Should Boiling Crab Charge For Water?

By Dave Lieberman Mon., Mar. 15 2010 at 9:00 AM

Categories: Indigestion

Pin It

Vickie Chang

Our Web editor, Vickie Chang, was at Garden Grove's Boiling Crab restaurant last week and noticed a new charge hanging out on her bill: 25¢ per glass of water.

Not boiling water for tea, not bottled or sparkling water, just Metropolitan Water District Cocktail No. 1.

She objected to the charge. I'm not so sure. It wouldn't be so bad if the food weren't so salty. (Try eating at Boiling Crab and not coming away with a sodium headache.) It used to be that you could cut the salt by buying a loaf of baguette from Banh Mi Che Cali a few doors down for a dollar, but then Boiling Crab stopped allowing that practice.

Restaurants are certainly allowed to recuperate their costs, and the "free" water isn't actually free (it costs the restaurant to wash the dish, to serve and refill the water and, one would hope, to filter the water), but unfortunately for Boiling Crab the prevailing business model in the American restaurant business is against them, and consumers like Vickie object to the "unbundling" of water.

I don't feel very strongly anti-water charge, but it'd be a good business decision (from a customer relations point of view) to find another place to hide that cost.

Like this Story?

Sign up for the Dining Newsletter: The week's top local food news and events, plus interviews with chefs and restaurant owners, dining tips, and a peek at our print review.

Write Comment

Email to Friend

Print Article

Related Content

Since when do business establishments charge for tap water? This is tacky. I guess when the hype does go away...guess who's going to have all the tables for customers who are not going to come anymore?
Terrible service at the door already...too long of a wait...hostesses and guards act like bouncers...not enough tables for patrons to eat at a REASONABLE time...then nickle and diming customers for tap water? Wow! I wonder how long they'll be in business when the hype is gone?
I just tried to grab an feed for the RSS for this site but it is not properly showing up in Google Chrome. Does anyone have any suggestions???
I tried to get the feed for the RSS to this blogsite and I am not sure why, but it is not properly showing up in Google Chrome. Does anyone have any ideas??
No one should be judge in his own cause.
Actually, I don't mind them charging for water because I asked them and apparently it was not only the result of going from their styrofoam cups to recycled plastic (which I applaud since styrofoam makes me cringe) but also they claimed they spent quite a lot on a water filter system. They said they hesitated initially but then discovered that the charge discouraged people from ordering a round or waters and never touching them which helped elmininate excessive waste. So I don't really mind it's just .25 cents and at least it's filtered..
That's tacky. Hide the charge somewhere else or accept the loss on the cost of water. I would be ticked enough to never go there again, if that happened to me.
PAY UP - $50.00 per month - for NO WATER! How about being FORCED to pay $50.00 per month (apx) - for NO WATER? At South Coast Water District (an OC "Special District" = Public Utility MONOPOLY) they now charge their residential customers $50.00 each & every MONTH (apx) for .... NO WATER (or sewer). They call it a "stand by charge," & HIDE-IT on the property tax bill. Shouldn't conserving water be rewarded? SCWD's scheme effectively PUNISHES water conservators, as conservers are being forced to pay far more per gallon of water used (actual, total cost), then non-conservers!!! At SCWD - water conserving residents & average users are subsidizing non-conservers. SCWD is Reverse Robin Hoods - they are taking from the poor (water conservers & avg users) & give to the rich (who use a lot & are paying far less then they should, because their usage is being subsidized by the low & avg users through the districts EXCESSIVE stand by charges). That's a Gross Water Inequity - worthy of a story - or an expose?
The only difference between a glass of water and a glass of coke is the water is expected to be free. I've always thought that since I incur the cost of purchasing the water, filtering the water, making ice, buying the glass, washing the glass, and paying the server to get you the glass that I should be able to charge for water...but since I've never wanted the backlash that Boiling Crab is now receiving I've adhered to standard practice of giving water away for free.
Will they also start charging for napkins?
I agree that this is a bad business concept. I have never been inside Boiling Crab, but interesting enough there is a restaurant named Mon Ami in the same parking lot that last time I was there charged .49 for a glass of water.
Do they charge 25c if you want a refill?
I'm undecided on charging for tap, but nickel and diming (and quartering) just leaves a bad taste in my mouth... As a hangover cure, I used to partake in a toasted Subway sandwich (don't judge) because it was walking distance from a friend's house. That is--until I noticed a "toasting fee" on my receipt. Loose change, but still bad business. I was a Bagel Broker customer after that. Guarantee they could find another place to cut costs, or simply increase revenue by changing their beverage pitch ("Would you like a Coke with that?" instead of "Anything to drink?")
I never viewed Boiling Crab with much esteem, but this proves they are not smart businesspeople. Boiling Crab, to me, is less an enticing eatery and more of just another place for 20something male Jet Li wannabes to get their Masculinity cards punched. Think of it this way: if they're stupid and petty enough to want to charge for water, do you really want to take a chance on their food and their service?
this doesn't bother me at all. california is in a water crisis, and often times restaurants give you water when you haven't asked for it. sometimes the glass sits there full because the person doesn't drink it. every now and then, restaurants have signs that say they won't give you water unless you ask for it, but not enough restaurants do this. i think it's a small price to pay to conserve a little bit of water. i do think they should warn customers of the charge though...
"I don't feel very strongly anti-water charge, but it'd be a good business decision (from a customer relations point of view) to find another place to hide that cost." That's exactly what they should do. I would pay $.25 more for food, but if I saw the $.25 charge for water on my bill, I would be pretty pissed. It's all I ever order to drink.