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.
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
‘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.
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!
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?)
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.
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.
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.” …
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 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.
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?
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.
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)]”
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.”
“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
Illegal to collect rain water?
How many basic maxims of real property law, not to mention constitutional laws, does that one violate?
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.
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…
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.
Well gee, thanks Gyge.
😐
I didn’t realize this was about “me” and not this silly Utah law.
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.