The 200L from the piped supply is paid for by the homeowner, so she has incentive to use less, and, in principle, society is compensated for her use of the water. The 200L she collects from rainwater is not paid for, so she has no incentive to economize and society is not compensated for the side-effects of her collection.
Well that’s very fair and gracious of you and lets face it, everything comes across worse on the internet but I don’t think you had any real snark to apologise for, it’s all a bit of rough and tumble so harm done and no offence taken. I’ve been on here long enough to know what proper vitriol is and your comments registered only a “mild snippiness” on the HUFFOMETER™
What if that water is used for flushing toilets? that doesn’t get lost to evaporation does it? If you are taking a position that people in drought stricken areas watering a garden is wasteful then I’m right with you.
Whichever source it comes from it is still a loss of 200l from the system. You keep coming back to the artificial concept of water rights as if that is demonstrably the best way of managing things. From what I’ve read it seems as thought that is not obviously the case. The very fact that you suggest water rights as a barrier to passing on that 200l additional capacity adds strength to my argument.
but does it? I can’t find any hard figures that back up that view but assume that it is the case…would that not be beneficial effect during heavy rain? slowing down damaging run-offs and floods.
That’s assuming that the farmer can make use of all that heavy run-off and none is wasted by flowing down to the sea in flooding river.
Anyway, so we come round in a circle. You can’t see past the fact that obviously the farmer must have first rights on any water falling on the land upstream. It must be right because legislation has been put in place to enshrine those rights. 'twas ever thus.
My fairly simple example of using the 200l captured by homeowner works perfectly in a world where those pesky rights don’t get in the way of sharing that excess 200l across into another system.
You pretty much admit in your post that capturing rainfall for later use is an efficient method…it is, but you only seem to see it as efficient for the farmer. Why do you not allow the same rationale for the domestic user?
What would be a better way?
The Colorado Constitution starts from the premise that all natural water in Colorado belongs to the people of Colorado collectively, and doesn’t draw a distinction between a 200l diversion and a 200 million gallon diversion. Maybe it should; where would you draw the line? What amount would be acceptable to divert (in all circumstances and conditions)?
Sure, it’s efficient for the domestic user–I don’t believe anybody is disputing that rationale. The problem only comes in when there isn’t enough water to go around: who gets to decide, and what process is used to decide, who gets water and who doesn’t?
In Colorado, and in much of the western United States, there isn’t enough water to go around. Decisions have to be made, and somebody’s gonna lose. Under any water allocation system, including finders-keepers, somebody’s water rights can’t be met. What is the fairest way to decide not only the most efficient use but the best use?
But do people work like that? I recall reading (but can’t find or cite) that people are more averse to paying a tiny amount more for something that used to be free than they are when say, a £1 newspaper becomes £1.50.
The incentive to use less is to ensure that they don’t have to cough up anything at all. If you have a $1000 water bill are you going to be very bothered if it is $1150?, whereas if you generally pay nothing a $150 bill may well seem more of an issue.
As for compensation, Society is compensated for having the 200l not used by the homeowner available for distribution elsewhere.
If your incentive is to make money from selling water then no, rainwater harvesting is not beneficial to you. If you are more concerned about making a scarce resource go further then it is definitely worth considering.
I don’t disagree with you entirely. But taxes already go to the maintenance/restoration of the watershed. I’m secretly an environmentally-conscious person. But the structure of the taxation (which includes huge variances for large companies - who have large, flat roofing) is idiotic.
Also, things like stormwater drainage systems create a public expense. So there’s a persnickety argument to be had there; less runoff reduces the need for copious storm sewers (which, actually, contribute a significant amount of pollution - in part because many people treat them like garbage cans).
I’m all in favor of using taxation to incentivize/disincentivize behavior, but taxing people for things that are beyond their control (beyond humanity’s control) is pushing it.
[Pure, well-intended sarcasm] We could also tax solar flares, pollen, and/or sunlight. But wait… we already pay for each of these in other forms…
well why not consider looking at somewhere else that has an issue with water supply, Australia. They positively encourage rainwater harvesting by mandating it with building regulations plus some pretty harsh water conservation measuresfor households.
Perfect is the enemy of better. Lets say you can have a container of a maximum size relative to the house size. start at 500 for the smallest house and allow increases as the house increases. Model it, test it, monitor it and adjust as required.
in severe shortages you are always going to have difficult decisions to make. What you try to do is minimise that possibility in the first place by ensuring the most efficient use of water…including, as you admit above, the use of rainwater harvesting by the domestic homeowner.
I’m not convinced that harvesting rainwater off the roof creates a net reduction in the amount of water available to the population in general. If that can be shown I’d change my mind. Now if, as you say, there just isn’t enough to go round then lifestyle and industry will have to change. Farmers will have to change crops, houses will need to reflect water conservation ideas and the more water you need the more you pay. Efficiency is its own reward.
I’m not sure what you are getting at. Whether the disincentive to consume is small or big for an individual consumer, higher cost is going to be associated with less consumption. Rainwater isn’t a Giffen good.
But society already had that 200L from the municipal supply, and also the 200L in rainfall replenishing the aquifer or keeping the river flowing enough to generate hydroelectricity or whatever. It’s your homeowner, with her rain-barrels, who has taken something away from society.
If she takes the 200L from the municipal supply, she gets a bill and society is paid back. If she takes the 200L from the rainfall, then the aquifer is lowered or the river flow is lessened, without society getting anything for that.
I’m not going to voice a full-throated defense of the system, because I think it can be abused by various special interests, and one can argue about what is fair compensation for various things until the cows come home. But it does make a kind of sense – changing the flow of water on your property has effects on people not on your property, so they should have some say in how you do it.
Ironically, when I lived in the desert, we had the opposite problem. Property came with at least enough water rights that rain-barrels were allowed. During dry times times people were restricted from watering lawns using the municipal water supply, but were allowed to use water that had been collected in rain barrels for that purpose. So periodically “rain-barrel inspectors” came to check for chlorine in the rain-barrels, which was a sign that the owner had surreptitiously filled them from the tap to make it look like he was watering with collected rain, when he was really using the municipal supply.
So if water is costly a consumer is going to do as much as they can to consume less.
This logic works just as much for the rain-barrel user as the purely municipal user. The rain barrel user wants to minimise the amount of the water they pay for as well, why would the incentive for reduced consumption be less?
The 200l in the municipal supply came from the river or aquifer in the first place. There is no net water loss here. If they let all of that 200l barrel back into the river and fill up their barrel again with 200l from the tap in order to flush their toilets, do you think that is a more efficient way of using water?
If she never takes the 200l out of the municipal supply in the first place then the munical supply will not need to process and transport that 200l (with all the associated losses) and will not need to abstract that 200l from the river or aquifer in the first place and so the river and aquifer will be no worse off as the demand on them has been lessened by 200l
It’s not just a single homeowner taking 200L out of the system. If hundreds or thousands of homeowners take similar amounts, then it’s a significant amount of water diverted from the natural system.
An example of this can be seen in desert cities in places like New Mexico and Arizona. When flying in, you can sometimes see clouds sitting over the cities. This is often because of the evaporation of water from people’s lawns. If people are capturing rainwater and using that on their lawns, the rainwater is evaporating and not returning to where it was originally meant to go.
And it may not have flown into the source of the municipal water for that city. The city may be getting their water from upstream or other places which is not affected by the rainwater over that city. The cities downstream may be depending on certain flow rates which would be reduced if homeowners captured rainwater which would have otherwise flown down to them.
Can anyone find a cite where a homeowner actually had to pay a criminal or civil fine (not association) just for having a single barrel?
I think I’ve pretty much covered all this in previous posts so, honestly, no offence but I feel I’m back to the start and can’t really add any more to the debate so I’ll leave it there.
Novelty Bobble, your fundamental assumption seems to be that water is fungible - one liter is the same as another liter, regardless of where they came from or where they’re going. This just isn’t true in water-limited areas.
It was Las Animas County sheriff and no neighbors or HOA to speak of. They were up there to investigate a car fire from earlier in the week, saw the rain barrel and cited him.
Well, mostly, except Colorado, where it +IS+ illegal to have a rain barrel.
http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/09/16/rain-barrels/32490427/
"Colorado’s rain-barrel ban is little known and widely flouted. "
And rarely enforced, too, from what I have read.
Your responses prove the following:
- You know nothing on a practical level about living in a dry climate.
- You know nothing about Colorado’s climate in specific.
- You know nothing about Colorado’s history.
There was no such thing as “big business” here in Colorado when water law began to be developed. There were farms, ranches, and a few towns.
http://water.state.co.us/SurfaceWater/SWRights/Pages/PriorApprop.aspx
The very first session of the Territorial Legislature in 1861 passed laws relating to water rights. And in 1872, “Territorial Supreme Court of Colorado decides Yunker v. Nichols holding that Colorado water law arises from necessity in an arid climate and includes the right to cross public and private lands to build water diversion and conveyance structures.”
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/class_homepages/geog_4501_s14/readings/CG-Law2004.pdf
Colorado Constitution, Article XVI, Section 5:
If you want to talk about this issue in a constructive manner, you are first going to need to learn why Colorado law is the way it is.
I’ve said all I wanted to say on the matter but as you created a lengthy post so just let me add this. You and others keep coming back to the law as it stands. That doesn’t interest me at all. Whether a law exists is neither here nor there, I am talking about efficiency of water capture and use.
Given the late (and initially sparse) settlement of Colorado in terms of human history it is easy to see how and why these laws have been created but, again, I see no evidence that overall they drive the most efficient use of water. That is a cultural blind spot that Colorado has that is not shared by other, equally arid places in the world.
Now you can claim I know nothing about living in an arid climate and that is true but I’d suggest that Australians certainly do and not only do they allow domestic rainwater harvesting but they mandate it. As do many, many other other areas of the world where rainfall is scarce and water is a precious commodity and such methods have been seen as the best way to manage water for thousands of years.
A little thought experiment, imagine the whole of Colorado was one big roof, all rainfall is captured and stored in one massive barrel (so avoiding any evaporation or transmission losses) the houses draw their non-potable water direct from that barrel and the remainder is released back to the rivers and aquifers. That is the most efficient use of water possible. The closer you get to that the better and domestic capture is one step towards it.
And with that, I am out.
Well anyway the domestic water barrel implied that they are on septic tank, so they are basically going to send the water down hill not long after…
And In times of drought, the tank allows them to get filled up by truck, and that way they release more water than they collect from the roof…
So there is no moral issue with the rule nor the breach of it by domestic users.
The rule is more about diverting a natural water course. “I will build a dam, unless you pay me, you get no water !”
I gave a cite of my personal knowledge earlier in the thread