If in Colorado, don't collect rain water!

timbudtwo · Post by **timbudtwo** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 5:16 pm

"Nicholas Riccardi of the The LA Times has a story about "rainwater harvesters" in Colorado who are not allowed to collect rainwater that falls in their own yard, because the water rights belong to farmers, ranchers, developers and water agencies. "

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/03/18/pe ... barre.html

ill just leave this here...

Post by **AntiM** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 5:55 pm

This is actually nothing new in the West. Rain barrels are, and have been, illegal in Utah for decades. The rain replenishes the aquifers. A small individual barrel won't raise much of an eyebrow, but larger or commercial uses is potentially a threat to groundwater levels.

I'll just leave this here .... actually, no, not the right forum.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:13 pm

It's not burn related, so I think it's okay.

Water politics in the west is going to explode in the next couple of decades. California used to have multi-decade droughts. Three years of less than normal rainfall spooks those of us who have been here a while. And they are talking Periferal canal. If you're interested you should read up on Muhallond and how Los Angeles made water grabs in the early 1900s.

Thecatman · Post by **Thecatman** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:28 pm

When we get enough snow to shovel or better yet use the snowblower, which is rare, I move as much as I can onto the grass and dirt area so it'll melt into the ground and not the gutter and end up flowing to the Carson river. Same when I'm in a plow on I80. I move as much as I can onto the dirt shoulders, which is policy to reduce refreezing on the highway.

timbudtwo · Post by **timbudtwo** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:10 pm

I really couldn't find a better place for it. I wanted some good discussion on it too since I wondered if anyone else has knowledge of this.

dragonfly Jafe · Post by **dragonfly Jafe** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:24 am

...is it still legal for kids to stick out their tongues and catch a rain drop or two?

Post by **AntiM** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:24 am

I live upstream from California, the history of water grabs are part of the basic geology curriculum at any University here.

We only get to water our lawns on certain days in summer IF here's been a good snowpack the previous winter. However, Ogden City has an ordinance requiring green grass. Not caught up with the times at all.

Our outdoor water hasn't been turned on yet. Still have a few weeks to go.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:29 am

Do you think the sun is also free?
There was a tussle here recently about someone who put a solar panel on their roof, then sued to have a neighbor cut their tree to keep from impeding the rays.

Goes both ways then.

Sail Man · Post by **Sail Man** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:40 pm

AntiM wrote:This is actually nothing new in the West. Rain barrels are, and have been, illegal in Utah for decades. The rain replenishes the aquifers. A small individual barrel won't raise much of an eyebrow, but larger or commercial uses is potentially a threat to groundwater levels.

I'll just leave this here .... actually, no, not the right forum.

In these here parts, they have been encouraging the use of rain barrels more and more as a way to reduce the demand on our aging and decrepit water systems

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:52 pm

GNAA reports that it is now illegal for riverine entities to dispose of dihydrogen monoxide in the ocean without a permit.

Playa Tom · Post by **Playa Tom** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 12:24 am

Here in the west whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting.

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:22 am

Where in those laws does it state to the effect of water landing on property is covered by the water right laws?

I have only hear about stream and irrigation rights never about rainfall. Technically is would have to added as an amendment. That process could easily be stopped. All used on property reenters the aquafer anyway, and water storage only retains it temporarly, they should pay you for storage rights.

It's a scare tactic and would not be upheld in a supreme court. If so where would it end. The right to have plants or a yard or a garden! You have certain rights including the rights to have a well if you don't have city water.

"Holstrom had a vague awareness of state regulations. She decided to test it last summer when she was teaching a class on water harvesting. She called the state water department, which told her it was technically illegal, though it was unlikely that she would be cited."

AIIZ

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:25 am

The water wars in the west will only get worse.

The best low down evah about the issue was written by Marc Reisner in his book Cadillac Desert.

A pretty fantastic read.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:42 pm

It's been on my list forever. I think ARRA is giving CA a lot of money to work on the Central Valley. But not enough, that is aging infrastructure. Anyway, that's where I notice the todo.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 2:59 pm

California used to have multi-decade droughts.

Over a geological time scale, megadroughts spanning centuries are not uncommon. Well, I suppose on what one considers "drought" conditions. We are currently in the wettest period of the last 500 years in California. Many of the Sierra lakes are at high levels. There are the remains of trees that are now submerged in tens of meters of water in many of these lakes.

From a NY Times article in 1994:

BEGINNING about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/19/scien ... gewanted=1

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:44 am

De-Watering Wyoming

April 20, 2009
To the list of truly terrible ideas, we would like to add the one that is stirring up residents of southwestern Wyoming.

A developer named Aaron Million has proposed to build a private, 560-mile-long, 10-foot-high pipeline from Wyomingâ€™s Green River Basin, along Interstate 80, and then south along Coloradoâ€™s Front Range to Denver and Colorado Springs. The pipeline is meant to carry water â€” more than 80 billion gallons a year. Last week, the Army Corps of Engineers presented the proposal in the town of Green River, Wyo., where it was met with outrage.

Denver already sucks the lifeblood out of colorado river for the real estate industry. All this will do is increase development in an area where it has been over developed for the past 30 years.

No Water= equals No Development

AIIZ

Box Burner · Post by **Box Burner** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:34 am

The reason that rainfall is a issue is so they can someday tax it.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:27 pm

"No Water= equals No Development "

Interesting concept. If I don't buy my kids larger clothes, they won't grow, right?

I used to buy that anti-development bullshit but not since I have come to realize it is mostly political. It depends on what kind of development, depends on whose district it is in, depends on who the developers connections are with, and depends on how much they dump into the correct politician's campaign chest.

California Coastal Commission is an example of one of the most politically oriented groups there is. One example is in Southern Santa Cruz and Northern Monterey Counties. You have farmland on the West side of Highway 1 and residential on the East. That is backwards, the land use should be changed. You should put residential on the West side. As a result, you have people building homes in the Paharo flood plain and farmers pumping water for irrigation leading to salt water intrusion of the aquifer. If you reversed the development pattern, you would not have any more people or any more development but you would have a wiser use of the available land. Less pumping of the coastal aquifer and less people living in a flood danger area.

You can't even repair a road on the West side because of that "it might lead to development" bullshit. County wanted to build a school on that side ... a pretty land-friendly use, with a lot of land set aside as a preserve ... nope ... CCC says "might lead to development" ... County wanted to build a water desalinization plant with a large parcel set aside as a preserve ... CCC "might lead to development".

But when Ritz Carlton wants to build a fucking HUGE hotel and golf course at Half Moon Bay, it's no problem.

The problem is that it greatly depends on who is in power. Restrictions on rural development are generally most intensive where you see that the district in which the development would occur would likely increase the population of a district of the political opposition of whoever is in power at the time or the political opposition of the people making the development decision. Doesn't matter if it is a Republican or Democrat. If development is designed to expand the population of an area that is culturally more likely to be in opposition of the current power base, the development is disapproved.

These days it tends to impact the rural poor most as it tends to dilute the power base of the urban rich.

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:18 pm

Collect all the rain that falls on your property!

Legal to harvest rain in CO

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/us/29rain.html?ref=us

Next, you have a legal right to breath. that's right people take a deep breath, but

You will be taxed for carbon emissions so just don't exhale