There should be two rules in wars. Do not hit civilian infrastructure, and do not put military infrastructure near civilian infrastructure. Both should be a war crime, both during and outside of wars.

Military infrastructure should also not be dependent on civilian infrastructure as that blur the line between military and civilian.

It is an open question what media and thus we the public should do when nations ignore this. If a nation put military surveillance equipment onto fishing boats, like the Russian shadow fleet did, with some military personal onboard that operate the equipment, does that make the civilian fishermen also military personal, or should the military equipment and personal be treated as civilian since they are in a technically civilian ship?

I don't think the question we should ask is if people think hitting civilian drinking water as retaliation for a military helicopter is ok. It is obviously not ok and framing it like that only normalize the idea that hitting civilian targets could ever be acceptable. The only question we should be looking at is if the civilian infrastructure and military infrastructure was intentional built close to each other, thus making this two war crimes.

Your argument is poorly thought out.

All civilian infrastructure is dual-use. Militaries will use civilian roads, highways, bridges, and airports when necessary. Militaries use civilian water facilities, buy fuel at civilian petrol stations, and power military equipment using the civilian electrical grid. Militaries frequently commandeer civilian infrastructure when necessary. Without providing a clear definition of what is civilian infrastructure and what is military infrastructure, all civilian infrastructure can be considered military infrastructure.