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.
The whole notion of anyone owning the rain is absurd. Here's an idea: if there isn't enough water somewhere, don't build a big city there.
The problem is usually (especially in Colorado) not about the water for the city itself, but rather for other downstream (or down-plume, in the case of groundwater) users. Colorado is the mouth of the Colorado River (and associated tributaries and groundwater plumes). The Colorado River is subject to interstate agreements regarding water use between Colorado, Arizona, Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, and California. There is also a US-Mexico treaty regarding the Colorado river. Rainfall (and snowfall) in Colorado contributes to the downstream supply of water in Nevada, Arizona, and California.
You could empty out the West if you like, and prepare the US east of the Mississippi for a "flood" of water refugees. Or you could manage the water supply.
The problem is usually (especially in Colorado) not about the water for the city itself, but rather for other downstream (or down-plume, in the case of groundwater) users. Colorado is the mouth of the Colorado River (and associated tributaries and groundwater plumes). The Colorado River is subject to interstate agreements regarding water use between Colorado, Arizona, Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, and California. There is also a US-Mexico treaty regarding the Colorado river. Rainfall (and snowfall) in Colorado contributes to the downstream supply of water in Nevada, Arizona, and California.
I think, in the last 15 or 20 years, we have kept our treaty with Mexico (to allow the Colorado River to reach the Gulf) exactly once.
Bozo economics. Pay attention. The sun's energy is a public good. Your consumption of solar energy does not affect anyone else's consumption. Water is a good that is plagued by mutually-interfering use. Your use of rain water affects others.
Still trying to wrap my head around this. To me it all seems to be about MONEY and nothing else.
Let's say I use 10000 gallons of water a month, the water has to come from somewhere. Whether that is part of the rain water I collected or I pay to have it hauled from a place that my rain water went to. Either way I am using 10000 gallons of water. If money I pay to haul water back up to me is actually going towards a conservation effort I might agree with it. I highly doubt much the money people pay for water is though.
It would be interesting to know how much rainfall (inches) these areas of Colorado actually get - so one could actually see how many gallons of water actually fall per year on the roof of an average house.
To use PNW-type-Gal's statement: Seems to me if there is a water availability problem, the collecting of rain water shouldn't be either.
No problems with collecting rain water here, there are even classes to teach you how to make rain barrels so the water doesn't get contaminated by insects, standing water is a BIG problem around here..
Still trying to wrap my head around this. To me it all seems to be about MONEY and nothing else.
Let's say I use 10000 gallons of water a month, the water has to come from somewhere. Whether that is part of the rain water I collected or I pay to have it hauled from a place that my rain water went to. Either way I am using 10000 gallons of water. If money I pay to haul water back up to me is actually going towards a conservation effort I might agree with it. I highly doubt much the money people pay for water is though.
It would be interesting to know how much rainfall (inches) these areas of Colorado actually get - so one could actually see how many gallons of water actually fall per year on the roof of an average house.
To use PNW-type-Gal's statement: Seems to me if there is a water availability problem, the collecting of rain water shouldn't be either.
Agreed.
An argument can be made that collecting the water that hits the roof of a house and is then used on the property only serves to allow that water to serve it's original purpose.
Water that runs from a roof is artificially collected and then runs off to only selected areas on the ground, say from gutters and downspouts and therefore is contrary to what nature intended. The ground around downspouts can easily become saturated and the rain water then forms small streams as the water follows the contours of the land.
Those contours are also artificially created as people work the ground for landscaping and other purposes included little more than aesthetics.
By collecting the rain water that entire artificial system can be mitigated to a degree as the collected rain water is dispersed over a wider area of the property and thus gets close to the original intent of nature.
We could go further but it might get into a conspiracy sort of thing: there are vested interests in having water run off the property instead of going into it and eventually entering the ground water table. If enough water is running off properties then more water needs to be bought by property owners. In addition, if the water run off collates to common avenues, it can become a viable source to divert through culverts and drain systems and collected for sale through a variety of methods including the reservoirs which are often artificially created.
If the rain water is running off your property just how long is it before that well you want to drill would prove fruitless?
In any case, the prohibition against collecting rain water probably violates all the reasons used to support the prohibition. As usual and as you've indicated, it comes down to money, not conservation or environmental concerns.
As fresh water sources are becoming more valuable, not challenging these rather surreptitious control methods will lead to a nearly complete dependence upon commercial water sources as those companies continue to buy the water rights far away from where you live but to where the water that hits your roof eventually flows to as required by laws which are created to protect those interests, not those of nature or the very people who live on the property where the rain rains.
In the name of those commercial interests, you will eventually not own the food you might grow because it uses the rain which has already been sold to a company that wants to sell it back to you. You might detect the effort until you realize that the only water you can use is that which you pay for. Forget for the moment that you already pay taxes on the property yet receive no benefit of complete and unrestricted ownership of that property and even the rain that falls upon it.
By golly, they they want to claim ownership of the darn rain that hit the roof, then let them also collect the leaves that fall upon it. When does the gutter cleaning truck come by?
They are trying to recreate a natural process to replenish the ground water and help prevent flooding. If left to nature it has groundcover that holds the water and wetlands that may be no bigger than a large puddle. That all ads up and it has chance to seep into the ground. If you are diverting all the water directly into waterways it has no chance to do that plus you have the flooding issue.
As far as the water laws out west, it's scarce commodity.
Uhhh, it's actually a scarce commodity because the water is being held in dams.
And because people in CA want it for their manicured lawns, diverting massive amounts of it away from where it naturally is.
Water is a renewable resource.
If a dollar bill falls down your chimney from heaven, would any sane person claim that "Oh no, that belongs to the state and needs to be taxed"? Hell no! That is your money, even if the reason you got it was a pilot lost it out the window.
Resources that make their way to your property, are your property.
Btw, in states where this actually matters, it has practically no chance of making it into the ground, instead evaporating since the soil and the air is too hot. Having massive rainwater barrels, on the other hand means irrigation can be done, and this water actually does make it into the ground. It also means you aren't completely dependent on government control (by definition, having a monopoly on agriculture is NOT sustainable agriculture).
I heard some liberal (not a conservative either, I'm a centrist. Don't want crap from religious nutcases any more than Western types) try to tell us about how in Virginia, the water table is going down, and we need to take precautions. Uhhhh, yea, bull. The water table is exactly the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The only difference is that I don't want people like YOU proposing control systems to "save" water. I'm not letting people "save" water like they did in Colorado.
Water is a renewable resource. Clean water might not be, but if we release water rather than keeping it under lock and key, we get more out of it, and it goes where it is meant to go. Hoarding water only serves to drain it from the area, and is more likely to happen from massive dams than from people having personal water that they later release.
Colorado River used to have periodic floods which kept the land fertile. Now we have desert land south of it, endangered species of fish, and high salt content water.
Aswan Dam near the Nile River. The area has the longest river in the world... but this area is a desert thanks to overirrigation and damming.
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.
