Inclement Crimes: Utah Cracks Down on People Capturing Rainwater

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 me

Raindrops 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.

121 thoughts on “Inclement Crimes: Utah Cracks Down on People Capturing Rainwater”

  1. 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.

Comments are closed.