I used to think things like this are crazy, but many people (myselfincluded) don’t understand the complexities of water “rights” and legislation. Capturing or diverting water is a HUGE issue out west.
Diverting river/stream water maybe...
Rain water? That’s preposterous IMO.
Whatever this guy collects and uses, reduces his usage or impact on the municipal water supply. That should actually increase the municipal supply and be a benefit to the community.
The city doesn’t own the rain. If rain falls on his property, he owns it pure and simple.
I would mention the words ‘harassment’, ‘class action’, ‘tens of millions’ and ‘punitive damages’. I don’t like operating this way, but the city certainly doesn’t mind using the courts to their advantage. Respond in kind, only more so.
Unless you have lived out West this may seem silly. Water rights on a property can go back to claims from the early 1800's out west. You can own the property but not own rights to the water running through your property.
Flow is carefully monitored on streams out west. If there is a dispute over a neighbor taking too much of your stream water upstream a Water Rights Judge is called in to settle the matter. It usually involves him coming out to the property in question and reviewing the claims made by both parties and making a decision. In true western fashion court is usually held outdoor by the stream in question so that the actual stream flows can be measured.
Out west, it is no water, no crops, no livelihood. Water is very serious out west.
If this guy was just collecting rain in barrels then the state is being silly. If he is diverting streams which are filled with rainwater or snow-melt runoff then that is entirely different. His neighbors down stream that need to water their crops have probably reported him to the state.
Regards, Mr. Sol
The essence of this case is: was his pond water entirely what fell on his land, or did he actually divert a stream that ran into the property from outside?