It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Droughts, water supply worries and population changes serve as catalysts for states to consider legislation related to water conservation and alternative sources of water including rainwater harvesting. State legislatures have considered bills to allow, define and clarify when, where and how rainwater harvesting may occur. Rainwater harvesting is commonly defined as the act of utilizing a system to collect and use rainwater for outdoor uses, plumbing, and, in some cases, consumption. Rainwater collection or rainwater catchment are other terms used to refer to this practice. State legislatures consider factors, such as water rights, quality standards and public health, that rainwater harvesting may impact. In some states, especially in the West, water laws stated that all precipitation belonged to existing water-rights owners, and that rain needs to flow to join its rightful water drainage. Legislators also must ensure water quality standards and public health concerns are met when considering rainwater harvesting legislation. For example, collected rainwater may be used for non-potable purposes (e.g., watering indoor or outdoor plants) but may be restricted for potable purposes (e.g., drinking water). Texas and Ohio have devoted considerable attention to this issue and have enacted several laws regulating rainwater harvesting. (See list below for some examples.) Texas and Ohio allow rainwater harvesting for potable purposes, a practice that is frequently excluded from other states’ laws and regulations. Rhode Island, Texas and Virginia offer tax credits or exemptions on the purchase of rainwater harvesting equipment. Oklahoma passed the Water for 2060 Act in 2012 to promote pilot projects for rainwater and graywater use among other water conservation approaches.
Who Owns the Water? Pt. 1, Groundwater APRIL 29, 2015 / LEXI HERNDON / 3 COMMENTS Print Friendly, PDF & Email This week we bring you a post from our colleague Richard Whisnant from his new blog: Environmental Law in Context. This is the way the question often comes to me–who owns it?–as a way of asking either who controls water in NC (for beneficial purposes) or who is responsible for it when it does harm (e.g., flooding). Framing the question this way is an unsurprising reflection of the importance of property rights in American law. And property rights do matter for water law. But water, the great solvent, has a way of dissolving preconceptions about ownership of property and forcing anyone who really cares to reexamine their understanding of ownership itself. Things, like water, that are always moving, often in mysterious ways, and that are so vital to us that we can’t imagine life without them, just don’t fit well in simple definitions of “property.” To make matters especially complicated for water, the law has come to treat its ownership very differently as it moves through the eternal cycle in which it always moves: from ocean to sky, back to earth as rain (“stormwater”) or snow, then either infiltrating into the ground (groundwater) or into streams and lakes (surface water), and then passing through myriad human channels, including our own bodies, on its way back to the sea. In this post, I will outline the way NC law treats ownership of groundwater–probably our biggest and ultimately most important store of freshwater.
originally posted by: FredT
SO having looked at buying vast acreage there are several things to consider and one of the most important is water rights.
How much and from where is quite important and even more important is how old the water right claim is. If the controlling agency decides to curtail water use or even cut you off they typically do so by seniority, so if my water rights date back to 1818, I will get shut down before someone who has an older claim.
You also want a clear understanding of, if you have a river running through your property, who is above stream, and how much they can take out. Or better yet are they dumping crap into the water etc.
I would look for land surrounded by Federal protected/national forest as its your best bet in remote areas.
originally posted by: Specimen
Kids cant even have lemonade stands no more without pretty much having a swat team breaking it down pretty much.
Hell, they are pretty much trying to use the residential carbon tax for breathing, which they could of made legit years ago when the economy was booming and denied any idea of climate change for years...which does nothing for the environment at all!
“The final rule doesn’t create any new permitting requirements for agriculture, maintains all previous exemptions and exclusions, and even adds exclusions for features like artificial lakes and ponds, water-filled depressions from construction, and grass swales—all to make clear our goal is to stay out of agriculture’s way,” McCarthy wrote.
“The rule, for example, is meant to clarify that federal agencies won’t regulate features like intermittent waterways or wetlands that don’t connect to a larger body of water,” she said. “The rule also wouldn’t affect artificial lakes and ponds, grass swales and depressions from construction and other activity that fill with water.”
originally posted by: Groot
originally posted by: Steveogold
a reply to: Groot
here in new Zealand you are allowed to collect your own rain water as it should be you only pay water rates in the towns
Here in the states, seems like we are losing more of our freedoms everyday.
originally posted by: Blaine91555
The rain water thing is just plain old fashioned stupidity.
Drilling a well though, I can see the need to regulate. An aquifer is not just under one persons property. It should be case by case and not blanket regulation.