What is Digg?105 Comments
- tbhurst, on 07/22/2008, -1/+41Great story. The fact that I do not own the water that falls on my roof here in Colorado is abominable. It is illegal for me to collect rainwater that drips from my roof because it is already 'owned' by someone down stream.
- Arawn, on 07/23/2008, -0/+32Another way of taking this to absurdity: if the rain water is "owned" by someone else, and if it damages your property, then you can sue... :P
- inactive, on 07/22/2008, -1/+33Yes, such a great idea, let's try and decide who owns rainwater! Ack!
- inactive, on 07/22/2008, -1/+25I live in western Colorado and it's illegal to collect water from your roof in the county I live in. This water is owned by California, go figure. In the West whiskey is for sipping, water is for fighting.
- inactive, on 07/23/2008, -0/+24So when it floods can I sue the people who own the rainwater for damages and emotional distress?
- greentimes, on 07/22/2008, -0/+22Well let's see, we can either use our rainwater or it can filter through our yards and neighborhoods picking up pollution from automobiles, yard fertilizer, pesticides, etc. . . and then get dumped into our waterways this way. Or we could capture it and use it for an actually productive purpose.
Plus, how much water is this really "stealing" a few square feet which is like .0000000001% of what a storm will actually rain on?
These ancient water rights laws are right in check w/ ancient 1870s mining laws that were created to the benefit of those with the mineral and/or water rights and those people alone.
For an interesting look into traditional (read communal) water rights and modern water rights see http://www.lasacequias.org/ - Aitese, on 07/23/2008, -0/+19It was raining...and I tipped my head and opened my mouth like I used to do when I was a child.
I received a 50,000 volt tase to the neck from a law enforcement officer for theft. - Sillywombat, on 07/23/2008, -0/+18"Sir, Put the bucket down, slowly!
Turn around, and put your hands behind your head!" - netneutrality, on 07/22/2008, -0/+15The number of stupid laws enacted is now so extreme it's probably a minority of people left who've never broken one.
So don't like your neighbor? All you have to do is figure out which law they've broken. (Of course, they can do it back to you...) - socialpyramid, on 07/22/2008, -1/+14I always thought it was funny that an environmentalist who has worked to protect the Hudson River is named Lisa Rainwater http://lisarainwater.com/lisar/About%20Me.html
- inactive, on 07/23/2008, -0/+11People joke up here that we should be called "The Peoples Republic of Washington".
I've lived up here 19 years our elected officials are spineless idiots.
The mayor of Seattle wanted to ban bonfires on public beaches and charge 20 cents for each plastic grocery bag.
Seattle used to be such a cool city... - VitriolAndAngst, on 07/23/2008, -0/+10Well, the NEW capitalism is that you get to own things and control them, but you aren't responsible for them.
Storm damage is an "act of nature" while creating your own puddle is theft. - VitriolAndAngst, on 07/23/2008, -1/+11Manmade structures have accelerated the run-off. To say that "slowing water down" on your property is an unnatural manipulation that harms nature is pure nonsense.
The water will eventually get to the rivers -- and mostly the same amount. All you are doing is reducing the supply for a week or two while your storage fills up -- thereafter the flow would be at the same rate. This is just a way to make people dependent upon an expensive and centralized source of water. I can't think of any benefit to NATURE for such a scheme.
Here is a simple test to try at home; hold a cup of water under the faucet. After a second or two it fills up and the water flows at the same rate. All you did was "time-delay" a certain amount. A negligible amount will evaporate -- but since you are using barrels and cisterns -- this is less than would evaporate if we got rid of all the houses and roads and such that are causing run-off to flow so rapidly.
"The issue isn't so cut and dried..." no, it's obviously all wet. There is no rational justification for this usurpation of rights. - VitriolAndAngst, on 07/23/2008, -0/+9Here is my take on the issue;
If you collect your own rainwater -- all you are doing is delaying the water. After some delay, the same amount of water is going to flow to the river. If you have a rain-barrel or a cistern, then you have water available to drink or water your lawn. That water is going to evaporate or go to the river.
Now, you could SAY that you have distorted the environment by slowing the water down such that it evaporates -- but we sped up the flow of water with ditches, sewers, roads and roofs. We have more flooding and surges and deficits of water because we just let it run off as waste.
An intelligent system is going to slow down the flow of water and re-use it as much as possible. Just like money -- it is about the turnover.
This "ownership" argument, is to allow companies to make profits and usurp the rights of property owners. It is a brazen resource grab as water becomes more scarce. It seems there is always someone ready and able to support any damn scheme the robber barons come up with.
Homeowners securing water and using it, only puts the watershed BACK to its natural state. And as water gets more scarce -- people are going to hide this resource if you pass laws. So, taxpayer money will have to be used to enforce the search for hidden water in order to rip off taxpayers. Good luck finding that underground tank at every house.
I predict this scheme to try and own the water that falls on people's land will go away. It is too blatant and draconian and will be too hard to enforce. But hey, so is the war on drugs with the excuse that the government is doing it because they care about us. Yes, care enough that 1/4th of the worlds prisoners are in American jails and half of those are for using drugs. In most cases, I'd say prison is worse for a person's health than the average illegal substance. Perhaps the wastefulness will provide more jobs and we have 200,000 water inspectors---more than we use to ensure food safety. I'm not surprised by much anymore. - kirado4, on 07/23/2008, -2/+11the water belongs to the people who control the biggest army with the most guns
- sustainablogger, on 07/22/2008, -1/+10Wow... how absurd! I'm also guessing that most of the "owners" of Washington's rainwater view it as waste to be disposed of.... the traditional approach to rain/stormwater.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 07/23/2008, -0/+8Well, that for sure will come under debate one day. And there will be a bunch of morons or paid shills on the blog saying; "This is more complicated than it seems."
No it isn't. Just try and take my damn rainwater, you crooks. Just because you can bribe Congress doesn't make what you are doing right. - pixmaker2, on 07/22/2008, -0/+8what!!!! are you for serious?
- jdago, on 07/23/2008, -0/+7whats next the air we breath?
- Bilabrin, on 07/22/2008, -0/+7Trivial until someone get's ticketed.
- kylere, on 07/23/2008, -1/+8My apologies in advance...
In Soviet Russia, rainwater owns YOU! - Kapitaine, on 07/23/2008, -0/+7This is the most dumb ass thing I have ever heard. But yeah, they'd probably come after your air next if they could - with all this pollution set to rise, who knows!
The fact of that matter is, even if everyone in a neighborhood collect their own water, the chances are the collection will be very small in comparison to what is being rained down. Perhaps 1 square foot per house hold as opposed to the 3423423423452342345645 square foot of the area - the impact it would have is very little.
The argument that it will disrupt water flow is just stupid. Cities have already been paved over to death with concrete (nobody ever seemed to care about that disrupting water flow) and also, if someone IS collecting water, the chances are they'll use LESS water from the main water service. Farmers wouldn't be left dry, cities wont turn to deserts and It would all balance out.
The only loser here would be the water companies, and where I live, this means Government. Yup, you guessed it, less taxes to them. Just like alternative fuel sources, they want to rape you for all the money you've got.
Government doesn't actually seem to give a crap about the environment really. They have so many "green" schemes, yet seem to contradict themselves or penalise those who are actually making a real effort. - inactive, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6Good grief America. Who owns the wind?
*facepalm* - Joepoag, on 07/23/2008, -0/+6What's next? Are the vegetables that are growing in my garden going to be considered property of the state also?
- inactive, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5Jinx you owe me a coke.
- RadioFreeOpium, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5Funny, I just purchased two plastic drums with spigots at the bottom for collecting rainwater, and I know several other people who have done the same recently. The thought that I could catch flak from my horrendously incompetent and inefficient city government for collecting rain is beyond absurd. Who owns the moisture hanging in the air? Who owns the clouds?
- gritta, on 07/23/2008, -2/+7If you take the first letter of wednesday through friday, it spells "WTF".
- Justice101, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5lol, I'm gonna try that now. Sooo neighbor forgot to trim your lawn ornaments...Hello, 911?... :-)
- TheWriteGuy, on 07/23/2008, -1/+6Rainwater are the tears Jesus cries from Heaven whenever you masturbate, kids.
- inactive, on 07/23/2008, -0/+5No, this is about big companies trying to monopolize everything. The amount of water that is landing on a roofs as opposed to watersheds is negligible and if people want to put a temporary 50 gallon tank there to water their lawn, or even a 1500 gallon buried cistern I see no problem. If you are concerned about a 2 million gallon tank (not much water btw...) then just do that with the standard building permit process.
I view this the same way as the ass holes who are against laundry drying in your back yard.
Also, Colorado who seems to have the most regressive rainwater collection law appears to be rolling back this law, because all this water is going to wind up in the ground eventually anyways. It may actually be good for the environment because it will defer storm surge on the city and county systems.
It is not like the plans for fresh water export that the great lakes were looking at, where they wanted to load up super tankers full of water and ship it half way around the world. - jman583, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4I belongs to the raindancers. duh..
- Redseele, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4If my memory serves me right, a few years ago this is exactly what happened in Bolivia. The water company (which was american-owned) claimed that it was going to sue people for collecting water that was rightfully theirs (rainwater). The government did not do a thing to stop this because Bolivia had receiving money from the American government to fund its war against drug producers.
Well, what happened next was that people all around Bolivia rose and protested en mass to the point where the company had to FLEE the country. The popularity of the government was brought to the ground and the next elections (2003 or 2004?) a socialist president was elected (now he has very close ties with Chavez in Venezuela).
I'm not blaming Americans, of course. But rather the capitalist system that ends up bringing its own demise when it pushes too hard to control what is rightfully people's.
The details of what happened in Bolivia (which would later happen with gas resources as well), can be found here:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Bo ... - macwac, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4Anyone know whether this applies to any other country other than U.S?
I plan in a few years to build my house. I will if money allows collect all the rainwater, filter it and use it to offset my water usage... such as for the toilet, watering the garden, washing the car etc... if that means having a big enough container to hold a few thousand liters then I will accommodate it. Similarly i will collect sunlight for electricity.. (please don't tell me that it is illegal too). It would be nice to know whether my plans should just be thrown away. - raquel9e, on 07/23/2008, -1/+5Al Gore is not the "king of the planet green movement." He is a politician who wanted to cast light on the issue of sustainability. He helped bring it into the average American's mind. No one actually thinks he is an expert on sustainability and no one looks to him for guidance on how to take care of the planet.
- moonlessrat, on 07/23/2008, -0/+4I believe that's already been partially covered in that its illegal to build your own electricity producing windmill. At least in Australia anyway. Always thought that was a crap law....I can understand you don't want a bunch of windmills springing up all over suburbia.....but the guy with a 100,000 hectare sheep farm out in the middle of the never never should be allowed to use wind ffs.
- inactive, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6What the hell are you on about?
- PopcornDave, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Then if you sustain any damage from said rainwater are you able to sue the owner of said water? Or have they given themselves immunity on that too?
- Origin415, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3As long as they are only taking the water that falls on THEIR property, no one is going to miss it. If its that big a deal, then we should be looking at the impact of parking lots, not a couple of barrels.
- mytruckhasdents, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3So for those of us who can collect water- is it illegal for us to treat the rain water that we collect, bottle it and sell it? -that could be stealing from the large "bottle water" production companies...
/sarcasm - ROBINEW, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Who owns the ground water. Could my well be illegal?
- inactive, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3water never belongs to anyone. when you pay for your water bill you're paying for the convenience of having it delivered to your tap. "ownership" of rainwater is the same, since almost all of our fresh water was produced that way.
- BassJunkie, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3I was going to suggest this after seeing this comment at the bottom of the story:
"So really, when it floods in those areas where the rainwater is owned by someone the rainwater owners are liable for damages…"
I'm just hoping the UK goverment don't hear about this as I can see a new law being passed over here to?
I can't see how an elected body can just decide they suddenly own everything, and besides it's not like me having a waterbutt (which i actually do) is going to effect the eco-system that much. It's all water at the end of the day, all I did was stop a few gallons going straight down the drain and saved it for later use. In my case I use it to water the plants when there isn't any rain so I'm still returning it to it's rightful owner (the EARTH!) aren't I?? - Aitese, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3I got dibs!
- jbmcb, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3It's "owned" by the government. Good luck suing them...
- troozers, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3I would love to say "ha ha - only in America", however I think somebody in the UK Government is probably already reading this and thinking "Ooooh nice... and I wonder if we can tax rainwater too!"
- brownspank, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3Do the same for July through November, and you get "JASON".
- mytruckhasdents, on 07/23/2008, -0/+3i just farted- breathe that.
- WileEPeyote, on 07/23/2008, -1/+3"and as stated in the article they do not intend to enforce it unless some one is abusing the privileged."
I do not consider collecting rain from the sky a privilege. - wolferz, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2So... you think if each person stored 2 million gallons of rain water that would have no effect of the environment? I mean... if they are overlooking the law to allow people to collect small amounts of water (50 gallons or so) despite the letter of the law it seems that they are admitting the intent isn't to prevent people from collecting water. The only thing the law prevents if small collections are ignored is the environment... which supports my view and runs counter to yours.
Put simply: You're sheep. Some one puts out a story with some anti-big-business spin on it and you jump behind it and give it your full support without even thinking it through. What this is about is a top story on dig, advertising dollars on a blog, and sheep like you being manipulated to make it happen.
I don't agree with this law (bit of a libertarian) but I understand it's intent. I just believe education and incentives should be tried before threats and punishments (carrots before whips). - Pollmak, on 07/23/2008, -0/+2Stupid laws can bring up stupid questions, but hypothetically speaking:
If rain water belongs to the state, Technically : could you not sue the state for allowing rain water to fall on your property or for damaging your property?
If this is indeed a law there must be a lot of clauses and fin print. -
Show 51 - 100 of 105 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is