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.
“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’.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
Patty C
1, September 9, 2008 at 1:39 am
I also ride, hunt, jump, and train my horses.
😐
You hunt your horses?
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.
Thats what I say.
😐
So what?
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?
😐
You already said that.
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!
😐
And we care about your lifes story why exactly?
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’…
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!
.
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’… 🙂
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.
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.
I’m sorry.. was there a coherent sentence concealed somewhere in these last two comments.
And if so, what was it?