It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Colorado House has voted to end Colorado's ban on backyard rain barrels

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Source AP: www.krdo.com...

Snippet:

The Colorado House has voted to end Colorado's only-in-the-nation ban on backyard rain barrels. The bill allows homeowners to collect up to 110 gallons in rain barrels.


I had heard about this. It seems several western states do not allow or restrict catching rain water as a water right that must be purchased over a very small specific amounts.




posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

I am not sure i am getting this right . They cant collect water caught running of their roof or just water running through the property . We would all die of thirst here in Australia if we didnt catch the rain of our roofs . Well not quite true but it all helps . Water is most likely our most precious resource and i cannot see the downside stopping it just draining away . Drink the runoff from your roof and let the rivers run free so to speak .If its the water running through your property please disregard all of the above .



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 03:20 AM
link   
The thing about water... it isn't consumed by being used. It just gets other things added to it, or sent other places. It is not a finite resource, it just gets moved around. And the sun is the best renewer and purifier there is. It can evaporate and be clean all over again.

Also... what is with governments claiming ownership over non-centralized natural resources... next they will tax sunlight collected on your property's solar cells? Do they also own the air around your property?

What is this claim to ownership of the rain based on anyway? It sounds very much like the medieval country side, where the nobility "owned" all of the wild game just by virtue of being the nobility, and claimed the exclusive right to hunt it.

If you don't have claim to using water that falls on your own roof... what exactly about the property do you own?



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

Wait...what?

Why the hell was there a ban in the first place? You know what those barrels are really good for? Every time someone collects some rain water in those barrels, that's a few gallons which are not cascading down a loose, shale or scree slope, causing landslips and rockslides. And that's just for starters! Imagine how much municipal water supply is WASTED watering gardens and so on, just because this ban was in place for a time!

One should not waste a natural resource, if one can possibly help it. I light cigarettes with a magnifying glass when the sun is out. I do not do it because I have no lighters. I do it because it is responsible to do as much as one can with the naturally occurring resources at ones disposal, as possible! This is no different!



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit



I light cigarettes with a magnifying glass when the sun is out. I do not do it because I have no lighters.


You truly do that . Wow .



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 03:47 AM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

Sure I do!

The suns fuel burns all on its own, with no prompting from us here on Earth. That means that if I can find a way to take advantage of it to achieve an end, that's a zero loss of our planets resources. I have also lit barbecues and campfires the same way, without lighter gels, blocks, or accelerants of any kind! Now sure, burning wood is using a natural planetary resource, but the ignition part required no complex hydrocarbons in order to achieve!



There... You see?

My point is that although chomping down on humus and hugging piglets is going a bit far in my estimation, we should do as much as possible to ensure that the methods we employ to do simple things, do not involve vast wastes of either effort and infrastructure, or indeed natural resources like fossil fuels. Using rainwater to water ones garden, or for anything else for that matter, is a much more responsible way of going about ones business, if only because it takes the strain out of what are often over stretched, and underfunded infrastructures, like the municipal water systems, sewerage treatment plants, and so on and so forth.

Also, rainwater is less likely to contain the water additives that everyone goes nuts about, like the fluorides amongst others!



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 04:21 AM
link   
Good it's a stupid ban, now if only the other states with similar bans would follow suit.

Edit to add.

You can use it to water the lawn or more importantly in my mind if the water stops flowing to your home with a filter ir proper treatment you can drink it till the issue is fixed.
edit on 24-3-2015 by Irishhaf because: additional thought



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 04:25 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

TB , i applaud your efforts to preserve the worlds resources and while i dont go to the lengths you do i would consider my family and for that matter most i know pretty good at recycling .

There were a series of adverts such as this below that really changed my state . South Australia .



It is rare to see rubbish by the roadside now , but that having been said there are still those that cant find a bin .
edit on 24-3-2015 by hutch622 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

It points out the fact that Gov'ts are 'corporations'.

In Colorado, the state buys the water for their cities from sources already owned by private companies/individuals. They got around that by making a law that the water had to be sold to the State before anyone else. Understandable, in a way.

In Washington State, where I live, the state has been retaking water rights back from individuals. I believe we are allowed a rain barrel but only one, not sure though. The state takes back property owner water rights when applying for construction permits, add-ons, rebuilds, etc. They only give the permit if you give up your well rights.

Yet, just north of us in British Columbia, Nestle, the biggest water supplier in the whole world, gets their bottling rights for free.....

Man caused or not, things are getting warmer, cities bigger and water is a huge issue long term.

Back to Nestle, the CEO has been quoted that there is no 'right' to free water...Nestle is as evil a corporation as there is out there.......(worked for them for about three years.)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 04:59 AM
link   
If you live up river it makes no sense to you, if you live down river it does as if people start to collect the water up river you will get less and less until you eventually get none, and if I understand correctly the water from Colorado goes all the way to Arizona, so at some point limiting the water you could collect should have made sense.

You need to see always the big picture, the law must have said you cant collect rain water, and people think "I" cant collect the miserable water of my small roof? without thinking "you" could be a huge surface area and not just a family house.

When you get water from a river there is always huge problems, rivers can be very long and go trough states or even countries, the last people to get the water are always the most affected and when people up river are impose laws to make sure the other folks get water they simply don't understand, because they have to ratio something they never lack.

In short, selfish people don't think in the big picture and only care about what affect them.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 06:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigent
If you live up river it makes no sense to you, if you live down river it does as if people start to collect the water up river you will get less and less until you eventually get none...


Before modern man began to clear areas for habitation, in most northern climates the forests dominated and the top two feet of humus-rich soil created a sub-canopy sponge that absorbed an unimaginable amount of water. Some of this water ended up back into the atmosphere due to slow evaporation but most of it ended up in the shallow watershed beneath the root layer and eventually out to the streams, aquifers and rivers. So, barring the improbable case of a homeowner erecting a giant water tower, the collecting water upstream will not have as strong of an effect on those downstream as imagined. Yes it's being held in a tank as opposed to the soil but I have to assume that most family residences are going to be collecting enough water to curtail the effects of a severe drought and in most cases will cycle their stored water into the soil and therefore down to humans at lower elevations as it percolates down to the local subterranean water table.

The amount of water that a human can collect on his property should be a byproduct of 1. this humus/water relationship resulting from planting more trees, for food and for ecological/climate stability reasons, and 2. A reasonable amount of water catchment storage in case of drought. Depending on your state, and overall local presence of tree-life, a resident should be able to collect enough water to survive the worst droughts climate variation can throw at them. The assumed increase in biodiversity and trees, especially resulting from more residents using their water for growth, will also have a beneficial effect on the local climate in regard to precipitation which will be a benefit experienced by higher and lower elevation residents alike. I believe that if this were adopted worldwide, continents would be more climate-moderated, and water-rich in the areas of soil, biology and local and broad waterways. This would probably lower the sea level but I can't imagine by too drastic an amount.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
It is rare to see rubbish by the roadside now , but that having been said there are still those that cant find a bin .


When I lived in Germany (Army-related), the first thing I noticed other than the armed guards with rifles and German Shepards in the Frankfurt airport was how clean the roads are there. Even in the middle of the country, their roads are very clean with no trash on them.

America fails miserably in this regard--I picked up a McDonald's bag (another one of America's fails) that someone had set outside of their window while at a stoplight. It was full of trash, just sitting in the road. Sometimes, I can't stand the slobs and apathetic that live in my country.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: hutch622

Sure I do!

The suns fuel burns all on its own, with no prompting from us here on Earth. That means that if I can find a way to take advantage of it to achieve an end, that's a zero loss of our planets resources. I have also lit barbecues and campfires the same way, without lighter gels, blocks, or accelerants of any kind! Now sure, burning wood is using a natural planetary resource, but the ignition part required no complex hydrocarbons in order to achieve!



There... You see?

My point is that although chomping down on humus and hugging piglets is going a bit far in my estimation, we should do as much as possible to ensure that the methods we employ to do simple things, do not involve vast wastes of either effort and infrastructure, or indeed natural resources like fossil fuels. Using rainwater to water ones garden, or for anything else for that matter, is a much more responsible way of going about ones business, if only because it takes the strain out of what are often over stretched, and underfunded infrastructures, like the municipal water systems, sewerage treatment plants, and so on and so forth.

Also, rainwater is less likely to contain the water additives that everyone goes nuts about, like the fluorides amongst others!


LOL. That's pretty cool. You get a star just for that. Well done!



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigent
If you live up river it makes no sense to you, if you live down river it does as if people start to collect the water up river you will get less and less until you eventually get none, and if I understand correctly the water from Colorado goes all the way to Arizona, so at some point limiting the water you could collect should have made sense.

You need to see always the big picture, ...

...

...selfish people don't think in the big picture and only care about what affect them.


Give me a break--the government has no right to tell me what I can and cannot collect from nature's resources on my own property. What you're describing has a negligible-if-any real effect on river levels. States damning up rivers everywhere and diverting mass quantities of water to municipalities hundres of miles away is where the real problem lies, if you're truly concerned about those down-river (and even mid- or up-river).

Just look at the California Aqueduct--the central valley (San Joaquin Valley) is where I grew up, and where much of our nation's crops are grown, and it is struggling for water right now because much of the natural water that used to feed this fertile valley now gets channeled to Southern California, which is an arid wasteland (for the most part) that should never have been allowed to grow as much as it did. Now it can't sustain itself, and at taxpayer expense, that areas "steals" water from those who need it most.

A small--really small--percentage of people who will actually take advantage of collecting rain water will not have any net effect on the creek-stream-river system. But, with that said, I do invite you to prove me wrong with some tangible evidence. We're not talking massive-scale rainwater-collecting corporations, here.

ETA: Take a look at this; Tulare Lake used to be one of (if not the larges) fresh-water lake west of the Mississippi, and now it doesn't even exist thanks to damning and diverting water.

Human beings need to go back to living where the resources are, not diverting them to allow living in inhospitable places. It just seems so bass ackwards to me the ways that we live anymore.
edit on 24-3-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

At first I thought the rain barrel ban had a logical reason like mosquito breeding but it was just dumb government after all they didn't ban the swimming pools.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I would image this started to make sure runoff from rainfall makes its way to larger rivers and collection facilities. I know there have been issues of people damning up streams. Somebody always gets carried away and overreact's.
Still sounds like it was a stupid law.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

A huge increase in ag development has a lot to do with this. Some, like central California is more traditional. But in Washington, the apple, onion, and grape industries are growing at a fast rate as profits justify the expansion. These also qualify as grabbing water from rivers and streams which does diminish the supply. No shortage in western Washington at all. Probably won't be but the east side of the Cascades...a different story.

Colorado also supplies California with water and that's part of the problem, not enough to go around.


edit on 24-3-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

It's been a while since I've read about the use of water rights in Colorado. If I remember correctly water rights were given out by seniority to the original settlers and rainwater or roof runoff was also given priority to seniority. I can't remember exactly why but I believe it has something to do with Colorado's topography, elevation, etc combined with a lack of freshwater away from rivers.

I'm glad it is beginning to be repealed. The laws were literally 19th century and it's about time they changed. I guess 110 gallons is a step in the right direction.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: My_Reality




I'm glad it is beginning to be repealed. The laws were literally 19th century and it's about time they changed. I guess 110 gallons is a step in the right direction.

You have to think of the bigger picture.
Expand out what "could" happen as a result.
Water rights laws had a good reason behind them when they were created.

Think farming back in the 1800's.
Suppose you had a million acres of farm land but no river to pull from.
You had two choices:
You could install a wind powered well and pump system for each 100 acres. 10,000 pumps
or
You could buy that 10 acre farm with river access for 10 times the going rate.
Then drain the river completely.
Water rights laws stopped this behavior.

Now to today.
If you ended 'all' water rights laws corporation/subdivsions/cities would capture the run off and sell it to smaller communities.
Net effect would be 'You pay my price or else".

You just can't end the laws in dry areas.



posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: joeraynor




what exactly about the property do you own?


The right to use it if you keep paying council rates and govt taxes. Only to a depth of a few metres, minerals underneath can be ckaimed by you but they belong to the "Crown". Oh and this right to borrow the land from the Government is paid for by you by fictitious money created by the Banks and the Government Looters of your soul.




top topics



 
10

log in

join