Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not clicking on that link but Natural News has a horrible reputation for accuracy and fairness.
Might want to find better sources before investing time and outrage.
You can say that of ANY news. Regardless people are being told that it's illegal.
At any rate being told that the rain water is owned by the state is insane! The fact that these people are letting the state get away with it is even more insane. The state can't prove that the water is theirs nor does it help that people are letting them get away with it. This is an example of what happens when people let the government go to far.
Water already costs much more than oil if you buy bottled water.
That has a lot more to do with the stupidity of the consumer than anything. Store brand or local brand water is less than $1. Stilkl not cheap but you're paying for the work involved.
They "settle up once a year". To marginalize his savings, IF you want to call it that. His expected break-even point is in 12 years...
He shouldn't be required to connect to the grid but it's a substantial savings over doing it with your own battery storage. It's also much more flexible. His expected break even point is only becsue of the generosity of the taxpayer .
I dont know about States but where I live (Ontario), our local government actually encourages us to collect the rain water. the rain barrels go on sale every year and we get them. We collect water falling off the roof in them and use it to water plants.
Am I missing to see something? Why in the world would that be illegal?
You can say that of ANY news. Regardless people are being told that it's illegal.
At any rate being told that the rain water is owned by the state is insane! The fact that these people are letting the state get away with it is even more insane. The state can't prove that the water is theirs nor does it help that people are letting them get away with it. This is an example of what happens when people let the government go to far.
1. Sorry but the National Enquirer <> CNN and Natural News is the National Enquirer.
2. As other posters have since noted, this is not anything new and goes back to before most if not all of us were born.
The state is not claiming the water is theirs, just that it's not yours and that it should flow unimpeded. This is what happens when (ironic to this thread) people move out into arid climates and then want water galore.
I don't think you've considered how actions with regards to water usage can impact others?
Tell you what, if you had a stream in your backyard that went dry because they built developments for miles north of you and they put it dams etc. you'd be upset.
(Side note: there is even a Bugs Bunny cartoon from the 1950's that deals with water rights and upstream dams etc. )
1. Sorry but the National Enquirer <> CNN and Natural News is the National Enquirer.
2. As other posters have since noted, this is not anything new and goes back to before most if not all of us were born.
The state is not claiming the water is theirs, just that it's not yours and that it should flow unimpeded. This is what happens when (ironic to this thread) people move out into arid climates and then want water galore.
I don't think you've considered how actions with regards to water usage can impact others?
Tell you what, if you had a stream in your backyard that went dry because they built developments for miles north of you and they put it dams etc. you'd be upset.
(Side note: there is even a Bugs Bunny cartoon from the 1950's that deals with water rights and upstream dams etc. )
Sorry, ALL news sources are biased in some regard. Even natural news. I found an article from The New York Times as well but you might not like them either. Yes, this is nothing new but we are not talking about someone who is damming up a stream here. When the state or city is telling you that you cannot collect rain water in a barrel, then something is wrong with that. If you look at Rainbow Demon's post you can see states where it's legal & illegal to harness rain water. If you are not harming anyone then city/state has no right to tell you that you can't have solar/ collect rain water period.
I know somone in the Great State of New Yawk who installed solar pannels.:Lots of them. On his roof.
HE MUST REMAIN CONNECTED TO THE GRID, BUY HIS POWER FROM THE GRID, AND SELL HIS GENERATED POWER TO THE POWER COMPANY. If the POWER GOES OUT, HE HAS NO WAY TO RUN THE ELECETRIC OF HIS OWN PANNELS! HE IS STILL AT THE MERCY OF THE POWER COMPANY.
That is very likely because he is on a grid-tie interconnect. When the outside power lines go down, the interconnect HAS to go down with it for the safety of the linemen working on the grid, so the power system doesn't back-feed the grid. I don't know the rules in all of New York, but I do know that there are many places in New York state that allow off-grid solar (ie: a battery storage system) not tied into the electric grid.
I suspect that the design of inverters will advance in the next few years to the point where the inverter switches over from line feed to only house feed, much like an automated generator.
We had a water case here in Southern Oregon that made the news because someone got fined (repeatedly) for collecting water on his own property, which many commenters thought was outrageous - but he bought property at the head of a watershed on a river that feeds the municipal supply and built (non-permitted) catchment basins/earthen dams to store the water, reasoning that it was "his" water because it came across his property. Not under western water law, the rights to the water were already apportioned further downstream.
In my state, you have the right to the water from your roof (house and outbuildings), but surface water falls under existing use water rights.
ETA: I see that one of the videos covers the case from a pretty ridiculous slant. Again: under western water law, you do NOT have a right to surface water simply because it is on your property. That isn't just an Oregon thing, either, it is all over the west and it is causing huge problems in areas of drought here. Water rights are assigned by "first in time" and the water rights are sold with the property that holds them. In the areas of heavy drought, some places were shutting off water rights from as far back as 1894 because of extreme low water in rivers. The water collected by the dams on that property in the video cut back the water that flowed into the streams and rivers, hence it cut back water rights far senior to his.
Last edited by PNW-type-gal; 03-04-2015 at 09:46 AM..
Reason: added
Am I missing to see something? Why in the world would that be illegal?
Because it's scarce commodity in some areas. You live in the same region, I do. It's non issue here as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
