A suburb in Arizona is suing the city of Scottsdale, Arizona, after its city water supplies were shut off.

Rio Verde Foothills had its water turned off by the city of Scottsdale earlier this month. Scottsdale has sold water to around 500 to 700 residences in the area, but it said that it cannot afford to spare the water anymore and needs to keep it for the people who live in its own city.

On Thursday, residents filed a lawsuit against Scottsdale to try to get it to start giving the small community water again.

The lawsuit noted that EPCOR, a water utility business, wants to set up a water facility to give water to Rio Verde. Until it is greenlit and its facility is established and sending water to Rio Verde, EPCOR wants to “provide Central Arizona Project (CAP) water at no cost to Scottsdale to replace” the water Rio Verde was getting, as well as provide funds for Scottsdale to treat the water. Scottsdale could then give water to Rio Verde at no cost to its finances or resources.

Scottsdale has noted that it would not operate with outside businesses in order to give water to Rio Verde Foothills.

“Rio Verde is a separate community governed by Maricopa County, not the City of Scottsdale. Scottsdale has warned and advised that it is not responsible for Rio Verde for many years, especially given the requirements of the City’s mandated drought plan,” Scottsdale said in a statement on Monday. “The city remains firm in that position, and confident it is on the right side of the law.”

Residents of Rio Verde are trying to cut down on water use by taking laundry to friends’ houses and even using rainwater to flush the toilets. They are not taking as many showers and are using paper plates over dishes, The New York Times reported.

Water used to be delivered via trucks to Rio Verde houses that didn’t have wells, but now the delivery trucks have to go on longer trips in order to bring water to the region, which has led to an up-charge for people getting the water.

While the recent storms in California have been helpful in replenishing some of the land and reservoirs, the drought has still caused immense damage. Lake Mead has become shockingly dry and the Colorado River has been struggling.

“It’s a cautionary tale for home buyers,” Sarah Porter, the director of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University, said, per the Times. “We can’t just protect every single person who buys a parcel and builds a home. There isn’t enough money or water.” She noted that other parts of Arizona also get their water from bigger cities that are close by.

The United Kingdom has taken action to stop a Scottish measure from being implemented that would determine how people officially alter their designated gender in Scotland.

Scottish Secretary Alister Jack said Monday that the U.K. government was going to prohibit the passage of the Scottish legislation.

In an oral statement to parliament published Tuesday, Jack pointed out that the bill would create a new way for someone to apply for “legal gender recognition in Scotland.” It would lower the minimum age a person can apply to get a Gender Recognition Certificate and take away the necessity to get diagnosed medically, as well as the proof that the person has lived “for two years in their acquired gender.”

Jack said he was creating an order “under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 preventing the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent.”

He said the government “believes however that transgender people deserve our respect, our support and our understanding,” but his choice to make the order “is centred [sic] on the legislation’s consequences for the operation of reserved matters, including equality legislation across Scotland, England and Wales.”

When putting forward the new potential guidelines, the Scottish government said, “We think that trans people should not have to go through a process that can be demeaning, intrusive, distressing and stressful in order to be legally recognized in their lived gender.”

Jack said that the bill would “have a serious adverse impact, among other things, on the operation of the Equality Act 2010.” The negative aspects, he said, involve how single-sex clubs, schools, and groups work, as well as safeguards like equal pay.

He also said that the government has the same concerns as many other people and organizations over the possible effect of the legislation on women and girls.

Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon has noted there were “no grounds” for the U.K. government to not allow it to go through, making the argument that it didn’t impact the Equality Act.

Sturgeon told the BBC that Jack was carrying out a “profound mistake” and claimed that he is starting a “direct attack on the institution of the Scottish Parliament.” Sturgeon noted that this would “inevitably end up in court” and that the government of Scotland would “vigorously defend this legislation.”

“In doing so we will be vigorously defending something else, and that is the institution of the Scottish Parliament and the ability of MSPs, democratically elected, to legislate in areas of our competence,” Sturgeon said. “In short, we’ll be defending Scottish democracy.”

The U.K. government has not taken this step ever before since the Scottish Parliament started in 1999.