Your hypothesis fails when the playing field is so wildly varied in terms of buying power.

Your whole premise revolves around the premise that people are mostly equal in their buying power and that those who “value a resource” the most would thus pay the most for it.

“Ensuring the people who truly need the water can access it”

You also ascertain that the gouging of prices “may” discourage hoarding.

There is a lot of heavy lifting being done by those few words in your (imo deeply flawed) statement.

A hypothetical: if I (a local business magnate and multi-millionaire) hear about a big storm incoming, I could decide to send my assistant to buy 15 pallets of water from the local store. This is due to my own desire to have enough water plus spare to cover all my families needs. I worry about the possibility of flooding etc limiting any further deliveries of water and as a past boy-scout I like the idea of “always being prepared”, so calculate 3 months of water would be best for the week long storm plus fallout and contingency, I can also write it off as a tax deduction through my business.

I have enough money to pay well over the odds, and am happily willing to do so as my own (selfish) desire to ‘protect’ my family is far stronger than any notion or sense of charity to the local populace that I do not interact with.

In this not unlikely scenario, it turns out that I can buy the entire local stores worth of water, even at the vastly overpriced “gouging” rates.

My assistant is literally paid to make sure I get that amount of water, to be first in line, and can spend any amount of time or actions (within the law) to get it (and may well even use immoral practices to get what I want- as I am a demanding boss- for example potentially even resorting to additional spending in the form of bribes).

So, if your example of “best practice price gouging” is followed I can take the entirety of the bottled water supply out of the market.

-I don’t have to do it for any gain or scalping profit, I just do it as water is a fundamental need for life -and I value it and my family, and crucially, have the *means** to pay more than anyone else*.

My actions aren’t selfish in many ways, as I haven’t even considered the fact that I have bought the whole stores supply, I am not directly or maliciously aiming to deprive anyone else, furthermore I am not doing it to profit at all- I am simply focused on personal survival for me and mine.

However, following your “price-gouging mindset” suggestion- my ability to buy at a vastly increased cost, has in fact NOT created a scenario where those who need it most, get it. It has NOT led to more fair or equal distribution, and nor has it led to me NOT hoarding, as that is exactly what I have done.

The only way I am stopped, would be if the store enacts a policy stating that I cannot buy everything and stock is rationed and limited per person, with the store taking into account the likely wider needs of the local population.

TLDR- your hypothesis does not get close to taking into account the vastly different levels of funding that individuals have particularly at the local level that many of these disasters occur at.