You can make adjustments based on the size of the unit, number of occupants, or even the appliances (dishwasher, clothes washer, etc.) but that's usually not that important because the actual water usage is so cheap (only $5.20 in this example for a duplex with two tenants).

Sometimes I suspect the only reason I haven't gotten mugged is that in my work clothes I probably look worse than what lives in the neighborhood. 

The only thing the guy had were his clothes and his pay check, and he wanted to get back to Atlanta.  

The case is REMANDED to the lower court for reception of evidence as to the amount claimed by the respondents for the preservation and maintenance of the property.SO ORDERED.Hence, the instant petition for review raising the following issues:ITHE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF THE AMOUNT USED TO PURCHASE THE LAND AS WELL AS THE COSTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE, FOR IN SO RULING, IT INDIRECTLY ALLOWED AN ACT DONE WHICH OTHERWISE COULD NOT BE DIRECTLY x x x DONE, WITHOUT DOING VIOLENCE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROSCRIPTION THAT AN ALIEN IS PROHIBITED FROM ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE PHILIPPINES.IITHE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN SUSTAINING RESPONDENT'S CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH IS ACTUALLY A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN OWNERSHIP OVER THE LOT IN QUESTION, CLOTHED UNDER THE GUISE OF CLAIMING REIMBURSEMENT.Petitioner contends that respondent, being an alien, is disqualified to own private lands in the Philippines; that respondent was aware of the constitutional prohibition but circumvented the same; and that respondent's purpose for filing an action for separation of property is to obtain exclusive possession, control and disposition of the Antipolo property.Respondent claims that he is not praying for transfer of ownership of the Antipolo property but merely reimbursement; that the funds paid by him for the said property were in consideration of his marriage to petitioner; that the funds were given to petitioner in trust; and that equity demands that respondent should be reimbursed of his personal funds.The issue for resolution is whether respondent is entitled to reimbursement of the funds used for the acquisition of the Antipolo property.The petition has merit.Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution states:Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.Aliens, whether individuals or corporations, are disqualified from acquiring lands of the public domain.

While on the topic of aviation, the unmanned aircraft systems program at the K-State Salina campus has also been bringing a lot of attention, growing pretty substantially in its own right over the past several years.And on top of all that, we somehow still manage to have plenty of shoe and electronic stores to keep everyone well clothed and in communication.

We are not interested in the photos, personal papers, or clothing items.  

They have to wash all clothes with hot water and high heat and keep them in garbage bags following washing until unit is fully treated 3 times over a couple of weeks.

If one person lives in the house and a couple with baby lives in the apartment - guess who'll uses more water, takes more showers, bathes the baby, uses more water for cooking, washes more clothes?

One of those 4 kW heaters is 16 A at 240 V; two of those are equal to a clothes dryer. 

@Kyle Scofield, by virtue of the fact that you provided more than one-half of your own support in 2015, your parents cannot claim you as a dependent.Keep in mind that support includes amounts spent to provide: Food,Lodging,Clothing,Education,Medical and dental care,Recreation,Transportation, andSimilar necessities.So if you provide more than one-half of these amounts for yourself, you cannot be claimed as a dependent."