Replies

Sure, maybe relieve pressure on the municipal supply, but that doesn’t mean a thing to the farmers, ranchers and municipalities downstream. In reality, what you are saying is that the local municipal water concern would then have a number of great customers for the excess water they would not otherwise have had, if this guy didn't collect rain-water. I'd have to agree.

As for the poor farmers, ranchers, and municipalities down stream, what you've said here verges on the absurd. I'm not sure where this thinking rooted from, since you certainly aren't the only one who harbors it, but it's an absurd premise. I'll explain why just ahead.

Just because he’s using less water locally doesn’t mean that the water he’s not using is placed back into the streams or aquifers. For the most part, that’s water that’s not going downstream. Multiply that by 10,000, 100,000 or even a million as you move upstream. It has an effect, ESPECIALLY during a drought.

Portland: 550,000
Eugene: 155,000
Salem: 155,000
Gresham: 101,000
Hillsboro: 89,000
Beaverton: 86,000
Bend: 81,000
Medford: 77,000
Springfield: 58,000
Corvallis: 55,000

LINK

Which of these cities do you think has one million people capturing water? Which region do you think has one million peole capturing water? It's simply not in most people's make-up, to build a water capturing system.

3,871,859: LINK That's the total population of Oregon, and they don't all live on the same flood plane. That number includes children and elderly people. You can probably eliminate one third of that number based on an age demographic. (too young/too old) That leaves roughly 2.5 million people in the whole state of an age group that would possibly collect water if they wanted to. Of those 2.5 million people left, it's likely a major portion of them are cohabiting. They have a spouse and kids. Some of them live in a apartment. They either don't have the land to capture water, or they might possibly set up a communal water capture system for the two to five member family. In reality, there may be around 1.25 million possible water collectors in the state (give or take 250k). I don't know what percentage of the populace would even bother to set up a water collection system and use it, but I'd peg that number at between 1 in 20 to 1 in 50 people. In the whole state we're realistically talking about between 25,000 and 62,500 people who might conceivably bother to capture water. Of those people, many of them will set up one or two barrels to capture water. Some diehards will set up between five and ten. Even at this point, this is clearly not a threat to the down-stream water supply.

Once again, even if what you are saying wasn't askew at all, there would be a massive amount of excess water at the municipal level, that could be sold or allowed to flow to the people who needed it downstream. You're killing your own argument here.

Do you have any idea how many cubic feet of water fall on a property if an inch of rain falls? Do you have any concept of how few people participate, and how little of the total rain that does fall is captured by them?

I don't personally know one person that captures water. Further, I don't know of even one person in my community who does. It takes a certain type of individual to take on the task in any meaningful way. Most people aren't going to bother doing it. So let's look at the impact one person can have if they are so vile (evidently by your standard from what you have intimated) as to capture water that falls on their own property.

On a 40' x 75' city plot of property, a one inch rainfall will deliver 3,000 cubic feet of water This 3,000 cubic feet of water converts at the rate of 7.48 gallons of water per cubic foot, to 22,440 gallons of water. Frankly I've never heard of anyone capture more than ten barrels full of water on their city property. And most endeavors along these lines generally capture half that amount or less. Even at the ten barrel collection rate, the person capturing water would only collect 500 gallons. (if we're talking 50 gallon barrels/containers) This would represent 2.22816 % of the total rain that fell. 22,440 gallons would have fallen. 21,940 gallons would have gone their natural course. 500 gallons would not have. If more than one inch falls, this percentage goes down precipitously. If three inches falls, the person would not capture more. His capture rate would drop to 0.74272%. If he's only one of twenty who do this, the total capture rate would drop to 0.03714%. If he's one in fifty who do it, the capture rate drops further to 0.01485%. Yep, that means that 99.9861% of the rain would follow it's natural course. Oh the humanities...

The idea this is going to cause anyone down stream to be negatively impacted to the extreme is utter nonsense. Even at these minuscule capture rate percentages over all, they are offset by water savings at the municipal level too. This drops the overall water impact down to the point that it would be absurd to even address it. No that's not true. It was already too minscule to address it even before this last concept was presented. And this still isn't taking into account ALL the mitigating factors. You're probably a great person, but your argument is silly.

Let's look at a larger property. In this example we'll look at a property that is 640 acres in size. I'm going to jump to an absurd capture rate so you'll see how little it actually impacts the water supply. At one inch of rain, if the farmer captures 1 million gallons of water, he will have captured 0.47955% of the water that fell. 207,530,432 gallons of rain would run it's natural course. All farmers are not going to capture this amount of water. As I said it's an absurd level of capture to begin with. So even if up to 1 in 5 farms captured this much, only 0.09195% of the water would have been captured. 1 million gallons would have been captured, and 1,041,652,160 gallons would have flowed freely. Yep, 99.91% of the water would continue to flow uninterrupted. Yes, you read that right. Over one billion gallons would have flowed freely. And that's compared to the paltry 1 million that was captured.

And then there are other premises that haven't been touched on. Cities actually cover a very small portion of the earth's surface. Larger plots or farms cover more of it. And the largest majority, a massive expanse is uninhabited where no water at all is collected.

Keep in mind each of these capture rate examples provided above are being run under the premise every container or capture devise was completely empty when it started to rain. In fact, they could be 50, 75, 95, or even 100% full due to prior rainfalls.

If the concerns you addressed down stream can't get by on 99.98 plus percent of the rain that falls upstream when the containers were empty, and the 99.9999% when they are not, then to hell with them.

People used to KILL each other over this stuff. People kill each other for nothing at all. Don't base your plans on that, other than self-protection.

And be SURE that water rights is some of the oldest and most litigated law in the US. If you can think of it, it’s already been litigated and decided long ago. Going to trial over this is a 99.99999% loser for the homeowner with the barrels. Bull shit. River and lake water diversion has been litigated for a long time. Individual property rights, and the minuscule water that is captured on that property, is ripe for being addressed, if the idiots that make up the rules are following the same logic patterns you are.

If it falls on your property, you own it. The city, county, state, and federal government does not!

The last I heard, God is not on the government payroll.

I live in Southern California, and I think it's absurd the amount of water we move down here from Northern California.

We should do more to capture water here. We should also be desalinating ocean water for our own consumption. Yes it would cost more, but it would not be the total supply for water. We could cut down considerably on the amount we get from Northern California, and carry more of our own weight by paying a fractionally higher price for water, considering only a relatively small percentage of it would come from desalinization. If we got our ass in gear, and cut our consumption from up north by even 10%, it would amount to a hell of a lot of water reverted to their own use, and only 10% of our water would be impacted by desalinization. And even less than that, if we devised measures to capture more water here.

Putting a guy in jail for perhaps affecting the total rain water supply from the 20 to 50 homes around him by 0.02%? Really? I'm not buying it. It's evidence of pure abuse by government pencil pushers, and those who are willing to act against their fellow citizens on command.

DoughtyOne, Come on down!

When you retire, come on out to Colorado, just like the other hundreds of thousands of Californians. Build your dream house, just like the other hundreds of thousands of Californians. Make sure you have a view of the mountains, just like the other hundreds of thousands of Californians. Build it with a household use water permit, just like the other hundreds of thousands of Californians.

And horses! You need horses! Build a stable and put up pipe fencing. Paint them white just like the other Californians.

The water inspector will be along shortly. He knew what was going to happen from the time the foundation was laid. He's been waiting. He will tell you that you cannot water livestock on a household use permit. You will argue. You will tell him that it is the dumbest thing that you have ever heard. You will threaten to sue, just like the other Californians.

He will smile and tell you that he will let it slide if you can get the horses to go up to the house, get a glass from the cupboard, fill it at the faucet, then sit down and drink it at the kitchen table. He will snicker at his own joke even though he's used it dozens or hundreds of times before. You will order him off of your property and he will go. You will call your lawyer, just like the other Californians.

Your lawyer will tell you that the inspector is right. You will need to buy water from a service which will haul it to you or buy an ag permit. You find out how much either will cost and decide to cheat the system, just like the other Californians.

The inspector is ready for this, too. He knows what you will do and how you will do it. He goes through this every day. He will catch you and lock your meter or your well. With no water you will break the locks. The sheriff will be along shortly to haul you to the hoosegow. You will be thrown in with the rapists and drug dealers and the other Californians with a beef with Colorado water law.

When you go before the judge be sure and tell him that it was just a little water in the grand scheme of things. Tell him how they do it in California and how they ought to do it in Colorado. Coloradans really, really, like to hear these things from Californians. When he sentences you to break rocks until Pike's Peak is an ant hill get huffy and threaten to take it to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has heard it all before, dozens of times from dozens of different angles. Colorado water law has withstood legal assault since it originated in 1864. You will lose.

Then you will do what many of the other Californians do; move back to California, muttering all the way.