• techt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          35
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          “Although the water provided to the third party is still being paid for, the water previously provided to the third party for which that third party had not paid remains unpaid and the incentive to pay that debt is reduced,” Court of Appeals Judge John Melanson wrote for a unanimous court. “This threatens the city’s ability to provide low-cost water services.”

          “We depend on fining disadvantaged people for revenue and you will not threaten that.”

      • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector

        Sounds like I can set up a food truck and “sell” water with the whole “pay what you can” model

      • AIhasUse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah, that has to do with not allowing people to try to sway votes as people are going to vote, I think. I can’t find anywhere that even claims anyone in a US state is not allowed to give their neighbor water.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          51
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          No it doesn’t. It has to do with Republicans wanting people standing in line for hours to vote to get thirsty, give up, and leave without voting. This is because (a) Democratic-leaning areas tend to have longer lines for “reasons,” and (b) lower turnout favors Republicans.

          • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            6 months ago

            I believe this was also passed after they unexpectedly closed a bunch of polling places in predominantly Democrat voting areas just days before the Presidential election, which led to lines several blocks long of people standing out in the sun with no shade or access to water or bathrooms.

    • Zess@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s probably considered stealing like if you were to use a cable splitter to take your neighbor’s Internet. Except that’s bullshit for a metered water connection so fuck whoever made that law or regulation.

    • wildcardology@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s also illegal to give water to people in line to vote. it’s also illegal to have a water break for workers working outside in the heat.

      • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        It’s also illegal to have a water break for workers working outside in the heat.

        It’s simultaneously more and less evil than that. The ruling was that the state cannot compell employers to provide water breaks for employees working in the heat. So those people who can’t take a water break while working 13 hrs a day in direct sun are forced to do so by their employers greed, and not because of some legal obligation.

    • dev_null@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      At least where I live, you get billed separately for the incoming water and drainage. So if I’m not paying the utility, and get water to my property from my neighbor, then I’m not paying for the drainage I’m using when I flush that water down my drain.

      Of course the situation is ridiculous, but this is how I’d imagine this being illegal, you are “stealing” the drainage service.

            • dev_null@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              They are billed separately, but there is no meter, it’s just assumed by the amount of water you use.

              • diannetea@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                6 months ago

                Sewage is most likely still just calculated by how much water you use. In my state they are separate but you can pay for a sewer deduction meter to go on outside spigots so you’re not paying for the sewage for outside use, but they’re almost $700 so I haven’t bothered.

              • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                But it doesn’t matter because the person paying for your water is also paying for your sewage.

                There is nothing stolen.

                  • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    Yes, there is a line item. There is also a line item for taxes. But saying “it’s on my bill too” supports the OP’s claim despite the OP being wrong.

                    If you pay for your friend’s dinner at a restaurant, they aren’t stealing just because the bill has separate line items for food, service, taxes, etc. You are paying it all.

      • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        The drainage costs are just tied to consumption so it would still be double if you are using double the water

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        It’s a separate line item but it isn’t metered so it doesn’t matter. Because the person paying for your water is also paying for your flushing.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I could see a utility company or township having some local rule written as something like ‘running a hose between houses’ being prohibited without any condition of intent to make it easier enforce when people are stealing water, and then using it against someone sharing on purpose because vague rules/laws tend to be twisted to punish people in a way far different than the intent.

      Or it could be intentional in the same way as anti-homeless laws where people are just being punished for helping out the poor.

      • ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        It’s likely a utility law, that states any connection for drinking or food use must be potable. And a hose doesn’t qualify.

        Yes it’s technically about safety. But in that instance it’s used to punish the poor.

    • quindraco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      Since OP used American terminology, probably they’re claiming America, which would mean you need to ask which state, as water bills and such are a state law thing.

      So far as I know there is no state with a law like this, but odds are very good OP never learned the nuances of the situation and something else illegal was going on, like delinquency or fraud on the water bill, or if they were in drought conditions and going over their ration due to supplying a bonus household.

      In fact, my first guess is fraud, if this “hose” was connected before the meter, meaning the family was drawing more water than they were paying for.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Nowhere.

      The water company will do this intentionally when they have water mains to repair. When the street my mother in law lived on had a water main repaired, the water company hooked a hose from her neighbor’s house to supply her water. Later they came and hooked her water to the next house down as they worked there way down the street.

      But I could still see police doing it because they don’t know the law.

    • bluemellophone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      As a few have guessed, it could be related to how the sewer usage is accounted for, but that’s unlikely since they are neighboring addresses. It could also be due to local water restrictions but they likely wouldn’t have cut off the water due to a relatively light civil penalty. What few have guessed, it is almost surely a public health restriction to prevent cross contamination and backflow between two serviced addresses.

      There are very good reasons why we all want every exit to the public water network to be isolated, which comes with safety inspections and other requirements. As soon as your break down that model of one address serving more than one address, it makes a massive mess of maintaining and inspecting the safety of the water delivery network.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        When water mains need to be repaired, the water company connects homes with hoses so they have water during repairs. My mother in law got her water from a hose connected to her neighbor for two weeks during repairs.