Why is collecting rain water being seen as illegal? (environmental, properties, chimney)

[Gus77]

One point is that often times sewer and water supply is planned together, if you eliminate the need for the water supply by collecting it directly from the rain and still dumps a lot of used water in the sewer it can have an unplanned effect on the costs of the sewer infrastructure. There are government credits for reimbursements when you do the opposite and use more water then you return to the sewer due a HVAC cooling tower were a bunch of water evaporates.

I think collecting rainwater is often beneficial to the environment and the community, and I strongly support it, but I can see that It might not be so simple all the time. It eliminates distribution losses, but on other hand people with "free" water many not implement water efficiency technologies if the water cost is not an issue.

[Dakster]

It's interesting that in some areas you can't use the water that falls on your property and others you CAN'T divert the water that falls on your property off of it. Like Florida, because you will cause flooding. One of the reasons that the "concrete" yards that were and are popular in Miami-Dade are illegal. They don't allow run off to percolate back into the soil and this overloads storm water drains. It rains so much in Florida at once, my water collection system, called a swimming pool, will overflow without diverting water into it. Just the rain that naturally falls to the ground. Surprised no one compains about chlorine contamination with everyone's pools overflowing.

I can see arid areas wanting the opposite. Rainwater barrels to be used for irrigation would seem to make more sense than using treated water. But then the water treatment plant of a scarce resource doesn't get the money.

[GTOlover]

Outrage boils over as B.C. government plans to sell groundwater for $2.25 per million litres

B.C.’s Water Sustainability Act (WSA), which comes into effect next January and replaces the province’s century-old water legislation, has been heralded as a major step forward. But politicians and experts are raising doubts over whether the newly announced water fees may be too low to cover the cost of the program, asking if the act simply won’t be implemented properly, or if taxpayers could end up picking up the bill.

Last month, the government unveiled the new water pricing structure, which will include, for the first time in B.C.’s history, groundwater being regulated and subject to fees and rentals.

Critics said that, while it’s a step in the right direction, the prices are still not close to capturing the resource’s value.

When Chandra Herbert raised the issue last month in the legislature, Environment Minister Mary Polak replied that British Columbians are “quite proud” that B.C. “has never engaged in the selling of water as a commodity.”

Polak said: “We don’t sell water. We charge administration fees for the management of that resource.”

A Ministry of Environment spokesman said the new fees and rentals have been set to cover the cost of administering the new WSA, estimated at $8 million per year.

In the legislature, Polak pointed to the example of Nestlé, Canada’s largest bottled-water producer, which operates a plant in Hope and, she said, will be “charged at the highest industrial rate.”

Under the old Water Act, Nestlé, like other groundwater users, didn’t need to pay the government anything for water withdrawals. But under the WSA, Nestlé will start paying for the hundreds of millions of litres of groundwater they withdraw, bottle and sell.

That rate of $2.25 per million litres — the highest industrial rate in the new price structure — means Nestlé will pay the government $596.25 a year for 265 million litres.

Under the WSA, Nestlé and other groundwater users also will begin paying permit fees. A Nestlé executive said he expects the annual fee for water-bottling companies to be between $1,000 and $10,000.


The WSA, he said, “has the potential to be revolutionary, but only if it’s fully — key word, fully — implemented, which requires dollars.”

Someone needs to pay that bill, Brandes said, whether it’s B.C. taxpayers or water users. And linking that cost recovery to the large-scale industrial users, he said, may be not only more ecologically and financially sustainable, but more fair as well.
Outrage boils over as B.C. government plans to sell groundwater for $2.25 per million litres

Well as a B.C. taxpayer are we charging enough for our water? but we don't sell it we just charge We charge administration fees for the management less the $600 bucks for 265 million litres then again all the added costs are passed on to the consumers

[GregW]

I wonder how much Nestle spent on lobbying the BC legislature and regulators. That fee is a giveaway.

[Mack Knife]

Nestle is just getting started. They are smart though and realize that water is the most precious commodity. You can't drink electricity and without water you really don't need anything else, you won't be around long.

The priorities are all screwed up. We are using up natural resources at a rate that simply isn't sustainable yet are unwilling to do much other than focus on solar power and things like that.

[cat1116]

That's right GTOLover. The consumer always gets it in the end [pun intended ]

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Sabinerose

I will admit to being a bit perplexed by this thread and the talk of laws and taxes and legalities of collecting rain water. I found the answer. I am in the Seattle area. I see that folks are talking about SoCal and NM in their posts. We don't have much issue with water shortages here...our 2500 gallon tank is already 1/2 full since we installed it last weekend. I cannot imagine how it is in an area where water is such a commodity. I was confused because I kept seeing folks talk about the west and the Western Water Law. I'm in the west...as west as you can go without hitting salt water, but the water issues aren't something we worry about.

It's not about rain. It's about snowpack. The mountain snowpack has been tremendously inadequate in the last decade, and it's getting worse. The global warming prediction has been that there will be much less, if any, snow in the mountains, and there will be rain instead. The great blessing of snow is that it releases it's water gradually throughout springtime and early summer. It releases it into streams, where it can easily be collected into reservoirs through engineering. Rainfall happens all at once, so once it falls, it's gone. It's more difficult to store, and it can erode the soil. The prediction about there being less snow and more rain in the mountains, with less fresh water available to homes, is manifesting as we speak. Even in Western Washington. It may not be something you and your friends worry about, but others there are concerned about it. Don't take fresh water for granted.

What should have been going on all this time since global warming was first predicted in the 1960's/early 70's is that cities should have built grey water systems, so that fresh water would be piped into homes only for certain uses, and grey water for flushing, and for yard watering. But that didn't happen. We're now going to be SOL.

[Rainbow Demon]

Originally Posted by Dakster

I can see arid areas wanting the opposite. Rainwater barrels to be used for irrigation would seem to make more sense than using treated water. But then the water treatment plant of a scarce resource doesn't get the money.

The law here in Colorado that allows rainwater collection DOESN'T apply to those folks on "treated" water who are technically ALREADY using a water right (a right that was converted to domestic uses from historic Ag uses when the subdivision/development was created).

The new rainwater collection law only applies to the people who own a well permit designated "domestic" or greater. (not a standard "Household Use only" permit that prohibits all outside watering) If you are on "city" water you do not have such a right from my understanding (thanks again Step 33!).

Why is this? And HOW CAN "THEY" TELL ME WHAT I CAN/CANNOT DO? (rolls eyes)

If you look at property in Colorado you will see the large difference in price between a "dry" parcel and a parcel that includes a "water right". I know many here don't understand/don't think the Gov't has any right designating who does and who doesn't get the water.....even the water on someone's land...but without these controls and this diivvying out of the supply... not a drop would come out of your tap in MANY areas in this state.

And yes....let's look at the mess in California. The drought is hitting HARD. Their "water rights" seems to rely heavily and consist of the "he who has the most money to drill the deepest gets the water" motif. That sounds good until it's you and your well goes dry because your neighbor has more $$$ than you and drills a deeper well 20 ft from yours.

ouch.

[L0ve]

Originally Posted by step33

Most people don't own the water rights to their land and as such, you do NOT own the water that falls on it. If your grass uses some of it - that's ok, but beyond that, you can't divert or collect that water in any way - since it's not yours.

This means that the govt owns the air around your home then, since collecting water from the sky before it even touches the ground is illegal.

No one is letting the water fall into the soil, then using something to suck it back out of the ground and into a barrel.

[Dakster]

Makes you wonder if you put in a dehumidifier and collected the moisture out of the air would that be illegal too.