi family areas, but I was a repair plumber, so I got to see lots of thoughtless engineering. Fixed some of it.

But I also know what happens to private companies when there are too many layers of management. Economically private companies with too much management lose to leaner and more capable competitors. I don't see why that should be any different for a city. (Or a school, for that matter. Unions can compete when they want to, with brains and effort, not just money. For a little podunk town with a couple hundred thousand people or less such a structure is ok. But for an area that is becoming built into and defined as a more modern city, I am quite sure there is no improvement when a bloated, overburdened structure is used in the public sector.

Until I see real evidence that there is a difference in the quality of a centralized water system run by a municiplaity vs 20+ little fiefdoms, I will go with the one that puts more money into providing services by centralizing services.

Oklahoma City does it for over a million people a year. Safely, more economically. They spend their money on people who actually work in the field, for managers who work themselves up in the ranks.

Do you have a grievance with city unions?

I would trust that water over many sent from smaller systems.

All with inspections, hard work, maintenance, engineers - not as many managers, I suspect. But paying for more resources to be on the street to provide safe water, all the time.

There are plenty of suits where there needs to be. Even more engineers that can be called on in other departments, though I can't imagine why.

[yellowcanine]

59. WSSC is a centralized system that covers most of the Wash. DC metro area.

Yet they can't seem to keep up with inspecting and replacing aging water mains.
I think you paint with too broad of a brush.

[jtuck004]

68. I didn't say that was always a solution. And just because one

city on the periphery doesn't do it well, doesn't mean that most don't.

Where there are unecessarily bloated and inefficient groups that provide services, they become a great target for improvement.

[yellowcanine]

74. WSSC for the most part does do a good job. But they are dealing with

old infrastructure and some geological challenges in some areas (expanding clays etc) and rates probably haven't kept up with some of the real costs of inspecting and maintaining the system as well as adding capacity to meet the needs of an expanding population. It can be difficult to get necessary rate increases approved in a complex metropolitan environment with several different municipalities involved. So I just think it is a mistake to generalize so much. One size does not fit all - we are dealing with different geology, history, political reality. What may seem like an inefficiency in one environment may be a necessary redundancy in another environment in order to guarantee a reliable and safe water supply. Just so you know - I don't work for WSSC so I have no vested interest in rate increases or defending their performance. In fact I am a customer and I think the rates are very reasonable - maybe too reasonable.

[shanti]

67. my water company changed hands

after which time they apparently felt that they needed to raise the rates 40%! that after a rate raise of 20%! highway robbery!! :(

[phantom power]

3. I feel obligated to play devil's advocate

People do not conserve resources that are free.

Water (and, I'd argue, electricity) should be municiple services, paid for, but paid for by taxes. And priced on a progressive tier system. The first tier, for people who don't use much, is inexpensive. The more you want to use, the higher the rate you pay.

[FSogol]

10. +1, n/t

[XemaSab]

48. I might even go so far as to say

that the first, say, thousand gallons per person per month should be free, and the cost should ramp up sharply from there.

Don't want a high water bill? You have an incentive to conserve your bill down to nothing.

[Maru Kitteh]

76. My mother-in-law ran her lawn sprinklers 3 TIMES A DAY when her water was "free"

Actually it was a flat rate but it was a rural village and they didn't meter the water.

Drove me up a tree. She moved away to a one of those sprawlondo communities where they mow her water and mow her lawn for her.

[SDuderstadt]

4. Wait a minute...

I agree that someone's water should not be cut off for non-payment, but water and electricity should be free? How does it get to someone's house? There are no distribution costs? No one had to generate the electricity? The water pumped itself?

[lynne]

5. What you're paying for is the infrastructure and getting the water to your tap -

- not to mention the salaries of those who work to get that water to you. They'd probably let you have the water for free providing you're willing to haul it home in 5 gallon buckets.

[Luciferous]

50. Yep

[brooklynite]

7. So, is it okay to leave the tap on all day long?

or water your lawn every morning, even if most of the water gets evaporated by the sun?

Every gallon of water has to be collected, treated and delivered to both homes and businesses. The more water used, the more you pay in taxes if its "free".

Paying for water used is a reasonable charge for services. If people can't afford to pay for it that is a SEPERATE political issue that needs to be addressed through tax or fiscal policies.

[JVS]

8. Water infrastructure isn't free and pricing it discourages waste.

But I support subsidizing the water bill of poor people with the bills of those who can easily afford it.

[FSogol]

9. Do you see that there is a cost to processing/purifying water and making it available to every

building? How do you propose paying for that unless they charge?

I agree with you that water companies shouldn't be for profit businesses, but there still should be a cost. What about the person who fills a large swimming pool or waters his grass nonstop? Shouldn't they pay more than someone like me who installed water saving fixtures throughout my house and collects rainwater for gardening?

[white_wolf]

11. I edited the OP

to explain my stance a little better now.

[SDuderstadt]

14. I still have a problem with it...

if it's paid for through taxes, where is the incentive to conserve? Moreover, why should our taxes support some large estate's oversized pool?

[cynatnite]

12. Idealistically, yes all items necessary to live should be free...

Food, water, air, healthcare, and so on.

Realistically....it has to be paid for otherwise...we will do without.

Given how badly we've polluted our planet I'd rather pay for clean water.

[Imajika]

13. You can dig a well...

...or you can pay for the labor and infrastructure used to deliver safe drinking water to your house, on demand, and with no effort involved on your part.

It isn't the water that is expensive, its the costs involved in delivering it to you.

Grab a shovel and dig a well if you want to provide for your own water. I bet you'll be surprised how much you'll appreciate paying for water once you realize what is involved in getting it yourself.

[yellowcanine]

65. Actually you can't. Not without a permit and you can't get one if municipal water is available.

Not in most jurisdictions. And in some parts of the West you can't dig a well without buying water rights even if there is no municipal water.

[yellowcanine]

15. It costs money to treat water to make it safe to drink and transport it so how can it be free?

Some people use more water and electricity than others. Should I pay in taxes to pay for someone who uses way more water and electricity than what I do? You make it free and people will have no incentive to be efficient in their use of water and electricity. They will waste it and everyone will pay more than what they pay now in taxes.

I've got no problem with programs to help low income people pay for water and electricity but water and electricity are part of the cost of owning or renting a house. I have lived in countries where the water is "free". The catch was you had to take containers and fill them up and schlep them back to your house. Then you had to boil the water before you drank it or you would get sick.

[white_wolf]

16. My issue is not paying for it

my issue is the fact that a lot of times your paying a for profit company who often overcharges for their services and is in just to make money. How is that any more moral than a for profit health-care system? Why should the poor not have access to clean water just because someone wants to charge an outrageous price?

[yellowcanine]

21. The title of your OP says otherwise. Goalpost shift alert!

Your shifting explanations, edits of the OP etc suggest that you really did not think this through all that well. Water and sewer companies, as well as electricity providers are by necessity public utilities. They have to get rates approved by state regulators. If you really think the rates are too high you need to complain to the state regulators and vote for politicians who will do something about it - not propose unworkable solutions based on fantasy.

[Statistical]

26. Outrageous? Water and power are likely TOO CHEAP in this country.

We consume way too much resources (relative) to the rest of the planet and part of that is the low cost.

http://www.chesapeake.va.us/services/depart/pub-util/index.shtml

Water & Sewage is about 1 cent per gallon. That is outrageous?

Even if you include the connection charge which includes the cost of billing, meters, mainteance, and thousands of miles of water & sewage lines plus the salaries of the hundreds of people who keep in running all the time the total cost for 20,000 gallons (US average for 2 months) is about 1.2 cents per gallon.

If you think you can acquire water, transport it, purify it, and safely deal with the waste plus handle all the admin/billing/deliquency costs for <1 cent per gallon then feel free to offer a competing service.

[yellowcanine]

29. Something for nothing always has a certain appeal though. It is human nature.

Lots of people say there is no free lunch but few actually believe it. If they are having to pay more for something they figure that someone somewhere is making a big profit. Of course sometimes that is true, just as sometimes someone really is stalking a paranoid person.

[Codeine]

71. Who charges outrageous prices? Water is cheap as fuck.

My trash service costs me an arm and a leg, though.

[Maru Kitteh]

80. Outrageous = cut into my beer money. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. What incentives would people have to not waste water if they didn't have to pay for it?

[white_wolf]

19. Someone mentioned

a tiered style tax system based on usage. We could do it like that. That way the costs are still covered and people pay for it based on how much they use, but its not a for profit company so prices should be cheaper.

[Statistical]

36. Water is insanely cheap in the US. about 1 cent per gallon.

It likely is too cheap which is why we consume more water (and more power, and more fuel) per capita than any other country on the planet.

[yellowcanine]

39. Yet people gladly pay $12.00 a gallon for bottled water, which is often tap water. Go figure.

$1.50 for a 16 oz bottle X 8 = $12.00

And actually your 1 cent per gallon cost is very high. The average is probably closer to .2 cents per gallon. Remember that the water bill often includes sewer as well. Most utilities just measure the amount of water used and double it to account for the sewer. That is why if you use a lot of water irrigating your landscape it would probably pay to have a separate meter installed.

[Statistical]

41. Correct I was averaging the total cost (connection charge, water, and sewage).

[yellowcanine]

44. When people complain about their water bill ask them if they buy bottled water. They usually get

real quiet.

[WatsonT]

66. Likely the same people who are outraged by how 'expensive'

tap water is.

[AngryAmish]

20. If the government distributed the water it still has a cost

Do the people who dig the wells work for free? Does the truck which transports the water department workers appear without work? Do the people who assemble the truck work for free?

When you say free you mean paid for by tax dollars. Fine. But you are still paying for it. If you pay taxes, that is.

[white_wolf]

22. I know that, but my point

is it should be cheaper if it is paid for by taxes. My problem is the profit motive involved in something so basic and necessary.

[AngryAmish]

23. Should be cheaper and is cheaper are two different things my friend

I live in Chicago. We spend a tremendous amount of money on the water department. It is notoriously corrupt and butt-ass expensive.

[yellowcanine]

27. There are in fact publicly owned utilities.

Unfortunately the record is mixed. What has sometimes happened in the past is that the publicly owned utilities were managed inefficiently and rates kept too low because of political pressure. And artificially low rates meant people wasted because there was little incentive to save. This led to them being sold to private entities, often resulting in sharply higher rates overnight.

It is not so easy to do what you are suggesting.

[Statistical]

24. If there was no charge for water or electricity demand would rise.

Why turn off the lights if it is free right?
Why buy more expensive high efficiency appliances, that is pure "wssted" money?
Why conserve water it is "free" right?

Also who pays the billions of dollars to build the infrastructure, run the plants, power the pumps, treat the sewage etc.

The idea that water or electricity should be free is naive at best. There should be public assistance to avoid utility shutoffs, maybe a system where instead of a shutoff nonpayment puts a limit on usage (minimal power & water) but such a system would add cost and would be paid for by those who do pay their bills.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages"

[yelligilli]

25. Take a bucket to the river and boil it. There - it's free!

[yellowcanine]

32. Particularly if you also collected the wood and burned it to heat the water.

I am beginning to like this free water. Hot damn!

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. It is expensive to maintain a system to deliver safe water to residences.

It is even more expensive to maintain a system to treat sewage.

That these systems should be publicly owned, I'm in full agreement. Free? Not so much.

As others have noted, "free" is synonymous with "valueless". People conserve that which costs them something.

[yelligilli]

31. What next? A rant against making people pay for cell phones??

After all, they might need them to call 911 and save peoples lives.

[jtuck004]

33. Yup. They are too expensive and people are silly for paying those rates. n/t

[yellowcanine]

35. I think my high speed internet and cable should be free also. And books. Books slow down dementia.

Free books now!

[MineralMan]

45. Gutenberg Project.

Free books for your PC, or e-reader, or just read them on the site.

35,000 titles and counting.

http://www.gutenberg.org/

Supported solely by donations. Have fun!

[yellowcanine]

46. Awesome. But wait. What if Granny is not connected and doesn't have an e-book reader?

:shrug:

[MineralMan]

52. Well, I guess she'll have to visit the public library.

Ask her about it. She's probably familiar with it's location, so she can direct you to it.

[PVnRT]

72. You have to pay to get a library card in most places

[MineralMan]

73. Really? I've never paid for one. In Saint Paul, or any place I've

ever lived. In some places, non-residents of the library district pay a fee, but it's rare for there to be a fee for residents. Do you have to pay for yours?

[superduperfarleft]

56. Yes, because those are exactly the same thing.

:eyes:

[SoCalDem]

37. Water rights have always been an issue..

While water is one of the ultimate necessities, I'm happy to pay someone to "make it clean". I do not want to drink from a river or pond.

What people don't realize today is that there was a time when every small town had their own "water works".. they OWNED it, and paid people to run it.

A succession of recessions forced towns all over the place to accept the "generous" offers of corporate water "purveyors" who would "take over" the running of the facilities, for a very small fee.. a win win.. UNTIL consolidation & corporate gambling showed them what they had really done..

Utilities used to be a bargain...until we all gave them away and agreed to pay whatever the new owners told us to pay.

Water is more complicated than just poking a hole in the ground.. Some places won't even allow wells to be dug, and people can go to jail for "stealing" underground water. Riparian rights is a booming segment for many legal firms all over the west.

[hfojvt]

40. many water departments are NOT private entities

Where I live the water company is a public entity but also separate from the city. Because about 70 years ago, the residents didn't like the way the city was running it so they created a separate entity that is run by an elected board.

Two years ago I ran for the board because I didn't like the way they were screwing the smaller customers. This is typical of all utilities though. Instead of charging you at X per gallon, they start out with a flat fee of $10 a month even if you use nothing, and then they also often have declining rate structures as well. Where the amount you pay for each unit gets smaller, the more you buy. Your first 1,000 kilowatts may cost 20 cents each, but after that the price will drop to 10 cents (these are not actual prices, but just for example)

For years I saw the water board also do regressive rate increases. Smaller customers would get a 10% increase in their rates but bigger customers were not getting increases at all.

This last time, I actually managed to stop that and we pushed through a flat rate increase. Next time I hope to go the other way. No increase at the bottom and a small increase at the top.

I still think the board has a bad philosophy in that they run the water department like a private business, instead of running it for the benefit of the residents who are supposed to be the owners. But almost nobody comes to meetings to complain.

[Statistical]

42. The connection charge + usage is a valid structure.

The cost of maintaining the pipe network is more closely related to the number of customers/meters not usage.

So connection charge (pays for cost of maintaining network, billing, meters, checking meters, etc) PLUS per unit delivery charge (pays for cost of acquiring, purifying, pumping, and waste handling) of each gallon of water.

I do agree that having lower price for more consumption is foolish, unfair, and likely encourages over consumption.

[hfojvt]

53. it's a valid structure if you wanna screw the little guy

especially with the water department, those lines have been there for over fifty years and are long paid for. Plus there was the installation charge when they were first put in. There is almost no marginal cost when a customer is added. $2 would cover the cost of billing, sending a post card by bulk mail. Reading 10,000 meters or 10,001 meters costs them the same amount.

And you can cover those costs by the profit on the water you sell, not by gouging people who are unlucky enough to not be part of a family of four.

[Statistical]

54. The lines have been there for 50 years which is why the require maintenance.

The maintenance is a shared cost and is the same regardless of usage.

[hfojvt]

57. but again, maintenance can be covered by profit on water sales

there is no need to charge it on a per customer basis, except the need to provide lower prices to big business and also to large families.

Oh, but they sure have their 'logic' for why the little guy should be screwed. For why I get to pay $12 for 500 gallons of water while Wal-mart pays $1.80 for every 500 gallons. Because if we ALL paid $1.95 for 500 gallons then Wal-mart would pay another $5,000 a month.

Much better for them to get the $5,000 a month by over-charging 1,000 small customers by $5 every month.

All your subsidies are belong to us.

[Statistical]

60. Well i doubt the difference is that extreme.

Still I said I agree with you on the concept of flat pricing. Someone getting 200,000 gallons of water shouldn't have lower per unit price than someone getting 20,000.

I still see nothing wrong with connection pricing to cover maintenance. I doubt anyone is getting screwed. If average connection is $10 then average user would pay $10 more in water prices. At most (someone consuming 0 gallons) would save $10. Most likely the difference is nominal.

Anyways I doubt I will convince you so I will leave it at that.

[hfojvt]

82. well I am on the board, so those are approximate prices

the scale is $11.73 for 0-2 units (a unit being 748 gallons) and then 3.50 per unit for 3-10 units, the 2.25 per unit for 10-50 units and then 1.90 per unit for over 50 units.

My typical bill, as a single person, is usually 0 or 1 unit. Thus, I pay $11.73 for one unit. As do about another 1,000 households which use less than 2 units.

There are over 11,000 customers, and the average household uses about 7 units. Say the water department sells an average of 200,000 units in a month. Knock the 11.73 charge down to $2.73 which would cover postage and billing and some admin. That adds $99,000 to the cost of water. Or about 50 cents per unit.

Those small customers would see their bill go down by about $6 a month. The average household, at seven units, would about break even. Smaller households, using 3-4 units per month would gain, bigger households would lose. But a 1,000 unit customer would see an increase of $500 per month.

So the subsidy/gouge is only $6 a month or $72 a year, but it still represents a transfer from a low income households and small businesses to bigger businesses of something like $5,000 per month, given that there are over 1,000 households using less than 2 units per month, and many more households using 3-4 units per month who are paying much more per unit.

And if you consider that the gas company and the electric company are doing the same thing. To me it represents another way that money is taken from the poor and given to the rich.

[MineralMan]

43. People aren't paying for the water. They're paying for the infrastructure,

the treatment plant that makes sure it's safe to drink, and the people that make all that work. All of that costs money, and it's typically paid for by the people who use the water. You could dig a well, but that costs money, too. Where I live, I could also walk six blocks and carry water back from the local lake, but I wouldn't drink that water without boiling it.

[cbdo2007]

47. It's like air - go outside and get polluted air for free, or go to one of those oxygen

bars and get purified oxygen for a fee.

You want free water set up one of those rain catcher barrels.

[white_wolf]

51. After reading

the responses to this thread I have to concede that I may have over simplified things a bit. Perhaps I am too idealistic?

[stuntcat]

63. it's

It's good for everyone to help with supplying the water, true. It also seems terrible for people, especially poor people, to be denied clean water. I mean, it's water.

I've thought of this a lot the last few years. Thought of how peoples' use of it could bottleneck before too long. Thought of how hell-like it will be when our wars start being over water. It makes me idealistic too, wishing we could all have it. Right now billions of people don't have clean water and it will get worse.

(edit for facts)

[yellowcanine]

64. All you have to do is travel to some other countries to appreciate what we have.

And I am not just talking Africa, Central America and Central Asia.

I am talking Western Europe as well.

For all of the complaints about cost here water is one of the things we seem to have figured out in this country better than most other countries. For the most part we have cheap clean water and lots of it. That is no reason to get complacent - there are plenty of things to worry about. But cost certainly isn't one of them in most areas.

[badtoworse]

55. Totally asinine post

Treating and distributing water entails cost; so does generating and distributing electricity. Just because something is paid for with tax dollars doesn't mean it's free - someone still has to pay the taxes. I guess you don't pay taxes because if you did, you'd be screaming about the disconnect between what you pay and what you use. If you use a lot, you should pay more than someone who uses a little, shouldn't you? Besides that, if they were free, where would the incentive be to conserve the natural resources that are required to provide these utilities?

Did you think before you posted that?

[white_wolf]

58. Clearly you didn't bother

to read any of my responses to this thread so I'm not going to bother dealing with you.

[yellowcanine]

61. Well the asinine-ness of the OP is there regardless of the responses.

Kind of like that email that got sent - it is out there and you are responsible for it even if you modify or pull back from it later. And he basically said what you said in your last response - that the OP wasn't well thought out. So why take it so personally?

[badtoworse]

62. Your responses are still pretty naive

Just because something is run by a not for profit entity does not necessarily mean it's being run at the lowest cost. I've worked in the electric power business for most of my career with quite a bit of it spent in foreign countries. Some of the most bloated, expensive electic utilities I've seen were government owned (i.e. not for profit) If a for profit company can come in and provide the same or better service at lower cost and still make a profit, what is wrong with that? Would you be happy paying a higher price knowing that no one is getting rich off you? I wouldn't.

Sorry if I came off a bit harsh.

[csziggy]

69. DOes the fee for water also include sewage service?

So even if you have your own source for water, it has to go somewhere once it is used. Or do you have a 100% method of recycling your water and waste products? If so, the world needs that knowledge!

[Codeine]

70. If they don't pay anything for it they will waste it in insane quantities.

Suburbia wastes enough water already on lawns and pools and half-hour-long showers.

[NickB79]

75. How about you throw food in there as well?

It's just as vital as water, and more so than electricity.

[itsrobert]

78. And shelter, and clothing

and IPODs

[Codeine]

81. I could use a new car.

And this laptop ain't getting any younger.

[Maru Kitteh]

79. Fresh out of the nest I take it? Sucks how much life actually costs, doesn't it?

I used to think my parents were being cheap when they said "we can't afford X." Oh how quickly that lesson was learned.

[white_wolf]

83. Okay, so I was wrong

and wasn't really thinking about the costs involved. Fine, but I still say there is something wrong with denying people water, but I'm done with this thread.