> Gasoline is absolutely rationed when it becomes scarce after having been plentiful.

Sure, but OP is advocating that we should "systematically [use] a pricing structure that charges disproportionately more for usage above high thresholds." They're not arguing that this is something to be applied only in emergencies.

Similarly in your post, you use the need to ration gas after a hurricane to argue that we should ration water all the time. This does not follow.

> Both water rights and water utilities are gamed by people who have resources. The people that are hurt are usually poor utilities bill payers, rural residents who are the first to lose service when wells dry up, and anyone who thinks they have water rights until an upstream user exhausts their expected supply.

The logical extension of your argument here is that the world would be better if we subsidized gasoline for "poor utilities bill payers" and "rural residents".

But why gasoline and water specifically? Why not also healthcare, food, childcare, and other necessities?

Then consider, if we have a budget of $X per family to subsidize necessities, surely the government is not best suited to decide how to split up those dollars between water, gas, healthcare, food, and childcare? There's no right answer universally, some people need food more than they need gas, and vice versa. Surely an individual family would be better equipped to decide for themselves?

We have now invented "giving money to poor people instead of subsidizing demand", which I wholeheartedly support.