I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink

I'm going to back up from prison a bit and explore the parable from the thirst side, kind of how we looked at homelessness.

On a very basic level, this can be literally someone asking for a drink and providing it, but this is normally only going to happen with guests in your home. You can be surprised by circumstances: last week two witnesses to an accident were waiting for the police outside our house, and we offered them beverages. Perhaps it could involve offering to pay for someone's beverage on a social occasion to allow them to participate when funds are tight. It is still less likely that you will encounter thirsty people than hungry people or sick people or strangers who need taking in.That doesn't mean that thirst isn't a problem, just that it may be less visible.

So you may find that in warmer weather some people keep bottles of water on them and some specifically seek out people who may need that water and some set up cooling stations to try and alleviate that need.

Beyond that, you might look at more permanent options. Portland's fountains started with a gift from Simon Benson. Whether it was because he wanted to keep lumberjacks out of saloons or because of seeing a thirsty girl, they have been a benefit to many people and animals. It was a good thing.

It was also something that took advantage of an existing source of clean, fresh water, which is not always available. In light of that, communities that heedlessly tap deeper into groundwater without thinking about sustainability should think carefully. Communities should think carefully about letting companies come in and bottle water, encasing it in plastic and shipping it away for a profit. It may be hard to resolve thirst once you have created it.

Are the negatives worth the benefits and are those equally shared? Because the community may be getting some increase in jobs or rental fees, but those will probably be dwarfed by the potential profits going to someone else, or it would not be a good business proposition for the company.

Allowing fracking contaminates groundwater. It seems to correlate with cancer and birth defects. Even if you ship in drinking water, but people are bathing in it and growing plants in it, and local animals are drinking in it, is it worth it?

This brings us to Flint, Michigan. For 1290 days, they have not had clean water. Along with a permanent impact on developing brains of children and an increase in miscarriages, there are people have water shut off for not paying their bills, because apparently it is not required for the water to be drinkable.

There were options set up for helping people pay their water bills, which I participated in, and some people have received some help with shipments of water and filters, but the overall problem has still not been solved, and there is something important to look at here.

The change to the water system was not something that the citizens decided on to save money, or that the properly elected water board decided on to save money. In fact, there were better options that were less expensive. Cost-cutting measures were cited, but the choices were based on who could profit, and those decisions were made by an emergency manager imposed by the state.

There can be legitimate questions about whether declaring an emergency was necessary or whether the state's emended emergency manager law put in place earlier that year is good legislation, but there shouldn't be any controversy over whether the things you do in an emergency should put profit above people.

It still happens again and again. The initial contract for repairing the electrical grid in Puerto Rico is a good example of that, though it looks like that will not stand.

It is not easy to know what to do about this type of corruption. It may often be that as an individual there is not something that can be clearly done, so maybe you pay for five filters, and try and convince friends to buy more, or you contribute to a legal fight. There are many levels on which you can give.

What I think is most important here is the glory we give to riches, even as Christians, when they were pretty explicitly condemned by Christ. When we allow hunger, thirst, and illness to flourish so that someone can be rich, we are not followers of Christ. Individual charity may at times be the only means available, but we should not unquestioningly assume that.

I am not sure where looking at the larger structure will lead, but I am certain that we need to look.

https://www.nrdc.org/flint