Posted on 04/23/2009 12:15:42 PM PDT by yankeedame
Across the country, resourceful homeowners have embraced rainwater capture as a way of conserving community water supplies while maintaining healthy gardens. Unfortunately, rain barrels are sometimes at odds with the law. Facing certain water scarcity, cities and states have begun to wrestle with the conundrum of water rights versus conservation. When it all shakes out, will you own the rain that falls on your own property?
===============================================================================================================
Capturing rain may be one of humanity's most ancient methods of acquiring water, but now it's coming back in vogue. Rather than press their luck with drought, conservation-conscious homeowners are setting up rudimentary rain barrels and elaborate rainwater storage systems to catch precipitation for nondrinking purposes, such as watering their lawns.
But while rainwater may seem like a global common, nowadays it depends on where you live: By capturing rainwater, some homeowners are breaking the law. This has put city and state governments in an awkward position—smack in the middle of competing water users and advocates, often from within their own agencies, of conserving water to protect supplies.
While laws about rainwater collection are often murky, Colorado's are quite clear: Homeowners do not own the rain that falls on their property. The Rocky Mountain state uses a convoluted mix of first-come, first-serve water rights, some of which date back to the 1850s, and riparian rights that belong to the owners of land lying adjacent to water.
A single person catching rain wouldn't make a difference to water rights holders, according to Brian Werner of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. But if everyone in Denver captured rain, he says, that would upset the state's 150-year-old water-allocation system. The Colorado Department of Natural Resources estimates that 86 percent of water deliveries go to agriculture, which is already stressed by dwindling supplies.
And because 19 states and Mexico draw water from rivers that originate in the Colorado Rockies, backyard water harvesting can have widespread implications (of course, the same goes for water that comes from the tap in these regions).
That said, "nobody has the inclination to go tell Grandma Jones that she can't catch some rainwater and put it on her tomatoes," Werner says. To his knowledge, the state has never prosecuted anyone for backyard water harvesting, so he tells people to go ahead with small-scale projects at their homes.
Nevertheless, some state officials, such as Rep. Marsha Looper, have pushed legislation to legalize at least some rain collection. Two such bills are now working their way through the state legislature: One would allow rainwater collection only in rural areas, while the other would green-light urban pilot programs.
The new rules will test the effects of increased collection, Werner says—Colorado doesn't want to let its millions of city-dwellers trap rainfall until they better understand the effects on the water system.
While most states don't appropriate water all the way back to the source the way that Colorado does, rainwater capture raises thorny legal issues all over the country, says David Aiken, a water law expert at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln's Water Center.
Many cities have begun the delicate dance of encouraging residents to conserve water by catching rain without flagrantly violating their own laws—and, in some cases, they've changed the law to accommodate homeowners. The city of Tucson, Ariz., which receives a meager 12 inches of rainfall in an average year (much of it coming in big downpours), decreed not only that collecting the rain is legal, but that all new commercial development starting in June 2010 must include a rainwater collection system.
Seattle encouraged the same in new developments even though the state had interpreted its water laws to say that any rain collector was subject to a permit process, according to state hydrologist and lawyer Kurt Unger. Rather than rewrite the laws or try to force everyone in Seattle to get a permit, he says, the state granted Seattle a city-wide permit, allowing residents to set up cisterns and rainwater storage without becoming criminals.
However, Unger says, that solution was easier to implement in Seattle than it would've been in Colorado—farmers aren't directly reliant on the Emerald City's rainwater, so less political strife comes from collecting it. "All that water would've drained into Puget Sound," he says. "So who cares?"
Unger says so many Seattle residents trapped their rainwater that it would've been pointless for the state to resist, even if they wanted to. But such enthusiasm hasn't been shared across the West until recently. Many residents of Western states just didn't see the point of collecting rainwater, or didn't want to retrofit their homes to capture the paltry amount of rainfall in their area, according to Michael Dietze, a professor specializing in sustainable living at Utah State University. "When you need the water out here, it's not raining," he says. owever, that era is coming to an end: People have realized that large-scale rainwater collectors can make a big difference, even in an arid climate, Dietze says.
A legal fight erupted last August in Utah—which, like Colorado, had a blanket ban on rainwater collection—when car dealer Mark Miller wanted to capture rainwater on the roof of his dealership and use it to wash cars. Utah's legislature just passed a bill last month, which now awaits the governor's signature, that would allow catchments up to 2500 gallons—but Dietze thinks that won't be the end of it. After all, he manages the Utah House, the university's model sustainable home, whose 6500-gallon rooftop rain collector breaks even the new state law.
With water systems across the country already highly or fully appropriated, and with drought aggressively depleting supplies, Aiken predicts that legal battles over who owns the rain won't go away anytime soon.
Old water-allocation systems remain in direct conflict with a growing movement for DIY water conservation, including rainwater collection—an approach advocated by the Environmental Protection Agency for at least a decade. But just how seriously conservation butts heads with existing water rights remains to be seen. "That's going to depend on Obama's EPA," Aiken says, "and what they prioritize."
God does
Someone will probably sue the state for allowing rain on their property.
“It rained 1 inch yesterday and we calculate your lot size at 10890 sq ft. $256 has been automatically deducted from your checking account. Have a nice day.”
Almost all the great western movie range wars (and a lot fo the real ones) began over one thing - water rights.
I’ve been educated by true westerners.
Water rights is an issue not really understood by most of the country.
If it goes in my basement via whatever method I see fit, it’s mine. End of story.
My folks have a metal roof and the square area of it will produce 300 gallons of rainwater in an inch of rain. They collect it in two cisterns and use it during the dry season (believe it or not Seattle does have droughts) which is basically from end of July to somewhere beginning of October.
So do Colorado homeowners have to give the state what water they collect or are they penalized for the amount they collect? (sarcasm is ruling here) ...
The idea that there’s a law that you can’t collect the rain that falls on your property is reprehensible.
And if that’s not bad enough, in many states,(as I understand it) you can go outside and drill a well in your yard any time you want to and pump the water from the ground.
BUT—not in Utah. All water underground is owned by someone. If you want to buy some underground water, you’ve got to find a willing seller, and then get permission from the state water engineer to transfer the seller’s water rights to your property. If it’s not in the same aquifer, they generally won’t let you do it.
If it does I want the government to come remove it from my steps, driveway and sidewalks the next time it snows here.
Just keep the skeeters off of it....
“all we have is the air that we breathe....”
So, is the reason for the ban because of mosquitoes?
If you use the rain water for “non-drinking” purposes (water the lawn), it goes back into the system anyway.
Also if 86% of the water is already used for agriculture, I doubt that the people using the remaining 14% are going to make more than 2% difference collecting water from their roofs.
Just be sure to purchase your carbon credits before you exhale your poisonous CO2.
Hogwash. The good ones are about barbed wire. ;-)
I was snickering about how overpriced that was until I figured out exactly how much water that is. At my current water and sewer rate it would cost me $34 extra to get that much water. Maybe buying a cistern to run my roof water into for using during dry times might be worth it.
Perhaps for now.
Soon, the air that you breathe OUT will likely be taxed because of the CO2 burden you're adding to our fragile planet's atmosphere.
I’m doing it. We get about 40 inches of rain per year, and I’m on a small water mutual, very pricey. Plus the class envy neighbors can’t stand it that I have a huge garden to water. I’ve also discovered a spring that I will develop.
Two new sources of water!!
$12,288 an acre-foot or approx 3.771 cents a gallon
Obviously any rainwater captured has to be released at some point so no net loss at all. That however isn’t the point. This is a further demonstration to you of the power of government. A further encroachment of the police control grid. This action is to condition you to obey authority and become demoralized and apathetic.
If they are going to charge for CO2 production why not water. It’s their water right? Wait until they prevent you from growing a food garden and chip all animals that are raised for food. They will be registered with the government otherwise you get fined. Let’s not forget the tax on flatulence. Who would have believed.
Just world government coming in. These are all part of the program. Don’t forget that all veterans, Ron Paul supporters, lovers of the constitution are potential terrorists. If you think I’m extreme this is what the government is doing not me.
I’m thinking of a movie where the hero catches a competing ranchhand rigging up barbed wire, so he shoots the wire and the tensioned wire spools around the ranch hand, incapacitating him.
Just can’t remember the movie or the hero.
Kirk Douglas is the hero and the hand the gets cut up is the same guy that played Sheriff Rosko Peto Coltrain on the Dukes of Hazard. I can’t remember the name of the movie either.
The inmates have taken siege of the asylum.
Whats the difference between doing a stock tank vs. a rain barrel? I would assume of course that an urban city would take issue with somebody on a housing division lot building a stock tank.
Never mind, obviously stock tanks primary purpose is to provide water for animals. LOL!
Just wait until they assess a charge on the amount of “rainwater” used by your yard after each storm.
“And there is this thread about a town that subsidizes rain barrles.”
Cites like to put up speed traps to get more revenue as well.
Come get my water..and I’ll shoot you in the face..
Ping?
I would argue that fine, the state owns the rights to water that falls on my property, but I own the rights to the water that falls in my rain barrel sitting above that property.
"Oh, the cowboy and the farmer should be friends,..."
Only a liberal mind could get confused by such an issue....
Not quite silly boy....
“....the New York Times thinks the government should tax us for breathing.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/taxing_us_for_breathing.html
Your and mine peasant minds just don’t understand the serious implications of what ats stake here now...
I just built a new deck, and am about to put a tank of around 1500 gallons under it to catch rainwater. I’ve been using some blue polypropylene barrels that used to hold soft drink syrup.
I’ll have a sprinkler pump so I can irrigate even though we have water use restrictions in place due to the drought.
It’s 6790 gallons, which would have cost me $5.77 a couple years ago when they were charging 0.85/1000 gal. I think they raised the rate and it’s now like 1.00/1000 gal or something. Most of the utility bill is from non-proportional items like trash collection, meter fee and so on, that you would pay if you never used a single gallon of water. How much do you pay? Sounds exorbitant.
The last time I added it up it was 0.5 cents / gallon incremental cost. It was billed in 100 cubic foot increments and you have to figure out which lines are fixed and which are usage based because they never list the per unit price. I think it is divided up about 40% water/60% sewer, and you pay both of those unless you have an irrigation system which isn't connected to the sewer. I've never used enough irrigation water to come close to paying for the fixed cost for installing/billing an extra meter so I just quoted the combined rate.
Even if you drink it, it goes back into the system. The same amount of water exists now as has always existed. It's the ultimate renewable resource.
It is not about the supposed scarcity of said resource it is about the control of that resource.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
