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.

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.

> The claim was that these people didn't pay.

That's literally not what people were claiming. This is a lie.

If anyone actually cares about this thread, please hit "parent" a few times to see what everyone really wrote.

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.

I won't repeat anything I've already repeated. That seems to be a waste of time.