U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Montana
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-02-2010, 11:36 AM
 
9,341 posts, read 25,410,918 times
Reputation: 4477

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac View Post
The situation in Colorado as case in point -- Joe does not exaggerate, in Colorado you're not allowed to capture runoff, as it "might" belong to some stream miles away. This is true even if it's the only water your property gets, like if you're on one of the high mesas that have NO surface or ground water.
I wonder if they've carved out an exemption for a mikveh ?

About a year or so ago, a mikveh was built in Bozeman. Prior to its construction, the closest mikveh was in Salt Lake City. (In the early part of the 20th Century, there was a mikveh in Butte, which, at that time, had the largest Jewish population west of the Mississippi River.)

John the Baptist originally used one of the mikvehs in the Jerusalem area for baptisms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-02-2010, 11:56 AM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
7,540 posts, read 12,567,152 times
Reputation: 2952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Greenspan View Post
I wonder if they've carved out an exemption for a mikveh ?
How could they, without being in violation of the Constitutional provision that no religion may be favored by the gov't?

But it's a good question for those states that have already regulated such water sources -- could that be regarded as discriminatory against certain well-established religious requirements?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2010, 12:07 PM
 
9,341 posts, read 25,410,918 times
Reputation: 4477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac View Post
How could they, without being in violation of the Constitutional provision that no religion may be favored by the gov't?
Nor disfavored.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2010, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
7,540 posts, read 12,567,152 times
Reputation: 2952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Greenspan View Post
Nor disfavored.
Exactly. Quite the can of worms.

Of course, it would make more sense for gov't to limit itself to staying out of micromanagement such as at the level of "what can I do with the rain that falls on my roof?" and then such cans of worms wouldn't be opened in the first place.

My cynical little voice reminds me that Colorado is in the business of selling water to other states, which may actually be the root of the issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2010, 09:49 AM
 
Location: West Yellowstone, MT
239 posts, read 608,671 times
Reputation: 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac View Post
So is this type of legislation pending in MT? I hadn't seen anything about it, tho someone did reply elsewhere about it getting tough to get a well permit.
Words in written legislation may have unintended consequences for farmers

This article mentions what I am talking about. Currently the government has control over navigable waters. There is a move to delete the word "navigable".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2010, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
7,540 posts, read 12,567,152 times
Reputation: 2952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Doer View Post
Words in written legislation may have unintended consequences for farmers

This article mentions what I am talking about. Currently the government has control over navigable waters. There is a move to delete the word "navigable".
Oh dear... I hadn't realised it was federal. The consequences would indeed be for everyone -- your stock pond, your well, your runoff. I can also see a hostile interpretation holding the individual liable for damage caused by runoff from their property, even tho they have no control over the rainfall that caused it. An even more hostile reading could hold your crops liable for "dehydrating the soil" (normal water use for growth). Imagine the fun for "environmental protection" shysters if there's any possibility of civil penalties for normal water use.

In my observation, such consequences are seldom quite as "unintended" as they appear, as one learns if one is able to follow the money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2011, 07:52 PM
 
Location: on Earth
100 posts, read 175,001 times
Reputation: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Threerun View Post
It's when the doc swabs your throat to see if'n you're sick.
You mean the vet swabs my throat
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Montana
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:45 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top