The thought of a HOA in Los Animas made me chuckle. The nearest one may be 75 miles away in Pueblo. Our family ranch extends east to Las Animas. It’s in the Arkansas River Valley so there’s old irrigation canals to supply the fields which, because of a natural dry climate and the lingering drought, could not viably sustain any crop without irrigation. Left alone all you may have is sage brush and tumbleweeds. And where farmers and ranchers have sold their water rights to some municipality or group that’s exactly what you get, dry, dusty almost useless land. Driving down the back roads you’ll see a field of irrigated cantelope, alfalfa or beans separated by tracts of dusty nothing. It all goes back to water rights and who has them.
A homeowner maybe not but what about all 5.35 million people in the aggregate. Same argument as Wickard.
If the problem is that you are worried homeowners will use it for lush lawns, then you outlaw using the water to make lush lawns. Or even outlaw lush lawns.
Or maybe, if you’re more conservative, tax the hell out of lawns.
I confess I have no idea what you are talking about here. The Colorado river runs out because so much water is taken out of it…isn’t that the problem? This makes water conservation in the area an important consideration, of which domestic rainwater harvesting* should* be included (but currently isn’t even allowed let alone encouraged) and I suggest that such methods present no net loss to the system should they be implemented.
“having a cover” is about as far as the anti-evaporation measures need go.
No, my example of capturing it and putting it back into the rivers slowly over time was just a thought experiment to show that there wouldn’t be a net loss.
Well I guess there’d be some regulations as to the equipment and methods to be used but the concepts and technology aren’t tricky.
And as it happens your bucket example is a good one. Try this as a thought experiment. Your house in the Colorado catchment area doesn’t have a rain barrel. It is raining and you stick a bucket under the downpipe and collect a gallon of rainwater.
You use that gallon to flush your toilet.
Now then, think about this one carefully, you would have had to use a gallon of water to flush the toilet anyway from the municipal supply, that municipal gallon that would have started out as the equivalent of more than a gallon because evaporation would claim some on its journey.
So the big question…did the collection and use of that gallon at source lead to a deficit or surplus of water overall in the state of Colorado? Consider that and then consider that rainfall is merely a bigger bucket.
Pretty much every country in the world where water can be scarce.
Just google “domestic rainfall harvesting” then pop a random name on the end and have a browse of the results.
The wikipedia page is also a good starting point.
If a single homeowner creates 0 net deficit in available water then 5,350,000 times 0 is still 0.
If (as I would suggest) a small surplus is created by capture and use at source (so avoiding evaporation) then 5,350,000 times a small surplus = a large surplus
Which SPECIFIC countries on that wiki page are you using as examples of places where millions of people rely on scarce water and have an environmentally-responsible government pushing rainwater harvesting?
Many of the examples on that page are utterly irrelevant–Britain and Ireland, e.g., certainly are not desert climates, and Australia doesn’t have millions in the really arid regions, while Tamil Nadu has millions of people but the climate ranges from sub-humid to semi-arid. Do you actually have relevant examples of places that face Colorado’s specific combination of problems?
DOES a single homeowner create 0 net deficit? Nothing you’ve shown so far proves that basic prerequisite. A single homeowner under ideal conditions may be capable of doing so, maybe, but what really happens under real-world conditions?
But 1 homeowner does create a deficit. OK maybe not in an urban setting like Denver but where there is drought concerns then 50 gallons falling on the soil IS different than 50 gallons in a rain barrel to be used later. And the new rules do allow people to collect roof water basically if it replaces well water they would use. They cannot collect rain in the open as that is considered part of the watershed. That is what my friend was cited for.
I looked at your wikipedia cite, and most of the places listed aren’t even in arid or heavily populated regions.
Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Israel, Turkey. Do any of them fit the bill? China? India and Australia you won’t accept for some reason.
How about all the states that border and surround Colorado? Are they all wrong?
Rather than me searching country by country only to have them knocked back as not being enough like Colorado, how about you suggest a country that is like Colorado and we both check to see if they allow and promote domestic rainfall harvesting?
I don’t follow your logic. What do you mean by “ideal conditions”? Where do you think the additional losses would occur when capturing rainfall at source?
how? If 50 gallons are needed by the house and they use directly collected rainwater to fulfill that need then that 50 gallons will not need to be taken from another source. The amount of water in the system as a whole remains exactly the same.
Tell me why you think that example does not work
true, the 50 gallons falling on soil will lose more in evaporation than the water in the barrel.
So they do recognise the logic and utility of domestic water harvesting. I feel somewhat vindicated.
Of the countries in your first list, only Israel is mentioned on the page you cite, and there only in limited areas and projects (with no mention of governmental involvement in residential projects). The “some reason” we won’t accept Australia is the fact that there is no part of Australia in which 33 million people depend on a single river’s watershed. (There aren’t 33 million people in all of Australia. The scale and nature of the problem there is entirely different.) India has a variety of climates–the parts of that country dependent upon Himalayan snowfall have quite different water issues than those areas that are deserts or that experience the tropical monsoon patterns. Do you have specific regions/states of India in mind?
No, the states that border and surround Colorado are not all wrong. However, they’re not identical to Colorado, either, in water issues or in responses thereto. Wyoming’s population, for example, grew by a whopping 930 people in the year to July 2014; Colorado added 83,780 in the same period.
If you are certain that rainwater harvesting would work for Colorado, why don’t YOU do the research to support your thesis?
Just as a starting point, in places where rainfall harvesting is practiced, does this supplement or replace drawing water from the tap or the well? Your “zero loss” theory assumes that the water removed from the system via rain barrels is a replacement; is that true in actual practice? How do people in the real world behave?
Isn’t the real issue simply enforcement of property rights?
Does a land owner have the rights to the water on, in, under, through their land? Are those rights transferable? If the answers are both yes, and water is scarce enough to be extremely valuable, then you’ll get some sort of water rights system we see today.
It’s silly to complain that you can’t collect water on your land when you or a previous owner sold (or didn’t buy) the water rights. You probably can’t pump out the oil under your land either.
Would another system work better? Maybe, but implementing it would require a massive redistribution and revocation of property rights.
Your arguments in this thread have ranged between unsupported and near-incoherent, so my apologies if I misunderstood, but you seemed to be saying that a homeowner puts all the water used back into the watershed.
If individual users put all their water back into the watershed, then collectively all the water should go back into the watershed. Since it obviously does not, then the idea that everything goes back to the watershed is flawed.
And if there’s a problem with proper water usage when all water usage is metered, why do you think people will conserve it more if it’s “free?”
Ummm, you do understand that approximately 0% of the people who want to use rain barrels are wanting to use them for toilet flushing, right? They want them to water their flowers, their yards, for their mosquito-breeding hobby, etc.
I pointed out the error in your thought experiments on page 2 - you’re assuming that water is fungible when it isn’t.
In all of your examples, you talk about “the system,” seemingly without understanding that the system contains a range of components that function on vastly different timescales and spatial scales. As rivers flow, water is constantly diverted and (less water is) returned to them, making water downstream much more scarce than water upstream. River flow rates change over the course of a year, making water in August a much rarer commodity than water in May. Reservoirs fill and empty over years and decades. Groundwater adds another enormous layer of complexity: recharge and discharge areas are often separated by tens, even hundreds of miles - groundwater flow systems frequently cross watershed boundaries, and water in the same aquifer might be much more more important in some parts of that flow system than in others.
Just as the abundance of water varies, the quality and reliability of water rights vary too. Surface rights are contingent on availability - they tend to be the cheapest water, but also the least reliable. Groundwater rights are much more expensive to develop and to operate, but they’re not subject to the seasonal and/or multi-year swings in availability that you see with surface rights. Depending on the intended use, geochemistry could be a concern with groundwater… as well as the sustainability of the aquifers providing that groundwater right.
Because you don’t understand any of these issues, they’re simply ignored in your thought experiments. You’ve admitted over and over again that you don’t know anything about managing water in arid regions, but you seem dead set against learning anything about it.
I’ve already explained why that example was used, it was not a suggestion of how such systems do or should work, it was just to get you thinking about what actually happens during the water cycle and where wastes and losses occur.
If you think an argument of mine is incoherent then the best think to do is to copy it, paste it in quotes so we both know what you are referring to, then we can discuss it instead of you hand-waving it away when you clearly haven’t understood it or thought it through in the first place.
I’ve already addressed this one, but as you clearly haven’t bothered to go an read my previous comments…any excess water use over and above that which is collected remains metered, are they going to be in a hurry to start paying again for it? and also…
as to your final point
again, already mostly dealt with by me and countless others on this thread. Things get tiresome very quickly if you haven’t read the whole thread to see if you objections have already been answered. The mosquito objection is a new one to the thread though but easily mitigated through screens and covers.
you didn’t point out the error, you just said I was was wrong without explaining or quoting which part of my examples were wrong.
I’ve snipped this because it is patronising and unnecessary. I am well aware of the components of the system and both the timescales, distances and extraction methods involved. In order to illustrate why rainwater harvesting actually reduces the stress on the system as a whole I’ve simplified things. You, and others who are anti rainwater harvesting have not pointed out the flaw in those examples. If you think my toilet bucket example is fundamentally wrong, then quote it, comment on it and point out my error.
but all of this…
Is utterly irrelevant because if the user demand on the system can be reduced through water conservation methods then more water remains in the system available for use by those rights holders…I assume you don’t disagree with that last statement of mine?