Rebecca Nelson thought that she was helping the environment when she captured rainwater in a barrel and use it on her garden. Car dealer Mark Miller thought he was “greening” his facility with a cistern to use to wash vehicles. They were both violating the law in Utah where it is against the law to capture rain water. With California creating a “water bank,” one can imagine an expanded array of hydrocrimes, including bank robbery with intent to garden.
Boyd Clayton, the deputy state engineer, explained that citizens who capture water are depriving people with water rights: “Obviously if you use the water upstream, it won’t be there for the person to use it downstream.”
“Utah’s the second driest state in the nation. Our water laws ought to catch up with that,” Miller says.
It is hard to imagine who Col. Jack Ripper of Dr. Strangelove will be able to make his only beverage of rye and rainwater. It is not clear how pool owners fare but the law seems turn on a matter of intent. You can have a pool but not a cistern or barrel. Birdbaths are an obviously gray area.
Next time Clayton and the water police appear, Utahans can always sing out in protest:
Raindrops keep fallin’ on my head
And just like the guy whose feet are too big for his bed
Nothin’ seems to fit
Those raindrops are fallin’ on my head, they keep fallin’So I just did me some talkin’ to the sun
And I said I didn’t like the way he got things done
Sleepin’ on the job
Those raindrops are fallin’ on my head, they keep fallin’But there’s one thing I know
The blues they send to meet me won’t defeat me
It won’t be long till happiness steps up to greet meRaindrops keep fallin’ on my head
But that doesn’t mean my eyes will soon be turnin’ red
Cryin’s not for me
‘Cause I’m never gonna stop the rain by complainin’
Because I’m free
Nothin’s worryin’ me
For the full story, click here.
Better close your mouth when walking in the rain. You might accidentally swallow some, and then they’d throw you in the pokey!
Dr_Dredd,
No that’s O.K. because eventually that water will go downstream. Loved your “photo shoot” comment on “Stranger with a Camera”!
That law has got to be unenforcable.
How can a state license the rain?
The rain belongs to whomever it falls on.
I’d take this one to the Supreme Court. I’m not sure on what grounds, but there must be an unconstitutionality to it somewhere. Its the RAIN! If it falls on my head or my property, then its mine.
Certainly mineral rights to the land would cover the use of rain falling on someones land, right?
While this probably is a little severe, water rights are a huge deal. Not just in the obvious places (Utah) for the obvious reasons either. The various Pacific salmons survive in WA state in large part due to the First Peoples using their water rights to prevent over-damming of the rivers.
It’s my understanding that in the Eastern part of the country water rights are more like what CroMM describes, that theory of usage is called Riparian Water Rights. The problem with this is that the nature of water is mobile, it doesn’t stay put like minerals. As a solution some Western States, where there’s less water and it travels larger distance, developed the Prior Appropriation style of water rights. It’s essentially a “first come, first served” approach to water rights, with the caveat that the amount used is ussually based on the amount that was used in the past, not on present needs. If someone has a right to water at the mouth of the river, like the First Tribes in WA state, that water has to come through other people’s property first, but it’s still the original user’s water. So they have a right to say “This much of the water is ours, you can’t use it or interfere with it getting to us.”
Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos.
Could this be framed as an air rights issue? Like capturing sunlight? Or would the government also compel homeowners to purchase all electricity through government-approved monopolies to compel you to pay energy taxes?
Why couldn’t there be an argument that a homeowner’s air rights supercede downstream water rights? This interpretation by the government is really theft.
U.S. v. Causby 1946 : One has air rights only insofar as they’re essential to the use and enjoyment of your land… and how many residential property owners don’t use water?
Gyges
1, September 7, 2008 at 6:13 pm
It’s my understanding that in the Eastern part of the country water rights are more like what CroMM describes, that theory of usage is called Riparian Water Rights. The problem with this is that the nature of water is mobile, it doesn’t stay put like minerals
What you are referring to is bodies of water already on the ground, such as rivers, lakes and streams.
This case is about water literally falling from the sky. Rain water. Water that no man could claim unless we now are deciding which clouds belong to whom. And since clouds are transient and temporary in nature, then doing so would be pretty difficult.
Also, you mentioned the mobility of water being an issue, however do not mineral rights normally include the animals which wander onto ones land? If a deer wanders onto a farmers property he is usually, depending on peripheral ordiances on hunting and such, in his right to shoot the deer, or prohibit another from doing so.
It seems to me, that rain cannot be “regulated”.
It’s the rain, and it belongs to whomever’s head it lands on.
And there is no real downstream issue here.
Unless Mrs Nelson or Mr Miller had placed their barrels at a stream or river head, then there is no “downstream” issue to come into play.
CroMM,
Depending where in the Salt Lake Area the dealership is, there is a downstream issue. Look at a map, there’s all sorts of rivers, streams, ponds and lakes in the general vicinity, most of which would be fed by partially by rain water. If it’s in a fairly commercial sector of the city the water is more likely to end up in a drainage ditch (larger pavement to grass\dirt ratio), which would probably either lead to a natural body of water or to the cities water facilities. Or it could just end up as part of the ground water that people tap into for wells. Any of those options the rain water ends up at a place where someone else has water rights.
If you collect enough rain (or snow depending on where you live), you can have an impact on people “down stream” from you, regardless of if you’re actually on the river or not. Most rivers are fed not only by springs at the headwaters, but by precipitation that doesn’t directly fall on them (either in the form of run off of rain or melt off from snow). This law was put in place to address that.
I know it seems like overreaching government, but in the drier parts of the country this sort of thing is the way to make sure that everyone gets water. You’ve got to balance the needs of the cities, people outside the cities, the farmers, the wildlife, and states further down river, all of which need (in the literal sense of the word) the water. With as large of a population as the West now has, you can no longer have an unregulated free for all.
Also if you read the article, the authorities are working with the business and using this as an opportunity to develop a model for this type of situation. That level headed cooperation is a far cry from the sort of draconian response that I first imagined.
I’m sorry, but this makes no sense at all. The water is still going to go into the water table, just not the minute it comes down as rain, right? It is still going to flow downstream at a later time. Its not as if these people are capturing the rain and then transporting it to California or something.
More police state insanity. I have heard the rich are buying up water rights around the country. Next you will have to pay some rich guy for the right to breath because he owns the oxygen rights. Then you will also need a license to relieve yourself.
Reminds me of the mentality that led to the French revolution (as well as many others). Push the people until finally the people push back.
P.S. I think the folks in gov need that lady’s barrel of water to waterboard somebody with.
Gyges
1, September 7, 2008 at 8:32 pm
CroMM,
Depending where in the Salt Lake Area the dealership is, there is a downstream issue. Look at a map, there’s all sorts of rivers, streams, ponds and lakes in the general vicinity, most of which would be fed by partially by rain water. If it’s in a fairly commercial sector of the city the water is more likely to end up in a drainage ditch (larger pavement to grass\dirt ratio), which would probably either lead to a natural body of water or to the cities water facilities. Or it could just end up as part of the ground water that people tap into for wells. Any of those options the rain water ends up at a place where someone else has water rights
I don’t need to look at a map, I’m quite familiar with downtown Salt Lake City and the outlying regions. Something you apparently are not.
If you were familiar with it, you’d know its all flat land. Its a valley basin, which is why they irrigate all farming. And like I said, UNLESS the person is putting their rain barrel in front of or even near a river or stream, then theres no way you could claim that water would make it to the river. Theres only a few rivers in the downtown Salt Lake area, the Jordan being the primary. I doubt these guys were on the Jordan. I can assure you Mark Miller isn’t on the Jordan. (runs through the West side, West side=cheap-side).
If the rainfalls in their back yards, then it will be absorbed by their plants and foliage and the rest accumulates in the water tables under the persons property. Not in someone elses property. If water falls on my land, then it absorbs into my soil, and the water tables beneath MY property, not my neighbors. My well pump isn’t sunk on my neighbors property.
Rain hits my ground it goes to my water table. If its flat ground, which the Salt Lake Valley is, then it will sit there, unless theres some seepage to a close neighbor, which does not constitute a flow point, but merely seepage.
If Miller is up on the East Bench, which is sloped, then it still accumlates in his water table and the rest is merely seepage. And we’re talking about a barrel, capable of keeping maybe a few gallons of water from his table, equating to a few tablespoons of seepage. However you look at this, its his water, unless theres a stream or creek running through his yard, and then you’d have to prove that the position of the barrel is in a proximity to the stream that the water would make its way to that stream, river, etc, and not merely deposit in his OWN water table. Its a ridiculous case.
And please stop saying “if you would read the article”, implying I had not. I read the articles I comment on. Thats how I knew the name of the two parties involved. And thats how I also know that the article didn’t state anything about bordering wells and water disputes between neighbors or something. It just indicates a general enforcement of this law because a guy was catching maybe a gallon or two of water in a barrel, an amount not even measurable if we’re talking about moving rivers anyway.
The fact is this is a Utah civil servant being a Utah civil servant. A typical dick with nothing better to do than harrass someone who is better off then him (Mark Miller owns several large auto dealerships on Main and State Street, the two main drags through town, and is a very wealthy) and so he’s enforcing a law he doesn’t need to enforce.
Water rights laws are serious, and they were developed out there to keep farmers and ranchers from depriving other farmers and ranchers of water that would normally flow onto their property. Those laws were serious.
But when they introduce silly crap like this, they do an injustice to the serious laws, and make it harder to enforce the serious ones when they’re doing things like this.
I suppose if the city could hire a geologist to map out any underground rivers running under the guys property (and I wouldn’t put it past them) then I imagine one could make the case that he was depriving the moving river, which probably transfers thousands of gallons of water per minute, or more, of 3 or 4 gallons of water here and there. But boy that’d be a lot of tax payer dollars for a really little fish.
While you may not agree with it, when taken at on its face, this statement says it all:
“Boyd Clayton, the deputy state engineer, explained that citizens who capture water are depriving people with water rights”…
The distinction here, while not made specifically, is there are indeed long established water ‘rights’ held privately which should perhaps be reevaluated in some way. Also, by osmosis (no pun), by virtue of public policy and ordinances throughout the State, there is the obvious equal longstanding ‘Public’ right to water use and perhaps a need to balance those increasing needs more equitably in certain areas.
Environmentally, it’s nevertheless desirable for more reasons besides private enterprise to allow all available water to run it’s natural course and to be regulated, clean, and fit for daily consumption and use by plant, animal or human, generally.
“And please stop saying “if you would read the article”, implying I had not. I read the articles I comment on.”
******
No – you don’t…
If you did, you would ever say half the $#!t you say!
Newsflash – rainfall is the source of groundwater and groundwater
(the water table) is not stationary. It moves either vertically or
horizontally.
Patty, don’t call me a liar, I do read the articles, and I don’t appreciate your personal attacks and insults.
And Newsflash.
If its in my well, its my water. And a law that says you cannot collect water would by nature rule out collecting water in a well.
The law is stupid, and so are you for defeding it.
Am I in the Twilight Zone or something? You guys should be outraged over this water thievery. The government has a plan for the rainwater, and law to implement it, all for the good people of their state, and you people are siding with the water bandits. Did you guys flunk Liberal School or something? What’s next? A right to keep and bear arms?
CroMM,
Not to quibble over terminology, but water doesn’t go to your water table. The water table is just a line in the ground where the saturated soil meets the unsaturated soil. I would have thought that someone as obsessed with definitions as you would have bothered to look up the basic terminology of the subject that they’re talking about.
Also, having been to Salt Lake City a couple of times (although I’m not terribly familiar with the area), I do know that it’s relatively flat. I also know that perception and memory are both faulty. I did a little bit of basic research and looked at a topographical map, and surprisingly the whole vale does have a slight slope to it, which is all that water needs.
Speaking of research, I did a little bit more (maybe 10 min. worth, I like to actually have facts to back up what my position is) and discovered that the Salt Lake City Valley Aquifers discharges into… wait for it… The Jordan River. The following is from the 2005 report “Conjunctive Management of Surface and Ground Water in Utah” from the Utah Division of Water Resources. it’s on page 95, in the section on the Salt Lake City Valley: “The water from the aquifer is open to the Jordan River, so water continually migrates down-gradient to the Jordan River.” So my original point about collecting rainfall affecting those down stream stands.
Also your dick with nothing better to do theory tends to fall short on the merits of the way the agency is dealing with the dealership. Rather then slapping a fine on the business and telling them to stop, the city is working with it. That to me shows an understanding that the enforcement of the law needs to be done on a situational basis. It also indicates a sincere desire to find a solution to the situation that works out for everyone, which after all is why there are laws in place in regards to water rights.
Now that I’ve said all that, I’m done debating the merits of the law, it’s obvious that you think the law is absurd seem to be unwilling to listen to any arguments to the contrary. I am glad that you realize just how important water rights are. Hopefully some other people are a little better informed than they were at the beginning, I know I am.
Allow me.
‘The upper surface of ground water is the water table.’
This is the html version of the file http://www.agwt.org/info/pdfs/watertable.pdf.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
Page 1
WHAT IS A WATER TABLE?
© American Ground Water Trust
Most people know that the “water table” has something to do with ground water. The word table provides
an image of a flat surface, like a tabletop, and it is commonly assumed that when a well is drilled it strikes
water once it reaches below the water table. There is also a general understanding that in times of
serious drought, water table levels may drop and wells may run dry. Understanding the terminology used
to describe sub-surface water can help explain why water tables may rise and fall.
Ground water is sub-surface water, but not all sub-surface water is ground water. Having an appreciation
of the types of sub-surface water and knowledge of local geology can explain why some water table
levels may vary by tens of feet and others in the same area may only change by inches and some hardly
at all. Below this surface, all the pore spaces and
cracks in sediments and rocks are completely filled (saturated) with water. These saturated layers, known
as the saturated zone (or the phreatic zone), are where ground water occurs. Strictly speaking only water
found in the saturated zone is ground water.
In the top layers of soil, unconsolidated sediments or bedrock, pore spaces may not be completely filled
with water. Some may contain water, some air, and some may only be partly filled with water. This is
known as the unsaturated zone (also called the zone of aeration or the vadose zone). After heavy rainfall,
this zone may be almost saturated, while during a long dry spell, it may become almost dry. Precipitation
infiltrates downwards through the unsaturated zone. This infiltrating water is known as soil water when it
is still shallow enough to be used by plants, and as vadose water when it is below root level, but still
unsaturated. With further infiltration however, excess water will eventually reach the water table. [Just
above the water table in sedimentary rocks there is a often a short vertical zone known as the capillary
fringe, but further discussion of this is beyond the scope of this article.]
The vertical distance from the ground surface to the water table varies from place to place – it may be a
few feet, or several hundred feet. Generally, the water table is deeper beneath hills and shallower
Page 2
beneath valleys. It is hardly ever flat! In any one place the water table usually rises with increased
recharge from precipitation and declines in response to seasonally dry weather, drought, or excessive
pumping of ground water. If however the water table is hundreds of feet down, it may take years for the
infiltrating water to reach the saturated zone and there will be no seasonal change in water table levels. If
ground water is “confined” by overlying impermeable rock formations, the well water levels represent a
pressure level and NOT a water table level. (See topic #4 in this series).
The spaces between soil or sediment particles and cracks in solid rock are called voids or pores. Each
sediment and rock type has differences in porosity, (the amount of water a rock formation can hold).
Porosity is expressed as the ratio of pore space to solid material per unit volume. For example, saturated
sand may have 30% pore space to 70% solid material, while fractured granite may have 1% pore space
to 99% solid rock. The sand is therefore more porous than the fractured granite.
Imagine a cubic foot of granite and a cubic foot of sand with porosity of 1% and 30%. Now add water to
each. The granite will “fill up” first because there is less pore space. If it were a real aquifer, the water
table level in the granite would rise faster. Similarly, because there is less storage than in the sand, the
fractured granite water table would decline more rapidly in response to pumping or drought. Ground water
is always on the move, although usually very slowly. The discharge (or outflow) of water from aquifers
occurs as part of the natural movement of water in the hydrologic system. Water table levels in aquifers
therefore represent the combined effects of rates of recharge and rates of discharge. If pumping of
aquifers takes place in excess of recharge then resource use will eventually not be sustainable. Careful
monitoring of water levels in wells can show how water table levels change, and well data, with water
levels and dates of the measurement are very important for ground water management.
For any well data however it is very important to know exactly which rock formations the well penetrates.
There can be more than one aquifer beneath the surface! Water table information, in addition to other
information about geology, precipitation and pumping rates are of great value when assessing ground
water potential.
[© American Ground Water Trust. This article may be reprinted for non-commercial educational purposes provided
it is used in its entirety and that reference is made to American Ground Water Trust as its source. (www.agwt.com)]
Gyges
1, September 8, 2008 at 10:48 am
CroMM,
Not to quibble over terminology, but water doesn’t go to your water table. The water table is just a line in the ground where the saturated soil meets the unsaturated soil
uhhh….. the “saturation” is the rainwater “saturating” the soil, hence, your rain water goes to your water table.
I didn’t need to look up a definition to know that.
How did you think it got “saturated”?
As for Patty’s encylopedia reprint, it is still unnecessary. I don’t need to read a defintion to know that the rain falling on my ground, is my rain, not my neighbors, and not the citys.
And someone capturing a few gallons of rain water a month in a barrel is infringing on no ones rights.
And since water is literally equated to life, that is, without water, a person would die within days, no government has a right to tell a person they cannot catch a little rain water falling on their property, in a barrel.
There are good laws designed to keep upstream farmers and ranchers from damning rivers, streams and creeks so as to prevent other people downstream from using the stream, river or creek, but this law is not one of them.
This law is a ridiculous law and anyone defending it is equally ridiculous.
Patty,
Thanks, but I actually regretted that part of my comment shortly after I sent it. That sort of “Gotcha” debating doesn’t add much to the discussion.
CroMM,
I’m sorry for the overly antagonistic tone of the earlier comment. I don’t generally care all that much about if a stranger I’m never likely to meet agrees with me or not (except Jill, who I pine for), but you manage to push my buttons well. I think it’s because about 2\3 the time you’re genuinely witty and the rest of the time you’re stubborn, condescending, and oddly obsessive.
Well gee, thanks Gyge.
I didn’t realize this was about “me” and not this silly Utah law.
I’ve seen this law enforced by the way, and while in this case the suspects may not have been cited, I’ve seen a single mother cited for this law, and it made me want to puke.
And I would’ve too, except I didn’t know if my vomiting in a bucket constituted capturing water or not.
Maybe the Jordan needed it.
Gyges,
Sorry – I agree with you in theory, however, in practice, turnabout is fair play and plenty of fun, especially when the shoe is on the other frog, as it were.
And since mespo, mike, myself, AND even JT were always on the receiving end of Bartlebee/Cro etc fits of pique, I consider myself one of ‘handful of experts’ on this one – trust me.
And I did add to the discussion by providing some basic information
for a lay person with references to common terminology used.
It was never a debate…
Patty, I wouldn’t trust you to make change.
And what I see from you is constant slander and attacks on my character whenever my opinion doesn’t agree with yours and I am likewise not willing to bow out quietly without reasserting my position.
You are a spineless, weakminded debater with consistent amnesia most likely self induced by your tipping your snooter so high in the airas that you suffer from oxygen depletion, and a general narcissistic approach to whatever topic I choose to comment on, that seems to put you in the position of making the topic about your general preconcieved superiority to me.
When you have something to offer, other than cutting and pasting entire sections of Wiki into the thread, let me know.
In the meantime, why don’t you take your snooty patooty self smuggery, and shove it up what is no doubt, your big fat arse.
Oh and have a nice day.
Illegal to collect rain water?
How many basic maxims of real property law, not to mention constitutional laws, does that one violate?
“the owner has somehow lost one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property – the right to exclude others.”
KAISER AETNA v. UNITED STATES, 444 U.S. 164 (1979)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=444&invol=164
Wow, I finally get to use the term FRUCTUS NATURALES!
“Fructus naturales are the natural fruits of the land on which they arise, such as agricultural produce and wild game. In many common law legal systems, fructus naturales’ are considered to be part of the real property, and not separate chattels in relation to any legal conveyance of the property.”
There’s the Bartlebee we all know!
Glad I could be here, once again, to share in your launch of yet
another, in the series, of disinformation campaigns against yourself.
***** As stated – you don’t read before commenting.
“[© American Ground Water Trust. This article may be reprinted for non-commercial educational purposes
***** provided it is used in its entirety and that reference is made to American Ground Water Trust as its source. (www.agwt.com)]“
The name is Cro Magnum Man, or “CroMM” for short if you like.
As for your obsessive compulsive disorder which is apparent in your efforts to turn every debate which you cannot prevail in, into a personal attack on me.
Mee thinks you might even be a republican, after all, it is their trademark method of debate. When they can’t attack the mans positions, they attack the man. Just like you do.
This law is ridiculous. It is broad, sweeping and impacts those not designed to be targeted by it.
Or did you think Professor Turley posted this story, because he thought the law was a good one?
As stated – you don’t read before commenting…
Patty C 1, September 7, 2008 at 11:19 pm
While you may not agree with it, when taken at on its face, this statement says it all:
“Boyd Clayton, the deputy state engineer, explained that citizens who capture water are depriving people with water rights”…
The distinction here, while not made specifically, is there are indeed long established water ‘rights’ held privately which should perhaps be reevaluated in some way. Also, by osmosis (no pun), by virtue of public policy and ordinances throughout the State, there is the obvious equal longstanding ‘Public’ right to water use and perhaps a need to balance those increasing needs more equitably in certain areas.
Environmentally, it’s nevertheless desirable for more reasons besides private enterprise to allow all available water to run it’s natural course and to be regulated, clean, and fit for daily consumption and use by plant, animal or human, generally.
Bob, Esq.
1, September 8, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Wow, I finally get to use the term FRUCTUS NATURALES!
Well you’d better clean it up when you get done.
Seriously though Bob you bring in a good point. Animals even, which are transient in nature tend to be considered part of the property on which they reside in many areas, such as deer.
The rain, once it lands on my property must to some degree constitute my property. Otherwise what is the water in my well?
Theres a draught, my well dries up. It rains, my well fills up. Thus, I am collecting rain, in my well, for my consumption.
How then can a law be enforceable, that declares somone capturing rain water falling on their own property, in any sort of container, to be breaking the law? Wouldn’t the water in the well constitute breaking the law too then?
What about if I don’t clean my gutters? Is that capturing water too? Like Professor Turley said, what about bird baths? Potted Plants? My garden? All these things “capture” rain water.
What about if the lids blow off my trash cans?
Even if every home in the valley had a 30 gallon barrel in its back yard no there would be little depreciable notice to the amount of water in the water tables. Lots of things capture rain water, and without a wide spread system of plastic tarps capturing the water you could never capture enough in a few jugs or barrells to impact the water tables.
Its a silly law the way its written and unenforceable, which is why most of these cases never even get prosecuted anymore. Because the ones they tried to prosecute got tossed out. Its a silly law, written way too broadly to be enforceable. But the idea of water conservation is not silly, nor is the idea of true upstream rights.
But lazy minded laws like this do a disservice to those laws, and make it difficult to enforce when real issues arise.
As someone who is concerned with the public health, daily,
another ‘for instance’ from the CDC… See maps.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/qa/prevention.htm
Prevention
Q. What can I do to reduce my risk of becoming infected with West Nile virus?
… “Help reduce the number of mosquitoes in areas outdoors where you work or play, by draining sources of standing water. In this way, you reduce the number of places mosquitoes can lay their eggs and breed.
* At least once or twice a week, empty water from flower pots, pet food and water dishes, birdbaths, swimming pool covers, buckets, barrels, and cans.
* Check for clogged rain gutters and clean them out.
* Remove discarded tires, and other items that could collect water.
* Be sure to check for containers or trash in places that may be hard to see, such as under bushes or under your home.
Note: Vitamin B and “ultrasonic” devices are NOT effective in preventing mosquito bites.” …
But- if the people USE the water it does eventually go “downstreem”. It’s not like they’re storing it indefinitely.
What an asinine Law.
Thank you Doctor Quinn, Medicine Woman.
But what does any of that have to do with the enforcability or credibility of this law?
I feel Professor Turley regularly tries to impress on people that the idea of smothering society in a tangled web of laws is a bad thing, and sweeping, broad general laws are the anti-thesis to a functioning democracy.
This law is ridiculous, in that you cannot license the rain. You can license land, but the rain is a source of replenishment for all life, and to license it to the point of saying homeowners cannot capture a little in a barrel is going too far in regulating our lives.
Cro Magnum Man
“The rain, once it lands on my property must to some degree constitute my property.”
Technically, it’s yours before it even hits the ground:
cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos
‘whomsoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to the sky and down to the depths’
There’s a reason Prof Turley categorized this as “Bizarre;” in my opinion, he too can’t reconcile this nonsense with basic real property law.
Prior appropriation theory works, in legal theory, due to the fact that (are you listening Patty?) SOVEREIGNTY ITSELF RUNS WITH THE LAND. In any social contract the sovereign retains, from the land, the following sticks of rights: (i) the power to tax, (ii) the power to police, (iii) the power to condemn, and (iv) am unfettered power in areas of war and commerce. (See Thompson on Real Property, Introduction (to the basic f’n concepts))
The commerce clause may give the Fed the right to regulate the airways via the FAA, but it doesn’t permit takings of rainwater. (Jesus H. Christ, how socialist/communist can you get?)
But – if the people USE the water it does eventually go “downstreem”. It’s not like they’re storing it indefinitely.
What an asinine Law.
****
That’s the question, isn’t it?
I wouldn’t water any of my heirloom fruits trees, roses, herb,
or edible organic vegetable gardens, much less my pets, horses, or livestock, including birds and baths with stagnant, slimy,
green water.
My domestic animals including certain adopted wild friends, gardens, indoor exotic and summer container plants, get clean fresh water
– daily, as needed along with regular feedings.
Critters get fed, watered, housed from the elements, and regular wellness checks including major med/dental etc in safe, secluded, pristine, yet open inner supervised ‘coastal’ surroundings.
And I have the vet/farrier bills to prove it!
‘Thingum’, Cro is probably not someone you want to tag up with here.
As a self-described ‘barrister’, you should know to study the facts,
the case law, and hold you wet finger to the wind – before presenting your case.
http://www.cle.com/product.php?proid=1044&page=Land_Use_Law
And since I doubt you have ever handled a significant
Environmental/Land Use case, especially in the West, in the
midst of an ongoing drought, perceived or otherwise, you might want to hold off shooting your mouth off – before you embarrass yourself.
Pardon moi, rather, CLE course on ‘Western_Water_Law’
Better sign up quickly, Thingum!
I can’t make it, unfortunately…
http://www.cle.com/product.php?proid=1035&page=Western_Water
I’m sorry.. was there a coherent sentence concealed somewhere in these last two comments.
And if so, what was it?
Seriously folks…
Who’s “thingum”, who’s the “barrister”, who’s studying case law before simply commenting on an article in a blog and why do they have to wet their finger and hold it up in the wind prior to doing so?
Its all very confusing.
Patty C:
“As a self-described ‘barrister’, you should know to study the facts, the case law, and hold you wet finger to the wind – before presenting your case.”
“And since I doubt you have ever handled a significant
Environmental/Land Use case, especially in the West, in the
midst of an ongoing drought, perceived or otherwise, you might want to hold off shooting your mouth off – before you embarrass yourself.”
Arguing is reason giving.
1. Reasons are justifications or support for claims.
2. Rationality is the ability to engage in reason giving.
3. The alternative to reason giving is to accept or reject claims on whim or command.
Deep breath Patty.
Ready?
Copying and pasting a link to a CLE course, especially on a topic which you exhibit a complete dearth of knowledge, does not constitute an argument.
Furthermore, your lack of respect for the basic rules of argumentation are paralleled here only by your complete disregard for the bounds of governmental power set forth by constitutional law and basic deference to the social compact.
Simply because you feel inclined to pick up some flag and herald a cause, it does not follow that the government that you plead your case to has the power to fulfill your every little wish; ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU FAIL TO SO MUCH AS BACK UP YOUR CLAIM WITH REASONS–i.e FORM AN ARGUMENT.
Only a child would presume that citing a course in a topic which he/she has little to no knowledge of somehow magically transforms him/her into an expert. Judging from your incoherent (and embarrassing) meanderings above, having nothing to do with property law, you apparently wouldn’t know a riparian right from a ripe case.
Yeah, the message is Bob Esq ie ‘Thingum’ is no lawyer I would want to be associated with, simply based on his representations here.
As I volunteered earlier, I studied law, myself. After I established myself, professionally, in the Boston legal commmunity, I married a divorced, environmental lawyer.
I divorced him, as did his first wife, high-school sweetheart, many years ago while changing careers.
He also died last year – of pancreatic CA
We hadn’t spoken since 2000 and only because I had become aware, years after out divorce, he figured out how to steal (MORE)
money from me.
No matter.
I have a new, more interesting, and motivating career and a new,
more interesting, partner in life and love, fantastic sex, an idyllic lifestyle – overall.
I have no complaints.
Many of my in-laws, former and present, friends, and relatives are lawyers and judges.
They are still part of my world, but I am more committed to my ‘medical family’ as they are to me.
I’m in a different place these days – for the past fourteen (14) years, and I am ‘happy’…
Cro Magnum Man 1, September 8, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Seriously folks…
Who’s “thingum”, who’s the “barrister”, who’s studying case law before simply commenting on an article in a blog and why do they have to wet their finger and hold it up in the wind prior to doing so?
Its all very confusing.
*****
Well there ya go,’Bob’ – as I said , bro…
… look at your audience!
.
Patty C
1, September 8, 2008 at 11:40 pm
—
(Chapter 1) “Bobs ‘Big Ploy’”
Yeah, the message is Bob Esq ie ‘Thingum’ is no lawyer I would want to be associated with, simply based on blah blah blah…
—
(Chapter 2) “My Big Fat Geek Wedding”
As I volunteered earlier, I studied law, myself. After I established blah blah blah, in the Boston legal blah blah , I married a blah blah blah.
—
(Chapter 3) “Divorce Tort”
I divorced him, as did his first wife, blah blah blah, many years ago while blah blah blah.
—
(Chapter 4) “The Great Escape”
He also died last year – of pancreatic CA
We hadn’t spoken since 2000 and only because I had become aware, years after out divorce, he figured out how to steal (MORE)money blah blah blah blah blah.
—
(Chapter 5) “I’m Ok, You’re Not”
I have a new, more interesting, and motivating career and a new,
more interesting, partner in life and love, fantastic sex, an idyllic blah blah blah.
I have no complaints.[To Be Continued]
—
(Chapter 6) “Voluntary Commitment ”
Many of my in-laws, former and present, friends, and relatives are lawyers and judges.
They are still part of my world, but I am more committed to my blah blah blah blah blah.
—
(Chapter 7) “14 to Life”
I’m in a different place these days – for the past fourteen (14) years, and I am ‘happy’…
And we care about your lifes story why exactly?
Cro Magnon Man 1, September 8, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Seriously folks…
Who’s “thingum”, who’s the “barrister”, who’s studying case law before simply commenting on an article in a blog and why do they have to wet their finger and hold it up in the wind prior to doing so?
Its all very confusing.
*****
Well there ya go, Bob – as I always say, bro’…check your audience!
You already said that.
Helloooooooo
I am a perfectly muscular lean size 10/12
I stand 5′8″ and 140 pounds.
My ass is tight and well-rounded.
Ask my lover- a vascular surgeon who knows about blood-flow
I work out by jogging inside on a treadmill, and outside.
I also ride, hunt, jump, and train my horses.
In the last two-three years, I’ve gained 5-6 pounds…!!!
So what?
Thats what I say.
So what?
Patty C
1, September 9, 2008 at 1:39 am
In the last two-three years, I’ve gained 5-6 pounds…!!!
I wouldn’t worry.
I’m sure its all in your head.
Patty C
1, September 9, 2008 at 1:39 am
I also ride, hunt, jump, and train my horses.
You hunt your horses?
Some relevant information from the Utah Division of Water Rights:
All waters in Utah are public property.
A “water right” is a right to divert (remove from its natural source) and beneficially use water.
You need water rights to drill a well and a licensed well driller to construct the well if it’s more than 30 feet deep.
———————————————————-
So no, you don’t own the water in the aquifer beneath your property. You also don’t get to use it however you want. At least not in Utah. I think CroMM’s analogy to having wild animals on your property is apt. You don’t own them simply because they are on your property, but within certain parameters you get to make use of them.
Also, because it speaks to the motivation for enforcing the law: The city is working with the dealership so that he can legally do what he wants. They’re not outright forbidding it, they just want to make sure it gets done in the manner that works out best for everyone. The dealership may have to file some more paper work and pay some fees, but the Department of Water Resources gets more data on where the water is going and how it’s getting used. That’s pretty important in a state as dry as Utah, especially one with a growing population.
Gyges,
“A “water right” is a right to divert (remove from its natural source) and beneficially use water.
You need water rights to drill a well and a licensed well driller to construct the well if it’s more than 30 feet deep.”
Note how the foregoing does not apply to rain water.
See discussion on FRUCTUS NATURALES and discussion on ’sovereignty runs with the land’ per…
‘whomsoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to the sky and down to the depths’
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/09/07/inclement-crimes-utah-cracks-down-on-people-capturing-rainwater/#comment-23768
Rain water is property of the land owner before it hits the ground and is no more property of the government than a garden gnome when kept in containers.
N.B. This argument is in no way weakened or bolstered by whether one may or may not have been married to an attorney in lieu of obtaining a law degree; much less the nexus between the tightness of one’s ass and a proclivity for verbal diarrhea as determined by by a somewhat biased vascular surgeon.
Your courtesies in connection with this matter are greatly appreciated.
Gyges, CroMM and Bob,
This is a great discussion between all of you. Others also provided interesting information. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve said, “well that’s a good point”, while reading through all the posts!
Gyges,
I’m sure you are a great friend!!
Jill
Cro Magnum Man,
Thanks for saving me some typing.
For the record, I agree with your post to Jill a few days ago regarding keeping one’s cool in dealing with the incoherent ramblings of the likes of Patty.
To put it in perspective, look at her posts as objections or appellate arguments to a panel of judges; explaining her position (whatever it may be), how it’s relevant to the case at bar, and her beauty pageant like support thereof
TO WIT:
YOUR HONOR,
Let me begin my opposition to opposing counsel’s arguments by informing the court that…
“Yeah, the message is Bob Esq ie ‘Thingum’ is no lawyer I would want to be associated with, simply based on his representations here.
As I volunteered earlier, I studied law, myself. After I established myself, professionally, in the Boston legal commmunity, I married a divorced, environmental lawyer.
I divorced him, as did his first wife, high-school sweetheart, many years ago while changing careers.
He also died last year – of pancreatic CA
We hadn’t spoken since 2000 and only because I had become aware, years after out divorce, he figured out how to steal (MORE)
money from me.
No matter.
I have a new, more interesting, and motivating career and a new,
more interesting, partner in life and love, fantastic sex, an idyllic lifestyle – overall.
I have no complaints.
Many of my in-laws, former and present, friends, and relatives are lawyers and judges.
They are still part of my world, but I am more committed to my ‘medical family’ as they are to me.
I’m in a different place these days – for the past fourteen (14) years, and I am ‘happy’…”
Can you say Lithium candidate?
Jill,
For the record, I really did try to take the high road and ignore the ranting and ravings.
Forgive me; I’m only human.
Bob,
You’ll have to explain to me how “all waters” doesn’t include rain water. Also why stopping rain water from reaching the aquifer doesn’t constitute diverting it.
For the sake or argument, let’s just agree that I own the rain falling on my land. My ownership of the water doesn’t override any state regulation of its use. I own my dogs, that doesn’t mean I get to ignore dog fighting laws. I own my CD player and speakers, that doesn’t mean I get to ignore noise ordinances. If I own a piece of land with a large gold vein in it, I still have to obey any regulations involving the operating of a mine to get it, even though I own both the land and the gold.
“Forgive me; I’m only human.”
Now THAT IS debatable.
TO WIT:
A real ‘human being’ wouldn’t abuse his dogs and call it ‘house-training’.
For your information, I managed lawyers, cases, and four insurance claims offices nationally – for a living!
Thank you Monica Goodling.
Gyges said…
My ownership of the water doesn’t override any state regulation of its use. I own my dogs, that doesn’t mean I get to ignore dog fighting laws.
No but water is not dogs. Water is not gold.
Dogs and gold are not life essential elements, for which all human beings have an inalieable right to. Without gold, a human being can exist for a long time. Without dogs, a human being can exist for a long time.
With water a human can survive only a matter of days.
Thus, water, particularly rain water, is an inherent right, particularly to the land owner on who’s land its falling on. But it also belongs to anyone walking down the street in the rain with a canteen.
When we begin defending the overly restrictive and smothering laws like this, we essentially welcome the entanglement of cumbersome, broad sweeping laws which eat away at our democracy and make living within the confines of the law, impossible. As I said earlier, if my trash can lids blow off, then they are collecting rain, and that by this law, constitutes a violation.
If my gutters are not clean, then they constitute containers capturing water, and thus I am breaking the law.
And if I look up to the sky on a rainy day, and perchance open my mouth, to catch a few droplets of rain to quench my thirst, then my mouth has become a container for capturing rainwater, and I am thus breaking the law.
This is a ridiculous law. A tribute to the minutia that the idle minds of local authority can dream up when left to their own devices.
When people stop defending such ridiculous laws, then maybe they will go away.
Gyges,
“Bob,
You’ll have to explain to me how “all waters” doesn’t include rain water. Also why stopping rain water from reaching the aquifer doesn’t constitute diverting it.”
I apologize if my brief comments seem confusing, but there are a few basic principles of property law, the genesis principles if you will, that if violated negate the entire system of laws.
First, if you picked up any treatise on the topic of Eminent Domain, e.g. Nichols on Eminent Domain, you’ll notice that in the very first chapter there’s a discussion on the origin of the power. That power has its origin dating back to the earliest feudal times; i.e. that sovereign power originates in the land. Thus, the power of the sovereign to effectuate a taking of land, or affect the land in any way so as to benefit the public, is not so much an exercise of power over a land owner’s right, but far more an exercise of the sovereign’s inherently retained right in the land.
When a state declares that it owns the rights to all navigable waters within its boundaries, it does so based upon the centuries of real property law permitting it to do so as alluded to above. Riparian water rights deals with the rights of land owners adjacent to rivers, streams, ponds, etc.
A recent (1920’s) spin off of riparian rights has been the prior appropriation doctrine. The appropriation doctrine deals with WATER ON LAND.
As set forth within the Colorado State Constitution (the State that essentially started the law):
“Section 5. Water of streams public property. The water of every natural stream, not heretofore appropriated, within the state of Colorado, is hereby declared to be the property of the public, and the same is dedicated to the use of the people of the state, subject to appropriation as hereinafter provided.
Section 6. Diverting unappropriated water priority preferred uses. The right to divert the unappropriated waters of any natural stream to beneficial uses shall never be denied. ….”
And where does appropriation begin?
“The first step of an appropriation is AN ACTION ON THE GROUND, such as a survey, coupled with an existing intent to apply the water to beneficial use. The appropriation date of a water right is the earliest date on which the applicant can demonstrate the initiation of the appropriation: i.e., the coexistence of both an intent to appropriate and an action on the ground manifesting that intent.”
http://www.waterinfo.org/colorado-water/colorado-water-rights
As I alluded before, the problem with laws against collecting rain water stems from the state’s lack of ‘grounded’ sovereign power to take the land owners rain from the sky or the chattel-containers in which it is collected.
N.B. Once the rain water becomes property, it is afforded every state and federal property right protection yet is also subject to various tort law exceptions that may mandate forefeiture. (e.g. Miller v. Schoene — where State’s use of condemnation power to destroy rusted cedar trees was not in excess of power of eminent domain)
My main point has been, and still is, that a legislature cannot simply state “it’s against the law to do this” without having a strong foundational jurisdictional power for doing so.
In the case of collecting rain water, I argue that the state lacks jurisdictional power to legislate and enforce the laws alluded to in the above article.
Hopefully you’ve gotten a glimpse of just how complicated the subject is and just how annoying simplistic ipse dixet assertions by those claiming to have superior juristic acumen and knowledge of the subject by simple virtue of prior marital relations can be so annoying.
Regards,
Bob
CroMM,
I’ll agree with you if the law actually forbids those things, it’s a bad law. However, there’s no proof that the law prohibits any of those things. We can make assumptions based on what the article says, but we’d be making them on very limited information. For instance there may be a quantity threshold, or maybe the collection has to be intentional, in either case it wouldn’t be enforced against your clogged gutters or trashcan lids. I don’t know what the law itself says, I haven’t found a copy of the law and the wording on the gov. websites is a little vague.
So here’s where I stand: I think for all the reasons that I’ve mentioned earlier that this instance of enforcement is reasonable. If they starts cracking down on people with bird baths or barrels for their garden then I’ll join you in saying the law is outrageous.
‘In the case of collecting rain water, I argue that the state lacks jurisdictional power to legislate and enforce the laws alluded to in the above article.’
*****
Tell that to the State Engineer!
Water Rights
With the passage of H.B. 51, Water Rights Amendments, the Utah Legislature enacted a bill that will potentially affect almost every water user in the state. At issue is the potential forfeiture of water rights for nonuse. The primary purpose of H.B. 51 is to protect public water suppliers from forfeiture of water rights needed to meet the reasonable future water requirement of the public. This protected future water requirement is defined as the water needed for the next 40 years within the public water supplier’s projected service area based on projected population growth or other water use demand. A community water system’s projected service area is the area served by the system’s distribution facilities and expands as those distribution facilities expand.
In addition to the exemption for public water suppliers, H.B. 51 also creates exemptions from forfeiture for: (a) water rights used according to a lease or other agreement, (b) water rights approved for use on land subject to an approved government fallowing program, (c) water rights that are subject to an approved change application that is diligently pursued, (d) water rights to store water in accordance with the Groundwater Recharge and Recovery Act, (e) water rights for water that is unavailable due to the priority of the water right, and (f) supplemental water rights when sufficient water is available under other water rights.
H.B. 51 also changes the time period after which a water right is subject to forfeiture for nonuse from five to seven years; clarifies that a water right may only be forfeited through judicial action; simplifies the nonuse application process; and allows a shareholder to file a nonuse application. H.B. 51 became effective May 5, 2008, and amended Section 73-1-4 of the Utah Code.
Bob,
Thank you for the explanation, it did clear some things up. I had misunderstood what you were trying to say, my apologies.
I think your point may be moot. Wouldn’t you admit that for all intensive purposes once the water hits whatever gathering device is used, it’s on the ground? It would therefore be subject to the well established doctrines you’ve mentioned, regardless of the point of origin. Other then material, what essential difference is there between a tub sitting on the ground and a naturally occurring depression on someone’s land?
Bob Esq. is ‘uninformed.
http://www.martenlaw.com/news/?20080723-rainwater-harvesting
Jeff Kray is a partner at Marten Law Group whose practice focuses on water resources and environmental, civil, and appellate litigation. He represents public and private clients with an emphasis on cases involving regulatory compliance and civil liability. Jeff represents clients in actions involving sites in Washington, Alaska, Oregon, Missouri, and California.
More articles by Jeff Kray
* Washington State First to Require Low Impact Stormwater Management Techniques [9/3/08]
* EPA Rule Exempts Water Transfers from NPDES Permit Requirements [6/18/08]
* Trial Court Partially Invalidates Washington’s Municipal Water Law – Developers Not Entitled to Municipal Water Supplier Exemption [6/11/08]
* Washington Municipal Water Suppliers Could Lose Unused Water Rights by September, If Ecology Position Prevails in Key Test Case [5/21/08]
* Hearings Board Turns Back First “As Applied” Challenge to Washington State Municipal Water Law [5/7/08]
* A Perfect Storm(water) [3/19/08]
Environmental News
July 23, 2008
Box of Rain – States Take a Closer Look at Rainwater Harvesting
By Jeff Kray
While water withdrawals from streams and wells are often closely monitored and contentious, regulators have historically tended to look the other way when it comes to water captured as rain. But as water becomes more scarce, regulators have begun to more closely scrutinize the increasingly popular practice of “rainwater harvesting” – collecting rainwater in barrels, buckets, and tanks.
Presently, there is little consistency among states in regulating the harvesting of rainwater. Some states, like Colorado, prohibit rainwater harvesting.[1] Other states, like Washington, are considering requiring a permit only for rainwater capture systems above a threshold amount.[2] In other places – notably Santa Fe, New Mexico – rainwater harvesting is actually required. Systems for rainwater capture must be installed on every new 2,500 square foot or larger residential or commercial building in that city.[3] Arizona, Hawaii, Kentucky, Ohio, Texas, and West Virginia are all either regulating or considering regulating rainwater harvesting.[4]
What is Rainwater Harvesting?
Rainwater harvesting is the collection, storage, and conveyance of rain as a water source. As the nation realizes the limits of its existing freshwater resources attention is returning to rainwater capture to help ensure adequate water supplies. Rainwater harvesting systems range from a barrel placed under a downspout to multiple tanks with pumps and controls. Residential collection systems can range from a 50-gallon rain barrel to cisterns of 30,000 gallons or more. Commercial systems can be much larger. As discussed below, rain water harvesting can provide several environmental benefits.
Catching and storing rain is an age-old practice throughout the world. In China, rainwater harvesting may date as far back as 6,000 years.[5] In India, the practice dates back over 4,000 years and traditionally meant storing water in tanks or reservoirs.[6] “By some estimates, 20,000 villages in India are harvesting their rains.”[7]
In the United States, water resources are primarily governed by state, rather than federal, government. State and local governments have taken opposing approaches to rainwater. As noted above, for example, Colorado assumes that rainwater contributes to streamflows and, therefore, prohibits rainwater capture systems.[8] Similarly, local and state building codes, zoning laws, and other regulations in Colorado and other states may limit rainwater harvesting’s availability.
In contrast, the trend in other states is moving towards encouraging rainwater harvesting. In 2005, for instance, the Texas legislature created a committee to evaluate and recommend minimum water quality guidelines and standards for rainwater use.[9] Texas provides financial incentives for rainwater capture systems and water utilities in Austin and San Antonio encourage rainwater harvesting to conserve water.[10] Under such policies, professional companies have installed more than 400 full-scale rainwater harvesting systems in central Texas and, over the last ten years, homeowners have installed more than 6,000 rain barrels through the City of Austin’s incentive program. Washington appears to be on the verge of adopting an approach to rainwater harvesting regulation similar to that of Texas.
Rainwater Harvesting in Washington State
Washington law broadly defines water resources as “all water above, upon, or beneath the surface of the earth, located within the state.”[11] Rainwater is, therefore, a state water resource the use of which through harvesting may require a permit. In the past seven legislative sessions, the Washington Legislature has unsuccessfully attempted to define how much rainwater capture is exempt from the permit requirement. Despite these efforts, existing law still provides no clear guidelines on the issue.
The Washington Department of Ecology has created a de facto exemption for certain rainwater harvesting and does not require homeowners to obtain water right permits to collect and store small rainwater amounts.[12] At the same time, Ecology has not yet provided guidance as to what it considers an amount of water that might trigger the need to obtain a permit. As a result, homeowners, businesses, non-profits, and other entities have been capturing rainwater from roofs and other suitable services without permits, but also without certainty that they are free from potential enforcement. Ecology has now determined to provide further guidance by rule.
For water quality purposes, capturing rainwater before it becomes stormwater runoff not only decreases the amount of stormwater that may need treatment, but it also decreases the amount of water that quickly runs off urbanized land into local streams, often carrying pollutants from human activities and scouring gravel from their beds, deepening and degrading them in the process.[13] In Washington’s Puget Sound region and in some other urban areas, stormwater and wastewater also sometimes share the same sewer line in what are called combined sewer systems. Large storm events can create so much stormwater that it exceeds the combined sewer system’s capacity and, as a result, the untreated excess flows into local lakes, streams, or the Puget Sound in what are called a combined sewer overflows (CSOs). The cumulative effect of many large scale rainwater collection systems may decrease the frequency of CSOs.
Washington has two distinct climates. East of the Cascades typical rainfall averages 10-20 inches, less for central Washington and more for the Cascade foothills and the northeast and southeast corners. West of the Cascades, typical rainfall averages 30-60 inches in the lowlands and double that for the Cascade foothills and the Olympic Peninsula.[14] Similarly, water is most limited on both sides of the state in summer and early fall, the time at which the demands are highest.
The state’s challenge is to define the permitting requirements for rainwater collection in a manner that differentiates between systems that cause little, if any, hydrologic impact (the vast majority of small systems) and those systems that could impair other water rights, notably in closed basins where Ecology is not issuing new water rights. For example, 50-gallon rain barrels used to gather water for residential urban gardens may provide stormwater management benefits without impairing water resources, whereas rainwater collection for consumptive use, such as irrigation, could potentially impair other water rights by limiting water amounts that would otherwise flow into freshwater streams with their own water rights or streams that supply other water right holders. The problem is that Washington has never defined the threshold for de minimis rainwater harvesting. As a result, Ecology will need to draft its proposed rule cautiously to avoid legal challenges asserting that it has exceeded its legal authority.
Seattle Public Utilities recently received a regional water right permit from Ecology to capture and put to use approximately 23,000 acre-feet of rainwater that falls on rooftops in areas of the city served by CSOs.[15] Similarly, island residents in San Juan County anticipate that they will be able to legally continue using rain for their water supply under island-wide water permits that Ecology is expected to issue in fall 2008.[16] Ecology’s proposed rule would not affect either the regional rainwater permit recently obtained by the City of Seattle, or future island-wide permits in San Juan County.
For many other actual or potential rainwater harvesting systems, obtaining permits is administratively and economically unfeasible. Few homeowners are likely to engage in Washington’s water right permitting process for a rain barrel, nor is Ecology likely prepared to handle a large volume of such applications. For such smaller systems, the solution is for Washington to clearly define which ones are required to obtain permits and which are not.
Washington’s Rainwater Collection Rule
Ecology currently envisions a rule recognizing and clarifying its historical permit exception for capturing, storing, and using small rainwater amounts. Furthermore, Ecology plans to create a distinct permit application for individuals and regional entities that plan to construct rainwater collection systems that do not qualify for the permit exemption, and the rule will authorize priority processing of those applications due to their stormwater management benefits.[17]
The proposed rule could include:
* Defined threshold limits, below which a water right permit will not be required.
* A distinct permit application process for individuals and groups that plan to construct rainwater harvesting systems that do not qualify for the permit exemption.
* Authorization for Ecology to expedite (priority process) rainwater permits due to their stormwater management and other environmental benefits.
Ecology is seeking public comment on where it should set the threshold for requiring a water right for rainwater harvesting. It has not yet set a timetable for its proposed rule or provided a draft for public comment.
Conclusion
Policymakers are beginning to remove hurdles to implementing rainwater capture systems and creating incentives for investing in such systems. Rainwater harvesting has the potential to provide outdoor irrigation and replace other water resources for indoor uses such as toilet flushing. As the legal and technical availability of rainwater expands, Washington and other states have signaled that they will also continue to ensure that the law protects existing water rights.
For more information on rainwater harvesting and Marten Law Group’s water resources and water quality practices please contact Jeff Kray
[1] Colorado’s Division of Water Resources maintains that rain is assumed to ultimately contribute to streamflows and is deemed state property. Rain barrels are, therefore, illegal. M. Subramanian, Rainwater Harvesting Catches the Attention of State and Local Government, Western Water Law (June 2008). Colorado is considering a bill that would permit rainwater harvesting. See proposed Senate Bill (SB) 08-119.
[2] Ecology has conducted several public meetings about its proposal and is preparing, but has yet to release, a draft rule.
[3] Santa Fe County, N.M. Municipal Code § 2.4.1 (2007).
[4] Rainwater Harvesting Catches the Attention of State and Local Government, Western Water Law (June 2008).
[5], Rainwater Harvesting Catches the Attention of State and Local Government, Western Water Law (June 2008).
[6] , Thirsty Indian metropolis finds an answer in the rain, Christian Science Monitor (March 20, 2008).
[7] Fred Pearce, When Rivers Run Dry, p. 266 (2006).
[8] Id.
[9] Id., citing Texas’ House Bill (H.B.) 2430 (2005).
[10] Id.
[11] RCW 43.27A.020.
[12] Focus on Proposed Rainwater Rule, Washington Department of Ecology (June 2008).
[13] http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/hq/rwh_sw.html.
[14] http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/hq/rwh_augm.html.
[15] Water Briefs at p. 24, The Water Report #53 (July 15, 2008).
[16] Id.
[17] http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/hq/rwh_rule.html.
Marten Law Group provides the materials and information contained in this website for its clients and non-client internet users for informational purposes only. This website is not a substitute for legal advice. Please consult with your legal counsel for specific advice and/or information. Using or accessing this website does not create an attorney-client relationship between Marten Law Group and the accessing user or browser.
Bob Esq. is ‘uninformed’
http://www.martenlaw.com/news/?20080723-rainwater-harvesting
Environmental News
July 23, 2008
Box of Rain – States Take a Closer Look at Rainwater Harvesting
By Jeff Kray
While water withdrawals from streams and wells are often closely monitored and contentious, regulators have historically tended to look the other way when it comes to water captured as rain. But as water becomes more scarce, regulators have begun to more closely scrutinize the increasingly popular practice of “rainwater harvesting” – collecting rainwater in barrels, buckets, and tanks.
Presently, there is little consistency among states in regulating the harvesting of rainwater. Some states, like Colorado, prohibit rainwater harvesting.[1] Other states, like Washington, are considering requiring a permit only for rainwater capture systems above a threshold amount.[2] In other places – notably Santa Fe, New Mexico – rainwater harvesting is actually required. Systems for rainwater capture must be installed on every new 2,500 square foot or larger residential or commercial building in that city.[3] Arizona, Hawaii, Kentucky, Ohio, Texas, and West Virginia are all either regulating or considering regulating rainwater harvesting.[4]
What is Rainwater Harvesting?
Rainwater harvesting is the collection, storage, and conveyance of rain as a water source. As the nation realizes the limits of its existing freshwater resources attention is returning to rainwater capture to help ensure adequate water supplies. Rainwater harvesting systems range from a barrel placed under a downspout to multiple tanks with pumps and controls. Residential collection systems can range from a 50-gallon rain barrel to cisterns of 30,000 gallons or more. Commercial systems can be much larger. As discussed below, rain water harvesting can provide several environmental benefits.
Catching and storing rain is an age-old practice throughout the world. In China, rainwater harvesting may date as far back as 6,000 years.[5] In India, the practice dates back over 4,000 years and traditionally meant storing water in tanks or reservoirs.[6] “By some estimates, 20,000 villages in India are harvesting their rains.”[7]
In the United States, water resources are primarily governed by state, rather than federal, government. State and local governments have taken opposing approaches to rainwater. As noted above, for example, Colorado assumes that rainwater contributes to streamflows and, therefore, prohibits rainwater capture systems.[8] Similarly, local and state building codes, zoning laws, and other regulations in Colorado and other states may limit rainwater harvesting’s availability.
In contrast, the trend in other states is moving towards encouraging rainwater harvesting. In 2005, for instance, the Texas legislature created a committee to evaluate and recommend minimum water quality guidelines and standards for rainwater use.[9] Texas provides financial incentives for rainwater capture systems and water utilities in Austin and San Antonio encourage rainwater harvesting to conserve water.[10] Under such policies, professional companies have installed more than 400 full-scale rainwater harvesting systems in central Texas and, over the last ten years, homeowners have installed more than 6,000 rain barrels through the City of Austin’s incentive program. Washington appears to be on the verge of adopting an approach to rainwater harvesting regulation similar to that of Texas.
Rainwater Harvesting in Washington State
Washington law broadly defines water resources as “all water above, upon, or beneath the surface of the earth, located within the state.”[11] Rainwater is, therefore, a state water resource the use of which through harvesting may require a permit. In the past seven legislative sessions, the Washington Legislature has unsuccessfully attempted to define how much rainwater capture is exempt from the permit requirement. Despite these efforts, existing law still provides no clear guidelines on the issue.
The Washington Department of Ecology has created a de facto exemption for certain rainwater harvesting and does not require homeowners to obtain water right permits to collect and store small rainwater amounts.[12] At the same time, Ecology has not yet provided guidance as to what it considers an amount of water that might trigger the need to obtain a permit. As a result, homeowners, businesses, non-profits, and other entities have been capturing rainwater from roofs and other suitable services without permits, but also without certainty that they are free from potential enforcement. Ecology has now determined to provide further guidance by rule.
For water quality purposes, capturing rainwater before it becomes stormwater runoff not only decreases the amount of stormwater that may need treatment, but it also decreases the amount of water that quickly runs off urbanized land into local streams, often carrying pollutants from human activities and scouring gravel from their beds, deepening and degrading them in the process.[13] In Washington’s Puget Sound region and in some other urban areas, stormwater and wastewater also sometimes share the same sewer line in what are called combined sewer systems. Large storm events can create so much stormwater that it exceeds the combined sewer system’s capacity and, as a result, the untreated excess flows into local lakes, streams, or the Puget Sound in what are called a combined sewer overflows (CSOs). The cumulative effect of many large scale rainwater collection systems may decrease the frequency of CSOs.
Washington has two distinct climates. East of the Cascades typical rainfall averages 10-20 inches, less for central Washington and more for the Cascade foothills and the northeast and southeast corners. West of the Cascades, typical rainfall averages 30-60 inches in the lowlands and double that for the Cascade foothills and the Olympic Peninsula.[14] Similarly, water is most limited on both sides of the state in summer and early fall, the time at which the demands are highest.
The state’s challenge is to define the permitting requirements for rainwater collection in a manner that differentiates between systems that cause little, if any, hydrologic impact (the vast majority of small systems) and those systems that could impair other water rights, notably in closed basins where Ecology is not issuing new water rights. For example, 50-gallon rain barrels used to gather water for residential urban gardens may provide stormwater management benefits without impairing water resources, whereas rainwater collection for consumptive use, such as irrigation, could potentially impair other water rights by limiting water amounts that would otherwise flow into freshwater streams with their own water rights or streams that supply other water right holders. The problem is that Washington has never defined the threshold for de minimis rainwater harvesting. As a result, Ecology will need to draft its proposed rule cautiously to avoid legal challenges asserting that it has exceeded its legal authority.
Seattle Public Utilities recently received a regional water right permit from Ecology to capture and put to use approximately 23,000 acre-feet of rainwater that falls on rooftops in areas of the city served by CSOs.[15] Similarly, island residents in San Juan County anticipate that they will be able to legally continue using rain for their water supply under island-wide water permits that Ecology is expected to issue in fall 2008.[16] Ecology’s proposed rule would not affect either the regional rainwater permit recently obtained by the City of Seattle, or future island-wide permits in San Juan County.
For many other actual or potential rainwater harvesting systems, obtaining permits is administratively and economically unfeasible. Few homeowners are likely to engage in Washington’s water right permitting process for a rain barrel, nor is Ecology likely prepared to handle a large volume of such applications. For such smaller systems, the solution is for Washington to clearly define which ones are required to obtain permits and which are not.
Washington’s Rainwater Collection Rule
Ecology currently envisions a rule recognizing and clarifying its historical permit exception for capturing, storing, and using small rainwater amounts. Furthermore, Ecology plans to create a distinct permit application for individuals and regional entities that plan to construct rainwater collection systems that do not qualify for the permit exemption, and the rule will authorize priority processing of those applications due to their stormwater management benefits.[17]
The proposed rule could include:
* Defined threshold limits, below which a water right permit will not be required.
* A distinct permit application process for individuals and groups that plan to construct rainwater harvesting systems that do not qualify for the permit exemption.
* Authorization for Ecology to expedite (priority process) rainwater permits due to their stormwater management and other environmental benefits.
Ecology is seeking public comment on where it should set the threshold for requiring a water right for rainwater harvesting. It has not yet set a timetable for its proposed rule or provided a draft for public comment.
Conclusion
Policymakers are beginning to remove hurdles to implementing rainwater capture systems and creating incentives for investing in such systems. Rainwater harvesting has the potential to provide outdoor irrigation and replace other water resources for indoor uses such as toilet flushing. As the legal and technical availability of rainwater expands, Washington and other states have signaled that they will also continue to ensure that the law protects existing water rights.
For more information on rainwater harvesting and Marten Law Group’s water resources and water quality practices please contact Jeff Kray
Gyges
1, September 9, 2008 at 3:30 pm
CroMM,
I’ll agree with you if the law actually forbids those things, it’s a bad law. However, there’s no proof that the law prohibits any of those things
The trash can incident is one I speak from on experience. A woman I knew in Salt Lake was cited back in the 1980s for not covering her trash can lids. This was the case I was referring to earlier. She had several regular size aluminum trash cans and when the trashmen came they never put the lids back on, and she was cited for leaving them uncovered, hence collecting rain water. This law is not new, its been around for a while. Back in the 80s there was drought, and water conservation was a big deal. Her case was dismissed without even going to court, but the fact was it was a stupid law.
Thats why I commented on this thread, because I’d seen the law in play. On the other hand there were laws with regards to sprinklers, and when they could be turned on, etc. These laws had to do with actually depleting the water tables, and during a drought, made sense.
But the collecting rain law, which orginally I think was intended to target farmers using wide spread water collection methods were written in such a way as to cover anyone “catching the rain”, and is why there are examples of silliness like the two in this article.
As a people, we need to ensure our laws make sense, and are not so clumsily written as to encompass “licensing the rain”.
And sorry for including my own thoughts on the topic, instead of utilizing Pattys method of debate, which is to get angry and upset at anyone disagreeing with her, then begin praising her own lifes acheivements as she recounts them all the way down to her sex life, as if that somehow shores up her position, and then of course finally simply posting some long winded cut and paste she found on the internet that she thinks supports her position so as to bury any real conversation on the topic.
Cromey don’t play that.
CroMM,
Well then I agree, assuming that the law has remained unchanged, it’s a bad law. Although I stand by my statement that this paticular case is reasonable and is being handled well, I don’t find anything wrong with the idea of regulating medium to large scale harvesting of rainwater.
Bob Esq. is ‘uninformed’
http://www.martenlaw.com/news/?20080723-rainwater-harvesting
Environmental News
July 23, 2008
Box of Rain – States Take a Closer Look at Rainwater Harvesting
and Cro,
You are the one who pitches fits when he loses an argument and switches to personal attack mode with either the big fat mouth/big fat ‘arse’ insults.
I can assure you, and anyone else who is interested, I do not!
And I never have… My thighs are ‘cottage-cheese free’, too!
Patty C said…
You are the one who pitches fits when he loses an argument and switches to personal attack mode with either the big fat mouth/big fat ‘arse’ insults.
I can assure you, and anyone else who is interested, I do not!
Really?
So when you call me names like “big ape”, thats your way of being friendly?
Go figger.
‘Ape’, like Otto, in ‘A Fish Called Wanda’, is in in reference to your new handle, Cromag’- because you ‘Kant’ even spell!
Thank you for admitting to calling me names, right after declaring to everyone that you don’t call names.
You’re a smart one Patty, thats for sure.
And since you want to start with the spell checking again, ….well,… I wasn’t going to say anything, but since you brought it up.
Lets all observe a little anomoly we see with so many of Patty C’s comments.
Notice how in her comments where she says anything more than a sentence or two, we always find these odd breaks in the sentence.
The line just “breaks” and a new line starts, right in the middle of a sentence, as you can see from this example taken from her Autobiography posted earlier.
—
Patty C
1, September 8, 2008 at 11:40 pm
He also died last year – of pancreatic CA
We hadn’t spoken since 2000 and only because I had become aware, years after out divorce, he figured out how to steal (MORE)
money from me.
No matter.
I have a new, more interesting, and motivating career and a new,
more interesting, partner in life and love, fantastic sex, an idyllic lifestyle – overall
—
Note the two unusal line breaks in these statements?
Ever wonder where they come from?
Well, they come from using a word processor.
When you use a word processor, like MS Word, or Corel Word Perfect, or any of the other processors out there, the formatting doesn’t transfer correctly to the HTML page (this blog) so line breaks occur in the transfer.
Its a common issue when cutting and pasting from Word Processor programs to blogs and chat rooms.
So what does this mean?
It means Patty is using a Spell Checker on her comments, prior to posting.
Thats right.
The woman who apparently hates me and several others in here so badly that when she cannot defeat us in open debate, turns to spell checking our posts to accuse us of being ignorant because of a few typographical errors in our rapidly written comments, is herself, using a spell checking program prior to commenting in here.
There is no doubt here. This is a formatting transfer error that you can easily reproduce yourselves should you doubt it.
Patty C is such a bad speller, she has to use a spell checker to post a comment for fear of a spelling or grammatical error.
So while I will once again gladly admit to making numerous typographical errors in my comments, I also gladly admit that I am not so illiterate that I need to run my comments through a spell checker prior to posting them.
Like Patty does.
*This Comment Is Proudly Presented in Original “First Draft” condition.
Typos and all.
Wrong.
I don’t have any MS software on my PC – never have.
I hate Microsoft! I am an avid Apple user.
This is my writing style and I make my share of typos – just like JT
because I am BUSY.
I am a champion speller – since early childhood!
Sure Patty, sure.
Your “writing” style just happens to perfectly mimic a well known text transfer issue.
Sure.
You just randomly
break sentences
like this.
Because its your
writing style.
Sure it is.
Gyges,
“I think your point may be moot. Wouldn’t you admit that for all intensive purposes once the water hits whatever gathering device is used, it’s on the ground? It would therefore be subject to the well established doctrines you’ve mentioned,”
That’s just my point; the water captured does not return to the ground system by definition. Thus, in a huge leap of logic, laws against rainwater collection ASSUME that the rain or snow you collect would “[OTHERWISE return to the stream system or to groundwater, and when it returns it is owned by someone who has a legal right to it."
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/nov/17/a-solution-that-holds-water/
Assuming that the State has sovereign power over the water in the sky above your land is the first leap.
The second leap is drafting the law without any constitutional basis for exercising such power.
Example, Colorado's constitution only refers only to stream water.
While the Utah constitution doesn't even go that far (see Article XVII, Section 1. [Existing rights confirmed.])
Finally, rainwater falling to the ground is in no way guaranteed to find its way back to the water table and requires labor to acquire it. Thus these laws not only exceed constitutional and real property law bounds, but they also contradict the theory of property by which the founders staked their claim with the Declaration of Independence.:
“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.” (J. Locke, 2nd Treatise, Sec. 5 ‘On Property’)
Patty C
1, September 9, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Wrong.
I don’t have any MS software on my PC – never have.
I hate Microsoft! I am an avid Apple user
Why does that not surprise me?
Unfortunately, like most MAC users, you don’t know much about “pewters” and such. Otherwise you’d know that MS Word was one of the FIRST Apple programs ever. In fact, APPLE relied on Bill Gates and programmers like him to develop their application software.
Thus, whether you use a MAC or PC, is moot.
Both Word Perfect, (Corel, NOT Microsoft) and MS Word, works with both Apple and IBM type PC’s.
So your attempt to deny based on your computer type, is thus moot.
I was hoping you’d lie about this one, like you’ve lied in here before. This particular one, is not one you can so easily wiggle out of. Its a common thread we see in your posts and a common well known issue with text transfers.
And no one, just
randomly breaks sentences
like this Patty. No
one.
Unless of course you suffer from some sort of mental condition.
Those aren’t “typos”. Who makes a typo by breaking the sentence before concluding it?
No, those are not typos Patty.
The ONLY time that occurs, is when cutting and pasting from a Word Processor, into a blog or other web enabled form.
Its a very common, very well documented issue.
Line breaks in mid sentence is caused by transfering text from a word processor, to a web enabled form.
Thats a fact.
I don’t know what you are referring to when you say ‘line breaks mid sentence’…
I don’t have ANY word processing programs on my personal computer
- period.
My writing style is what it is, however, I DO edit myself when I have time.
Only YOU would attempt to invoke a ‘mental condition’ as explanation
on such a basis.
Newsflash – whatever I cut and paste is pretty obvious – accentuated by repeated glaring use of quotations marks and/or links to websites.
Sure
p
a
t
t
y
Sure.
What is a well known issue that anyone here can quickly duplicate by using a word processor and this blog to see for themselves, is with you, not that issue, but your “writing style”.
Your writing style is
to break sentences like this, because of some form of staggered dyslexia?
Sure Patty.
Sure.
FYI – I know plenty about ‘pewters’.
I started with the green dinosaur CRT’s in the early 80’s.
Unfortunately for me, what I am forced to use, professionally,
has never been my personal choice.
For your information, ape, my Mac is compatible with Microsoft and Excel, but only if I choose it through MacLink – which I never have.
Sure Patty, sure.
I’m sure you know a lot about computers.
Just like you don’t use a spell checker.
Sure.
So let me get this straight.
Your abrupt and premature
line breaks like this one, are not due to what they are due to on everyone elses computer, and that is transfering text from your word processor to this blog form.
For you its your “writing style”.
So its your “writing style” that causes
you to break sentences in half like this.
How exactly does one develop such a writing style as to
just break
sentences like this?
Beyond some sort of mental or visual impairment?
No patty, unless you’re telling us you have some sort of brain damage that causes
you to break sentences like this, then we can safely assume it is what it is on everyone elses computer.
Formatting issues caused when cut and pasting from your word processor to the blog.
You use a spell checker, and that has been proven here this evening.
Busted.
Patty C
1, September 9, 2008 at 6:23 pm
You are the one who pitches fits when he loses an argument and switches to personal attack mode with either the big fat mouth/big fat ‘arse’ insults.
I can assure you, and anyone else who is interested, I do not!
Patty C
1, September 9, 2008 at 10:11 pm
For your information, ape
I can assure you, and anyone else who is interested, I do not
- have a fat ass…
You proved nothing here, tonight, or any other night
- with the possible exception that you are the proverbial
‘missing link’, ape.
Busted.
“I think your point may be moot. Wouldn’t you admit that for all intensive purposes once the water hits whatever gathering device is used, it’s on the ground? It would therefore be subject to the well established doctrines you’ve mentioned,” …’
****
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/intensive.html – 2k
Another example of the oral transformation of language by people who don’t read much. “For all intents and purposes” is an old cliché which won’t thrill anyone, but using the mistaken alternative is likely to ‘elicit’ guffaws.
Patty C
1, September 9, 2008 at 11:31 pm
“I think your point may be moot. Wouldn’t you admit that for all intensive purposes once the water hits whatever gathering device is used, it’s on the ground?
No.
If it hits the top of my head its not on the ground. If I open my mouth and catch some it’s not on the ground. If its in my stomach, it’s not on the ground. People have no right to water in my mouth or in the palm of my hands.
But I will admit that for all intensive purposes once the water hits the top of your head, it’s on the ground.
Drink up – closing time…
Once again, you’ve proven you don’t read before commenting.
BTW, Bob Esq is NO expert on property – that’s for damn sure!
No, what we see once again is you summarily declaring victory after encountering a position that surmounts yours.
What we see once again is you failing to respond with a coherent argument when your position is refuted and instead making general accusations about my not reading.
I did read patty, and what I saw was you, contorting yourself to try and disguise the fact you use a spell checker prior to commenting and desperatly trying to ignore the fact that your assertation that water that is captured is “on the ground” thus implying others rights to it, was just proven wrong.
You said;
Patty C
1, September 9, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Wouldn’t you admit that for all intensive purposes once the water hits whatever gathering device is used, it’s on the ground?
But the fact is if I use my mouth as a device to capture water, its not on the ground.
If I use my hands as a device to capture water its not on the ground. If I let the water roll from my mouth to my stomach, using my stomach now as a device to hold the water, its not on the ground.
No one has a right to the water in my hands, mouth, or stomach, all things I can use as devices to capture and contain water.
However, I will concede that once I dispense the water from my body in the form of urine, then it is sometimes on the ground.
You’re certainly welcome to it then.
Patty C:
“BTW, Bob Esq is NO expert on property – that’s for damn sure!”
Unlike you, I never held myself out as an expert; completely dismissing the need to bolster claims with reasons & arguments via those shameless ipse-dixitisms of yours.
Even more comical is your sweeping generalization as to my knowledge of the topic; all the while betraying your ignorance via refusing to so much as address a single principle of real property or constitutional law I cited in support. Who needs all that work leading up to and resulting from a law degree so long one can declare herself a juristic whiz by virtue of marital and family relations. Thus the reason your Googling up and tossing around those non-sequitor replies of yours reminds me of apes in trees flinging their crap at passers-by in a zoo.
You have a nice day.
Cro Magnum Man,
I admire your tenacity.
If God didn’t want them to have that water, he wouldn’t have made it rain on their property!
Seriously, I was born and raised there and the backward attitudes and lack of freedom is stifling. It’s pretty much a police state.
Like I said you don’t read. That was not my quote. It was someone elses. Note the quotations marks. And the phrase is ‘for all intents and purposes’ – not for all intensive purposes…
Bob, Esq. 1, September 9, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Gyges,
“I think your point may be moot. Wouldn’t you admit that for all intensive purposes once the water hits whatever gathering device is used, it’s on the ground? It would therefore be subject to the well established doctrines you’ve mentioned,”
I don’t use a spell checker. I do edit myself, when I have time.
Luckily, Thingum I don’t need permission from you to comment on areas about which I have some knowledge. Sorry if that offends you.
BTW, I get paid a lot of money these days for slinging ‘crap’.
This is not a new area of regulation for the West.
http://www.martenlaw.com/news/?20080723-rainwater-harvesting
“In the United States, water resources are primarily governed by state, rather than federal, government. State and local governments have taken opposing approaches to rainwater. As noted above, for example, Colorado assumes that rainwater contributes to streamflows and, therefore, prohibits rainwater capture systems.[8] Similarly, local and state building codes, zoning laws, and other regulations in Colorado and other states may limit rainwater harvesting’s availability.”
Patty C
1, September 10, 2008 at 9:48 am
BTW, I get paid a lot of money these days for slinging ‘crap’.
You mean the crap you sling in here or are you just very fast at changing bedpans?
As for posting other peoples arguments to sell yours, that just constitutes a weak debater who can’t forumlate their own positions and instead just lazily cut and paste someone elses.
The fact is the idea of a law prohibiting someone from capturing a little of the rain over their own property, is ludicrious and plays no serious role in water conservation.
Targeting large scale water capture efforts is one thing, but telling people they can’t put a bird bath in their back yard, or put out a rain barrel is foolishness, and only a fool would support such a law.
“The fact is the idea of a law prohibiting someone from capturing a little of the rain over their own property, is ludicrious and plays no serious role in water conservation.”
****
No. The ‘fact’ is there are laws on the books which are completely valid, enforceable, and longstanding-since the mid 70’s. How you feel about them is your opinion which counts for nothing.
I wasn’t debating. This is not a debate site and you are not a worth debating.
Thingum has a hair across his butt and he needs someone like you to team up with. He enjoys being a jerk – like you.
I’m not intimidated.
When are you leaving, again, to set up the ‘debate’ site?
I want to mark my calendar.
——-
1976
Fight for Water in West Grows; Battle for Water, Vital to Dry Parts of Sunbelt, Intensifies in West
By GRACE LICHTENSTEIN Special to The New York Times
August 22, 1976, Sunday
Page 1, 2228 words
” DENVER, Aug. 21 The battle over water in the semiarid West, a battle that began when white men first started permanent settlements here, is fast reaching a critical stage that will determine the future of the dry sections of the region…”
Patty C
1, September 10, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I wasn’t debating.
I’d have to agree.
Patty C
1, September 10, 2008 at 5:41 pm
This is not a debate site
I think it’s supposed to be.
But I’ll agree it’s not when you’re here.
Patty C
1, September 10, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Thingum has a hair across his butt
I have to admit, I can see you being an expert on this topic.
Holy Snikeys! All of this venom over a little rain. I will throw in my late opinion on this “capturing rain” issue. I am shocked that any State or Federal government has the alleged authority to outlaw what I do with water that falls on my ground. Even if I collect it temporarily in a rain barrel, it eventually goes into the water table when I do use it on my garden. This governmental argument sounds a bit like how did my rain end up on your lawn. Even Col Ripper would agree that our precious fluids are ours, not the governments. Once the water hits the ground, if I am diverting it, that would be a horse of another color.
As usual Cro/Bartlebee likes to start fires in the hallways.
My ‘venom’ comes from being fed up with being the target of antics
- page after page of article posts in my absence here that I am reading for the first time in the last several days.
He tries to get a rise out of educated professionals with advanced degrees, like myself and others, by devoting his days to calling US illiterate, the grownups – ‘babies’, the women ‘fat ass’, and crediting people with arguments they weren’t making because HE doesn’t even know how to read!
This he calls ‘debating’.
And you ‘guys’ invite this idiocy by encouraging the
3-ring circus atmosphere.
I want to get back to intelligent Constitutional and other legal discussion – specifically with regard to the outgoing Administration
Wow, like a semi-retarded Algonquin Roundtable. I see a disturbing number of posts in the wee small hours of the morning. Can’t you people limit yourselves to wasting time while at work??????
Serious signs of mental illness, and/or an unpaid cable bill.
Your friend in Onan. Seamus
Patty C
1, September 11, 2008 at 11:48 am
He tries to get a rise out of educated professionals with advanced degrees, like myself and others, by devoting his days to calling US illiterate
Your position is untenable.
What you do for a living won’t change that.
Where you went to school won’t change that.
How good your sex with your husband is, won’t change that.
These are all things you constantly taut when presenting your positions that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
I don’t care where you work.
I don’t care who your stupid husband is.
I don’t care what stupid school you went to.
And I don’t care if you crap dandylions out of your arse on Tuesdays.
If you cannot debate a point without bloviating about how much more superior your life is to everyone elses, then clearly you just cannot debate.
Rafflaw just denounced your position, making him the 4th person who’s come in and denounced your position.
Your response?
To brag about how superior to everyone you think you are.
I debated the issue, and presented my positions, pointing out that water in my mouth, hands or stomach or on the top of my head, does not belong to namsypansy busybodies like you.
You could not refute that fact, so, you cut and pasted other peoples words, then still unable to formulate a coherent response, started up with your personal character attacks on me, and BRAGGING about your stupid school, stupid job, stupid family, stupid sex life….etc, as if ANY of that had anything to do with the topic.
It doesn’t.
Fact is the water I capture is mine, whether with my hands, or with an extension of my hands, in the form of a rain barrel.
And none of your insults or self praise changes that fact.
Very helpful. You must be filling in for Thingum Bob
Or, in the case of my househouse, try overlapping medical practices, a farm on the coast, and much needed vaca’ time, Sherlock.
seamus:
“Can’t you people limit yourselves to wasting time while at work??????”
Evening hours are most conducive to all my research and writing needs.
And btw, I’m not ’semi-retarded’ for attempting to employ reason and expect same in return; I’m a moron.
Patty C
1, September 11, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Very helpful. You must be filling in for Thingum Bob
Or, in the case of my househouse, try overlapping medical practices, a farm on the coast, and much needed vaca’ time, Sherlock.
Once more we see you calling Bob names, bragging about your work, your property, and whatever the hell a househouse is, yet mysteriously not one single point of refute.
Thus, once more, you rest my case.
As for the mysterious “househouse”, I’m betting it is another result of not looking closely enough at what you’re copying and pasting from your spell checker.
You know your spell checker, right?
Its the one you swear you’re not using.
Or is this just another example of your writing stylestyle?
I doubtdoubt even youyou would bebe that dumbdumb, but with youyou, who knowsknows?
OMG, my ’spell checker’ must be on the blink today, ahem
- my ‘household’!
A thousand pardons.
For the last time.
I was not attempting to engage in a debate.
The laws are on the books, they have been there for decades, and are enforceable.
Because you don’t agree with the laws, don’t understand the history behind them, nor can you fathom the state’s shared water interest toward the public welfare, then obviously that means that Utah Water Enforcement officers are scoundrels – for doing their jobs.
AND IF you had read the article, you would see that they do not deserve to be ’shot on sight’ for their thoughtful handling, in this case.
Read my very first comment on the subject.
On a personal note, none of us come here for exasperation.
I am not your doctor, but you need psychiatric help.
You are own your own.
Patty C
1, September 11, 2008 at 6:21 pm
For the last time.
I was not attempting to engage in a debate
You’ve tried that one already.
And the excuse for why you lost the debate you’ve been arguing for the past 3 days is that you were “not debating”, is indeed a tactic worthy of the most Rovian amongst us.
You are to be commended.
Patty C
1, September 11, 2008 at 6:21 pm
The laws are on the books, they have been there for decades, and are enforceable.
No, if they were enforceable they’d be enforcing them.
Patty C
1, September 11, 2008 at 6:21 pm
AND IF you had read the article, you would see that they do not deserve to be ’shot on sight’ for their thoughtful handling, in this case.
I did read the article, as well as your comments, which is why I so easily dismantle them.
Such as your latest attempt at a straw argument to shore up your untenable position in this debate which you are not engaging in.
I never implied nor suggested anyone should be shot on sight, so if you’re not going to “engage” in this debate that you’ve been engaging in now for the past 3 days, perhaps you should also cease to engage in creating strawman positions for others simply to shore up your untenable positions which you are not actually stating, because you’re not actually debating in the debate you are in… but not in…
Maybe you’re not even really here.