LEGAL Rain water collection becoming illegal

milkydoo

Inactive
So, they own the rain that falls on your land now? If that's the case, maybe we can sue them for getting our property wet and making a mess of things? What about the bird poop? Can we bill them for car washes after those flying poop factories decorate our rides?

http://www.riseearth.com/2011/12/collecting-rainwater-now-illegal-in.html

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

COLLECTING RAINWATER NOW ILLEGAL IN MANY STATES AS BIG GOVERNMENT CLAIMS OWNERSHIP OVER OUR WATER


Many of the freedoms we enjoy here in the U.S. are quickly eroding as the nation transforms from the land of the free into the land of the enslaved, but what I'm about to share with you takes the assault on our freedoms to a whole new level. You may not be aware of this, but many Western states, including Utah, Washington and Colorado, have long outlawed individuals from collecting rainwater on their own properties because, according to officials, that rain belongs to someone else.

As bizarre as it sounds, laws restricting property owners from "diverting" water that falls on their own homes and land have been on the books for quite some time in many Western states. Only recently, as droughts and renewed interest in water conservation methods have become more common, have individuals and business owners started butting heads with law enforcement over the practice of collecting rainwater for personal use.

Check out this YouTube video of a news report out of Salt Lake City, Utah, about the issue. It's illegal in Utah to divert rainwater without a valid water right, and Mark Miller of Mark Miller Toyota, found this out the hard way.


(Also a picture at link)

After constructing a large rainwater collection system at his new dealership to use for washing new cars, Miller found out that the project was actually an "unlawful diversion of rainwater." Even though it makes logical conservation sense to collect rainwater for this type of use since rain is scarce in Utah, it's still considered a violation of water rights which apparently belong exclusively to Utah's various government bodies.

"Utah's the second driest state in the nation. Our laws probably ought to catch up with that," explained Miller in response to the state's ridiculous rainwater collection ban.

Salt Lake City officials worked out a compromise with Miller and are now permitting him to use "their" rainwater, but the fact that individuals like Miller don't actually own the rainwater that falls on their property is a true indicator of what little freedom we actually have here in the U.S. (Access to the rainwater that falls on your own property seems to be a basic right, wouldn't you agree?)

Outlawing rainwater collection in other states
Utah isn't the only state with rainwater collection bans, either. Colorado and Washington also have rainwater collection restrictions that limit the free use of rainwater, but these restrictions vary among different areas of the states and legislators have passed some laws to help ease the restrictions.

In Colorado, two new laws were recently passed that exempt certain small-scale rainwater collection systems, like the kind people might install on their homes, from collection restrictions.

Prior to the passage of these laws, Douglas County, Colorado, conducted a study on how rainwater collection affects aquifer and groundwater supplies. The study revealed that letting people collect rainwater on their properties actually reduces demand from water facilities and improves conservation.

Personally, I don't think a study was even necessary to come to this obvious conclusion. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that using rainwater instead of tap water is a smart and useful way to conserve this valuable resource, especially in areas like the West where drought is a major concern.

Additionally, the study revealed that only about three percent of Douglas County's precipitation ended up in the streams and rivers that are supposedly being robbed from by rainwater collectors. The other 97 percent either evaporated or seeped into the ground to be used by plants.

This hints at why bureaucrats can't really use the argument that collecting rainwater prevents that water from getting to where it was intended to go. So little of it actually makes it to the final destination that virtually every household could collect many rain barrels worth of rainwater and it would have practically no effect on the amount that ends up in streams and rivers.

It's all about control, really
As long as people remain unaware and uninformed about important issues, the government will continue to chip away at the freedoms we enjoy. The only reason these water restrictions are finally starting to change for the better is because people started to notice and they worked to do something to reverse the law.

Even though these laws restricting water collection have been on the books for more than 100 years in some cases, they're slowly being reversed thanks to efforts by citizens who have decided that enough is enough.

Because if we can't even freely collect the rain that falls all around us, then what, exactly, can we freely do? The rainwater issue highlights a serious overall problem in America today: diminishing freedom and increased government control.

Today, we've basically been reprogrammed to think that we need permission from the government to exercise our inalienable rights, when in fact the government is supposed to derive its power from us. The American Republic was designed so that government would serve the People to protect and uphold freedom and liberty. But increasingly, our own government is restricting people from their rights to engage in commonsense, fundamental actions such as collecting rainwater or buying raw milk from the farmer next door.

Today, we are living under a government that has slowly siphoned off our freedoms, only to occasionally grant us back a few limited ones under the pretense that they're doing us a benevolent favor.

Fight back against enslavement
As long as people believe their rights stem from the government (and not the other way around), they will always be enslaved. And whatever rights and freedoms we think we still have will be quickly eroded by a system of bureaucratic power that seeks only to expand its control.

Because the same argument that's now being used to restrict rainwater collection could, of course, be used to declare that you have no right to the air you breathe, either. After all, governments could declare that air to be somebody else's air, and then they could charge you an "air tax" or an "air royalty" and demand you pay money for every breath that keeps you alive.

Think it couldn't happen? Just give it time. The government already claims it owns your land and house, effectively. If you really think you own your home, just stop paying property taxes and see how long you still "own" it. Your county or city will seize it and then sell it to pay off your "tax debt." That proves who really owns it in the first place... and it's not you!

How about the question of who owns your body? According to the U.S. Patent & Trademark office, U.S. corporations and universities already own 20% of your genetic code. Your own body, they claim, is partially the property of someone else.

So if they own your land, your water and your body, how long before they claim to own your air, your mind and even your soul?

Unless we stand up against this tyranny, it will creep upon us, day after day, until we find ourselves totally enslaved by a world of corporate-government collusion where everything of value is owned by powerful corporations -- all enforced at gunpoint by local law enforcement.

Author: Mike Adams - NaturalNews
 

Satanta

Stone Cold Crazy
_______________
Kind of mixed mind here.

Having lived in Texas I know what drought is as well as Arizona where a friend of mine had to redrill his well three times in two years [[along with the rest of his area]]

A large carwash uses several thousands of gallons a day. Most in Texas use a recycling system but if they were collecting those thousands during rain the surrounding areas would get none

Then again that's not logical either so really...I dunno, gonna shut my mouf except to say if I was worried I would have a fake downspout with a diverter hidden behind it going into a cistern. About 10% of the water would go out the end of the spout so it looked like the rain was running onto the ground. The rest? ;)
 

Handyman

Veteran Member
have you ever figured out how many gallons of water fall during a rain storm,

An acre is 43,560 square feet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acre-foot
It is defined by the volume of one acre of surface area to a depth of one foot. Since the acre is defined as a chain by a furlong (66 ft ¡Á 660 ft) the acre-foot is exactly 43,560 cubic feet. Thus there are two definitions of the acre foot (differing by about 0.0006%) depending on whether we use the international or U.S. survey foot.

1 international acre foot ¡Ô 43,560 international cubic feet (by definition)
= 1233.48183754752 m3 (exactly)
= 325,851 3⁄7 U.S. gal (exactly)
¡Ö 271,328.072596 imp gal

1 U.S. survey acre foot ¡Ô 43,560 U.S. survey cubic feet (by definition)
¡Ö 1233.4892384681 m3
¡Ö 325,853.383688 U.S. gal[nb 1]

325,851 gallons divide by 12 = 27,154.25 on one inch of water, per acer, or about .62 gallons per square foot, (during an one inch rain fall).

and when it is said and done, how much of that water is returned to the environment,

even the car wash, what happens to the water that is used, it goes down the sewer, treated and returned to the environment, (most to the time in a Urban setting it is the river), which is where the water would or might get to in nature via rain run off.

most likely more water would make to the river system via the sewer treatment system than by run off of earth, because if you do not catch your roof water, it runs off on the grass and soaks in the lawn, unless it really heavy rain, if you would catch it and use it and it goes now the drain most all of it would reach the river system.
 

Taz

Deceased
Well, for most of us preppers we can circumvent the law pretty much. I have 7 55 gallon food grade drums sitting under the edge of my eves. I have a metal roof. We get real goose drownders in Fl and its plenty to wash off the roof before I open the drums to catch the water. My intentions are to toss a few silver dollars into each barrel as an antibacterial agent. How say you? There is always the bleach bottle. My yard is also fenced with a solid wood fence so the neighbors don't have a clue what I do in my yard. This is all at my BOL in the forest. Our house at the beach has a swiming pool and a well. We do need to buy a new quiet genny to hook up to the well. Just in case we can't make it to our BOL and the only thing that would stop us would be an EMP where our 4x4 suv wouldn't start. Everything is at the BOL now.
 

fairbanksb

Freedom Isn't Free
Makes no sense but then what does when it comes to government idiots. Collecting rain water is preserving water. If you use it for watering gardens or drinking or whatever it is not being taken from the public water supply.
 

Publius

TB Fanatic
The thread start states a KEY Word! "FREEDOM" I. E. LIBERTY. So you should challenge the state to show a compelling interest for taking this liberty from you. I bet they cannot.
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
One cannot control where rain falls. Therefore, rain falling on my property is MINE, if I choose to capture it. If TPTB don't like it, they can arrest God....
 

Bubba Zanetti

Veteran Member
Not in Oregon, Dennis.

It was decided by a court case decades ago that the water belongs to the state, snow, ice pack, brackish water at the mouth of the Columbia. All of it.

A few years aog (I believe I started a thread about this outrage), a local Portland based state Rep. introduced a bill that made it out of committee that would require ALL private wells the have a $1,500 meter placed on them and the home owner (and farmer most of all) would have to pay the state a certain "rate" for pulling water from the ground.

I s#it you not.

Oh, forgot. The home owner would have to pay for the meter and its installation too.

It got shot down pretty hard when it went up for a vote, but the fact it even made it out of committee.....

The reasoning? Since urban people have to pay for their water, why not rural people?
 

MtnGal

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Charlotte NC has a tax on rainwater run off. Each house taxed on the sq ft of roof, adding to the property tax. You are not allowed to collect it unless you want a whopping fine.
 

Double_A

TB Fanatic
It's become as issue in many areas. It often come to people's attention when one well owner starts some sort of business operation using lots and lots of water and manage to suck an aquifier dry leaving others wells bone dry and the neighbors without any alternative than to truck in water.
 

Richard

TB Fanatic
yeah but all water eventually gets used and runs away whether it is collected and stored temporarily or not, all water returns to the soil eventually then enters the natural evaporation cycle, so what is the problem, the problem is Governmental stupidity
 

LONEWOLF

Deceased
It's a control/permit access only and REVENUE generation issue for Gov't. Free money at our expense, again...............
 

otterpop

Contributing Member
What would be a fair rate for a fee charged to said water right holder for rainwater passage though your property, as the rainwater apparently it belongs to someone else, not to be touched by you, even one drop?

How about an exemption to building restrictions and codes when structures need to be erected to prevent THEIR water from falling onto your land and home, potentially causing damage to your property by same rainwater? I am talking about an umbrella-type protecting whatever land you want to keep dry..

Or does this mean that the water right holder in essence can declare ownership of your land- as their watershed?

Are affected property owners prohibited to allow That rainwater from falling into your open mouth?

(The next thing thay will pull is to declare that AIR also belongs to someone else and that you will required to pay a user fee for each preset number of breaths...)

(SARCASM OFF) I realize that water rights are an improtant issue across the west, but this smacks more of the attempt to rule over the peasantry based on the superiority of the more wealthy class, including the present benificiaries of several generations before them who were so eager to steal the land from the PRIOR occupants (American Tribes).

Or otherwise: Say deeded WATER rights in these PARTICULAR cases ARE honored by the PTB this time. (Wait until the U.N. gets hold of this, then those water rights holders will have no one in their corner when the rest of us have already been hearded off into cities, or wiped off the face of this earth. Then they can cry "Foul" then.)

otter pop
 

mbabulldog

Inactive
Yup, its illegal here in Colorado to collect rainwater.

But if you push "their" snow back onto "their" street, they will write you a ticket.

Which begs the question; can I sue my state if a rainstorm causes damage to my property?
 

carioca

Contributing Member
The problem is that the law is being used in a way that was never intended.

Those who wrote it didn't care about (and would be appalled that anyone would prosecute) someone catching rainwater from their roof.


The laws were written to prevent large landowners from damming dry waterways and preventing flash floods from reaching rivers where they would be diverted into existing reservoirs. From there the water is proportioned out in shares, measured in acre-feet.

I'm not saying the reservoir system is the best way to manage flood-waters, but it has worked pretty well for over a century.

Someone filling a barrel off their roof is not the intended target of these laws.

The business in the OP, might just be a valid target. If they are diverting water that used to go into the storm drains, then they make a big enough impact (the lot is several acres). Mark Miller is an idiot though. It is *because* the state he lives in is so dry that the laws exist, removing the water rights (and the attendant assured irrigation water) would make farming impossible in most areas of Utah, forcing Utah to be dependent on other states for food.
 

Satanta

Stone Cold Crazy
_______________
Yup, its illegal here in Colorado to collect rainwater.

But if you push "their" snow back onto "their" street, they will write you a ticket.

Which begs the question; can I sue my state if a rainstorm causes damage to my property?

I would.

"Do you have children? If they come on my property and damage it do you feel I have the right to spank them and make them work for reparations of the damages? You say it is *your* water and that I have no right to collect or use it on *my* property, therefore you pay the damages done to my property just as if your children came on to my property and damaged it."
 
It can truthfully be said that 'real' equals 'royal' when it comes to "real estate" (see the "Real = Royal?" section)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Real_estate#Real_.3D_Royal.3F


Anyone doubting this should consider what happens if you don't pay your RE taxes - and how long the property would
remain 'yours'. I.e. it all belongs to the 'king' in whatever form the current 'king' takes...including the rain that falls thereon.


OTOH, if 'ya want to collect rainwater, go ahead - just disguise it and don't brag about to anyone. F' em...
 

Hansa44

Justine Case
So....how many people are actually trying to do something about this? Maybe just change the wording.

And how many are just complaining about it?

This is why we're in this mess today in this country. Most people just complain and then drop it.
 

mbabulldog

Inactive
The problem is that the law is being used in a way that was never intended.

Those who wrote it didn't care about (and would be appalled that anyone would prosecute) someone catching rainwater from their roof.

Actually, here on the Front Range it is exactly why it was developed.

Water rights are worth their weight in gold (almost). Back in the early 1900's some of the larger agricultural farms figured it would be cheaper just to put up tin roofs with downspouts, call them structures, and collect the rainwater. Some of these structures are still in place up in Fort Morgan, and several are larger than football fields. They were called "chicken houses" "cow barns" "lettuce processing" "corn shucking" or whatever was needed to get the building up and legal. The problem was the owners were in no way discreet that they really built it to catch rainwater. So the groundwork of "rain belongs to the government" was set in motion.

Fast Forward to the 1990's/2000's. Housing developers are finally getting pinched back because they can't account for the water they will need. Several developers built their own tanks and underground storage, catching rainwater as it ran off roofs and other drainages. They succsssfully petitioned the courts to allow them to build further because they demonstrated how they reduced their needed water from the Colorado and other water sources. This p-ssed off the towns and water boards to no end. This was the final impetus to button-down the rain laws.
 

carioca

Contributing Member
Actually, here on the Front Range it is exactly why it was developed.

Water rights are worth their weight in gold (almost). Back in the early 1900's some of the larger agricultural farms figured it would be cheaper just to put up tin roofs with downspouts, call them structures, and collect the rainwater. Some of these structures are still in place up in Fort Morgan, and several are larger than football fields. They were called "chicken houses" "cow barns" "lettuce processing" "corn shucking" or whatever was needed to get the building up and legal. The problem was the owners were in no way discreet that they really built it to catch rainwater. So the groundwork of "rain belongs to the government" was set in motion.

Fast Forward to the 1990's/2000's. Housing developers are finally getting pinched back because they can't account for the water they will need. Several developers built their own tanks and underground storage, catching rainwater as it ran off roofs and other drainages. They succsssfully petitioned the courts to allow them to build further because they demonstrated how they reduced their needed water from the Colorado and other water sources. This p-ssed off the towns and water boards to no end. This was the final impetus to button-down the rain laws.

Yeah, the same effect as damming off a dry wash.

I maintain though that those who wrote the original laws would have no problem with an individual collecting water off their roof.

I did not, however, realize these were *new* laws.
 

mbabulldog

Inactive
So....how many people are actually trying to do something about this? Maybe just change the wording.

And how many are just complaining about it?

This is why we're in this mess today in this country. Most people just complain and then drop it.

I can't speak for other states, but at last count there were 4-separate Water Utilities that each have their fingers in water rights just in the Denver-metro area.

Good luck petitioning one; forget about getting 4 to change their mind.
 
Top