4 ms·

they do pay into it, every time they buy the water. exchanging currency for valuable goods is a pretty well-established process.

by Kapura 1y ago

jasonlotito 1y ago
They paid for the water that the municipality could afford to sell. They didn't pay into the municipality. If the municipality doesn't have excess water, why should they be forced to sell it?
- nyeah 1y ago
  They paid the municipality for the water, but they didn't pay the municipality. Got it.
  - lokar 1y ago
    There is a very real legal and practical difference between paying for 100G of water, and paying for the right to buy 100G per week for the next N years. Both have a price in the American west, and they did not pay the latter price.
    - nyeah 1y ago
      Nobody is arguing otherwise, including the people interviewed in the article. The claim was that these people didn't pay. That claim turns out to be incorrect.
      - jasonlotito 1y ago
        > The claim was that these people didn't pay. That's literally not what people were claiming. This is a lie.
        nyeah 1y ago
        If anyone actually cares about this thread, please hit "parent" a few times to see what everyone really wrote.
  - jasonlotito 1y ago
    That's not what people are saying. People are saying they weren't paying into the municipality. That implies people paying into the municipality are paying for more than just water. The people buying the water were just buying water. Now, maybe that's now how you think of it, but I'm sure you can see how others see it. Even YOU understand the difference because you had to misrepresent what people were saying. > They paid the municipality for the water, but they didn't pay into the municipality. That's the difference. "into" doesn't mean they are merely paying the municipality, but rather, they are paying to support the municipality. The people buying water? They are merely buying water that's up for sale. That's it. There is no implication beyond that. Intent matters. And it's clear that the outsiders had no intention of supporting the municipality even if you want to suggest that was the case.
    - nyeah 1y ago
      I won't repeat anything I've already repeated. That seems to be a waste of time.
michaelt 1y ago
Many countries have rural water users subsidised by urban water users, because rural users need 100 times as much pipe buried and maintained per customer, but everyone pays the same rate for water. Of course, in my country we tolerate that - it's normal for food to flow into urban areas and money to flow out, water pricing is just an obscure element of that.
- ajb 1y ago
  These users were not in the piped network. They were driving to a station to collect water in tanks. If anything, that's cheaper to maintain.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    Even if it's not "cheaper" it's not the utility's problem what the user's hauling equipment costs.
- bombcar 1y ago
  I’ve never seen “rural” properties on “city” water unless a pipe happened to be running down the road for an existing development anyway. Otherwise it’s all wells, sometimes tremendously deep.
  - bluGill 1y ago
    Depends on the area. I live in iowa - nearly everyone is on rural water because wells don't produce much water. I'm on a well and I can't water my lawn - after an hour my well is empty. My well is about a meter in diameter so that should be a lot stored. it would be $20k to extend the city water pipe to my lot. i used to live in MN, there I knew farmers on a 5cm well who had no problem watering lawns, and 50 cows from the well. in colorado where this story is water is less available than iowa. (most farms have a year round creek that could be treated to become drinkable)
    - bombcar 1y ago
      That’s one of the real solutions - we shouldn’t be using potable water for everything. Houses that are plumbed on city water should have two water sources - potable and other.

they do pay into it, every time they buy the water. exchanging currency for valuable goods is a pretty well-established process.

by Kapura 1y ago

they do pay into it, every time they buy the water. exchanging currency for valuable goods is a pretty well-established process.

jasonlotito 1y ago

They paid for the water that the municipality could afford to sell. They didn't pay into the municipality. If the municipality doesn't have excess water, why should they be forced to sell it?

nyeah 1y ago
They paid the municipality for the water, but they didn't pay the municipality. Got it.
- lokar 1y ago
  There is a very real legal and practical difference between paying for 100G of water, and paying for the right to buy 100G per week for the next N years. Both have a price in the American west, and they did not pay the latter price.
  - nyeah 1y ago
    Nobody is arguing otherwise, including the people interviewed in the article. The claim was that these people didn't pay. That claim turns out to be incorrect.
    - jasonlotito 1y ago
      > The claim was that these people didn't pay. That's literally not what people were claiming. This is a lie.
      - nyeah 1y ago
        If anyone actually cares about this thread, please hit "parent" a few times to see what everyone really wrote.
- jasonlotito 1y ago
  That's not what people are saying. People are saying they weren't paying into the municipality. That implies people paying into the municipality are paying for more than just water. The people buying the water were just buying water. Now, maybe that's now how you think of it, but I'm sure you can see how others see it. Even YOU understand the difference because you had to misrepresent what people were saying. > They paid the municipality for the water, but they didn't pay into the municipality. That's the difference. "into" doesn't mean they are merely paying the municipality, but rather, they are paying to support the municipality. The people buying water? They are merely buying water that's up for sale. That's it. There is no implication beyond that. Intent matters. And it's clear that the outsiders had no intention of supporting the municipality even if you want to suggest that was the case.
  - nyeah 1y ago
    I won't repeat anything I've already repeated. That seems to be a waste of time.

michaelt 1y ago

Many countries have rural water users subsidised by urban water users, because rural users need 100 times as much pipe buried and maintained per customer, but everyone pays the same rate for water. Of course, in my country we tolerate that - it's normal for food to flow into urban areas and money to flow out, water pricing is just an obscure element of that.

ajb 1y ago
These users were not in the piped network. They were driving to a station to collect water in tanks. If anything, that's cheaper to maintain.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  Even if it's not "cheaper" it's not the utility's problem what the user's hauling equipment costs.
bombcar 1y ago
I’ve never seen “rural” properties on “city” water unless a pipe happened to be running down the road for an existing development anyway. Otherwise it’s all wells, sometimes tremendously deep.
- bluGill 1y ago
  Depends on the area. I live in iowa - nearly everyone is on rural water because wells don't produce much water. I'm on a well and I can't water my lawn - after an hour my well is empty. My well is about a meter in diameter so that should be a lot stored. it would be $20k to extend the city water pipe to my lot. i used to live in MN, there I knew farmers on a 5cm well who had no problem watering lawns, and 50 cows from the well. in colorado where this story is water is less available than iowa. (most farms have a year round creek that could be treated to become drinkable)
  - bombcar 1y ago
    That’s one of the real solutions - we shouldn’t be using potable water for everything. Houses that are plumbed on city water should have two water sources - potable and other.