Too bad you can’t see it but I’m giving you a standing ovation complete with loud yelling and foot stamping.
But Heaven help the airline if it kills an obnoxious Armenian woman talking on her cell phone.
NORAD just called. They said Spider Robinson wants his punchline back.
No, this isn’t correct.
Most water that is used by people does not go back into the ground. It goes into the sewer/drainage system where mostly it eventually ends up in a river, which mostly empty into oceans. Where it becomes saltwater, and largely unusable for years.
So if I collect rainwater from my roof, and use it to wash my car, that flows off my driveway into the street drain, into Minnehaha Creek and over the Falls, into the Mississippi River, and eventually to New Orleans and into the saltwater of the Caribbean Ocean.
But if I don’t collect it, it runs through the roof downspout onto my yard, where it soaks into the ground, is filtered through layers of dirt & rock and eventually helps to recharge the Prairie du Chien aquifer.
I live near Seattle, the rainiest city in America, and we’re approaching our second year of drought. Yeah, water rights are a sore spot. Hell, even California wants to lay claim to the Columbia River! Anyway, I have some rain barrels, but I’m not a hog about it…
Some of both, really. In western states in particular, rain often comes in massive downpours that can’t be absorbed by the ground, and makes it to the rivers that provide fresh water to communities that are between that rain point and the ocean.
“I have the right to stop the flow of fresh water downstream because I happen to be higher up in the watershed” seems a rather problematic attitude if water is scarce.
Now, is one guy with a rainbarrel, or even lots of guys with rainbarrels, going to make all that much of a difference? Perhaps not, but I dispute the idea that having a rainbarrel is a sign of good environmental policy. Having native plants that don’t need constant supplemental watering is good environmental policy.
Here’s something people who don’t live in arid regions don’t often understand: in many years, it’s not a matter of if the available surface water gives out, but when. Agricultural producers who rely on surface water for irrigation have rights to that water, so long as there’s water in the rivers. In most western states, priority of water rights is established based on the date of first development - this means that irrigators are usually among the highest priority users… when there’s water to use. Flow in rivers comes from a number of different sources: surface runoff, shallow groundwater, return flows from upstream irrigators are all significant contributors. Water that’s caught in a rain barrel would (absent the barrel) most likely infiltrate into a shallow aquifer or run off into surface drainage. Either way, it contributes to the surface water resource.
The impact of diverting water to rain barrels isn’t some farfetched theoretical improbability. In a good year, those producers might be able to irrigate until September. In a dry year, they’ll be cut off in July - maybe even June. If water is diverted instead of flowing to the rivers, they get cut off earlier. Those diversions have a real, concrete impact on the livelihood of a citizen who, according to the law, has a higher priority to the use of that water than the new homeowner does.
Shoplifting is just as illegal as grand theft. Why should water be treated any differently?
Saying it’s “illegal to catch rainwater in some states” is misleading. It sounds like you’re implying that if a random homeowner decides to divert a few gallons of water from the downspout of their gutters into a rain barrel they can expect a visit from local law enforcement. This simply isn’t true.
The fact is that the scenario I described above is legal in 49 out of 50 states (the one exception being Colorado). The vast majority of stories I have seen where someone allegedly got arrested for “catching rainwater” turned out to be something else entirely, such as getting a ticket for building a water storage system without getting a building permit, or going to jail for contempt of court.
What did he do?
He was night putting. Just putting… at night…
…with the 15-year old daughter of the dean.
It’s illegal in Nevada.
Okay I was only half right. NRS 533.030 says ‘subject to existing rights, and except as otherwise provided in this section, all water may be appropriated for beneficial use as provided in this chapter and not otherwise.’ But in this article, JoAnn Kittrell, public information manager for the Nevada Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, was quoted as saying “The Division of Water Resources has not (policed), and does not plan to police, rain barrels.”
This squares perfectly with what I was talking about when I said “It sounds like you’re implying that if a random homeowner decides to divert a few gallons of water from the downspout of their gutters into a rain barrel they can expect a visit from local law enforcement. This simply isn’t true.” Even though a strict interpretation of Nevada law suggests that rain barrels are illegal, you will NOT get fined for having one in Nevada.
So I will revise my statement about it being legal in 49 out of 50 states. I’ll say instead that there are 49 states where you won’t get fined for having a rain barrel.
Even in Colorado, this seems to be less than rigorously enforced. Per the New York Times:
Somebody mentioned upthread that they did know of somebody being cited, and it seems like this would be an issue that the homeowner’s association or a nosy neighbor could make trouble over, but the state doesn’t actually seem to make any effort to worry about it. (That NYTimes article is illustrated with a photo of a woman, complete with her name and occupation, in Denver with her rain barrels–apparently she didn’t fear the rain barrel police.)
The people who are saying that Colorado law is stupid almost certainly have no experience living in a dry climate. Repeat after me – things are different in the west.
Colorado, and most western states, follow the law of prior appropriation–otherwise known as “first come, first served.” Do you people really think that it is right, or moral, for somebody to steal your property simply because they have a chance to? That water that is supposed to go downstream already belongs to somebody else. It was never yours to begin with.
Just because a law was passed in the dim and distant past doesn’t mean that it passes the sanity sniff test. Sure, it is the law. Someone was savvy enough to create a law that enabled them to make money and to give them special protection but it doesn’t make it any less ridiculous.
If homeowners don’t capture and use rainwater, where do you think the water comes from that they will use instead?
and would you extend this same thinking to the agricultural industry? Surely trying to grow water-hungry crops in an arid region is just as nonsensical.
You really have no idea how water resources are managed in an arid area. There is simply not enough water for everybody to have all the water they want, so there’s a necessarily complex legal structure that’s built up around it. In any given western state, the applicable water law is a combination of international treaties (i.e., we’re obligated to deliver minimum flows to Mexico in the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers), interstate agreements (because few rivers flow entirely within the boundaries of a single state), and state law. It’s not some relic law - it’s very real, very current, and is constantly being applied, protested, monitored, and litigated.
Parts of this state run out of water pretty near every year. As you might expect, that causes some problems and some conflicts, especially between surface and groundwater right holders… But if there were no legal framework to govern how that shortfall is handled, it would be a disaster.
Instead of railing against a system you don’t understand, why don’t you try to learn a little about it? Why else would you go to GQ?
The legality of it is not in question. My point is that in arid and semi-arid areas domestic rainwater harvesting has been the preferred method for thousands of years and remains so in many parts of the world.
That a legal framework is in place to protect the interests of big business who “got in first” is of little concern to me.
If a homeowner captured 200l of rainwater for their own personal use and so did not use an equivalent 200l from the piped supply, that is 200l that does not need to be taken from the very same river or aquifers that are supposedly being shortchanged by that dastardly homeowners…yes?
Then why are you railing against it so vociferously?
You come across as eager to impose your notion of how things should be upon people and places about whom you actually know very little, if anything. It suggests you don’t believe said people are clever enough to fashion and maintain a system that isn’t, in your words, stupid. While I’m sure the world is blessed to have your incalculable wisdom, please be aware that to those who do in fact understand the totality of the situation, your fervent proposals are laughable at best, and more likely ridiculously asinine.
We’ve heard you. Perhaps you should hear us, and accept that your arguments will persuade no one.
This is the internet, it is what we do.
Smart people can have stupid laws, until quite recently the UK had the most ridiculous libel laws and many including me campaigned to have that changed.
Do you understand the totality of the system? Quite often those who are smack bang in the middle of a situation are the least able to even consider other ways of doing things. “it worked in the past” is not always a valid defence.
Post or don’t post…your choice but you might want to answer a question I posed before you go.
This may not be the case. The municipal water might not be coming from the same water source and there may be different water rights which control that source. The water captured and spread on the garden or lawn will likely become evaporation rather than runoff which ends up in the rivers and aquifers.
One homeowner with a barrel won’t make a huge difference, but a subdivision with hundreds of homes and lots of barrels can have a significant effect on the water flow. The farmer downstream may depend on the heavy runoff to flow into rivers and ponds which he depends on. When the homeowners capture the water, that flow is reduced and doesn’t necessarily end up at the same place at a later time.
All right, Novelty Bobble, listen up.
Those were some pretty good responses. I can imagine enjoying a conversation with you over a pint. And upon reflection, I apologize for being perhaps too snarky.