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.
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.
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.
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)]
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.
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?
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.”
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?
Dr_Dredd,
No that’s O.K. because eventually that water will go downstream. Loved your “photo shoot” comment on “Stranger with a Camera”!
Better close your mouth when walking in the rain. You might accidentally swallow some, and then they’d throw you in the pokey!