It would be more correct to say that they don't have access to money. If someone lives next door to a grocery store you wouldn't say they don't have access to food. Likewise if someone can't pay their water bill, they are in danger of not obtaining any neccesaties like food or heat.
The problem would be more clear to say they don't have access to any free water or don't have access to money or a source of income. Saying they don't have access to water implies the infrastructure isn't there, which is not the problem that needs to be solved in this case.
there is no material difference: if your water is cutoff, the reason does not matter.
it just seems incredibly shortsighted to put the entire population in danger because of a few dollars
Again, I don't know if anyone is actually critical of turning people's water back on and that isn't what is being talked about here.
All I said was that saying in a general sense that people don't have access to water implies infrastructure problems which isn't the case here.
When someone says 'infrastructure and access isn't the problem' and you say "I for one, think people deserve water" that's just nonsensical and self righteous.
The problem would be more clear to say they don't have access to any free water or don't have access to money or a source of income. Saying they don't have access to water implies the infrastructure isn't there, which is not the problem that needs to be solved in this case.