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.

 

Who Owns The Water Above and Below ?

page: 3
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: dollukka
In Finland they have started to bill in some cities of the rainwater which rains to your property and goes in city sewers, it is ridiculous and they even bill properties which do not have a city sewers nearby so basicly they are billing of a rainwater that pours down. The amount of bill for a house owner is about 30 euros a month.

I am pretty sure in future they will bill you of the air you breath.


How delightful. I'll have to remember that one next time someone tells me socialism hasn't gone authoritarian wrong in Scandinavia (yet).
edit on 8-9-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: liveandlearn

I have a nestle plant about 500 paces from me and I collect rain water whenever it rains, not real sure what the state laws are but we've never had issue with collection of rain water as it's mainly what i water my tomato's with as much as possible from 55 gallon drums planted around the house.

Supposedly pumpkin capital of the world lol, festival comes this very next weekend..



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

My guess is that it is a one way to pay huge bill which comes from immigration. Taxes are not enough.. they need more money.



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: dollukka
a reply to: BrianFlanders

My guess is that it is a one way to pay huge bill which comes from immigration. Taxes are not enough.. they need more money.


I would not even risk venturing my best guess in public. That seems to be getting to the point to where it is frowned upon these days.



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Groot

no one owns the water anywhere if your dumb enough to believe they do then more fool you



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: seethetruth

No one ever owned the water really, aside from nature i suppose.

That being said how many incidents and situations have managed to materialize over simple water rights allegedly misused?

Quite a few really.



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarlbBlack
a reply to: liveandlearn

I have a nestle plant about 500 paces from me and I collect rain water whenever it rains, not real sure what the state laws are but we've never had issue with collection of rain water as it's mainly what i water my tomato's with as much as possible from 55 gallon drums planted around the house.

Supposedly pumpkin capital of the world lol, festival comes this very next weekend..


So I live over the hill from you and the Nestle you refer too is a distribution center and not a bottling plant FYI so they are not pumping water from the ground etc.

Also its fine in Calfornia to harvest water from roofs etc:


Assembly Bill 1750 (2012) enacted the Rainwater Capture Act of 2012. The bill authorizes residential, commercial and governmental landowners to install, maintain, and operate rain barrel systems and rainwater capture systems for specified purposes, provided that the systems comply with specified requirements www.leginfo.ca.gov...


Many cities and water districts offer subsidized rain barrels for home use
edit on 9/8/18 by FredT because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 02:46 PM
link   
There are reasons behind not being allowed to collect rainwater, just as there are reasons why you can't dam a river off to fill your own private reservoir.



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I do my best to stay under-the-radar

its been 2 years now that my 8 each rain barrels have been in place (hidden by bushes) all around the house...
used for drip irrigation of my grapes (muscadines) which are now 5 years established

the artist in the household still has not painted the all-blue or all-white 55 gal drums to camouflage them yet

the reply where an individual should access water for the household requirements sounds legit to me...but poaching water by the millions-of-gallons in any business venture should be regulated severely... both above & below ground supplies



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012
There are reasons behind not being allowed to collect rainwater, just as there are reasons why you can't dam a river off to fill your own private reservoir.


Well, I guess when the government's water rots your roof you can sue them for making your roof wet. In fact, we could just go hog wild here and sue them for not controlling their weather. Or not compensating us when their wind turns into a tornado and blows our stuff away.
edit on 8-9-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-9-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Groot

If that guy downstream "owns" the water that falls on my property, he's liable for any damage "his water" does before it gets to wherever he uses it.
Hail is frozen water so PAY UP!



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012
There are reasons behind not being allowed to collect rainwater, just as there are reasons why you can't dam a river off to fill your own private reservoir.


Most suburbs and urban areas actually encourage it. Collected water plus permeable pavement like gardens and pavers in lieu of say concrete reduces runoff and help in terms of storm drains.

Roofs are huge collectors. I have a flat roof and collect rainwater. My roof is about 1200 Square feet. Using the down spouts I have 16 58 gallon barrels daisy chained in banks. Usually the first storm of the year fills all of them to capacity. I use a small transpher pump to water the fruit trees.



posted on Sep, 8 2018 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

Starts to smell real good around this time of year, not
starting to see a lot of semi's raised up and get that pugent smell of decaying pumpkins.



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 05:08 AM
link   
I call first dibs on snow!


I think sunlight is still up for grabs, though...



posted on Sep, 9 2018 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Sorry for the delay in my reply. I've not been on.

Actually your "Darwinist" view is interesting.

My view is somewhat different. One of the tools nature provided us with as we evolved is our ability to reason. I believe anything that comes from that, including technology is as natural as a Bonobo using a stick to get at insects. Everything we do is natural for our species and at this time we are the dominant species. The natural / unnatural argument has never held weight with me.

We overpopulate nature will either kill us off, or using our reasoning abilities we will find a way to overcome that and continue as a species. If we fail, other species will evolve to take over. All very natural. Even if we end up surviving by spreading to other planets, it's still natural for our species to do so.

The Earth will always be just fine. We are practicing extreme arrogance by thinking if we end, the Earth ends because it will keep right on spinning and life will keep right on evolving and changing until the Earth can no longer support life.
edit on 9/9/2018 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 02:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Sorry for the delay in my reply. I've not been on.

Actually your "Darwinist" view is interesting.

My view is somewhat different. One of the tools nature provided us with as we evolved is our ability to reason. I believe anything that comes from that, including technology is as natural as a Bonobo using a stick to get at insects.


There are not 7 billion bonobos living on top of a house of cards just waiting for their insect supply to run out, however.


Everything we do is natural for our species


But is not natural to any other species on earth. Therefore, that is why I assert that we're freaks of nature and what we are doing will probably lead to our demise, sooner or later. Clearly, it hasn't happened yet but our luck will run out. Or we will re-engineer ourselves to be not humans (and therefore, no longer relevant to what I have to say about it).

At any rate, the eventual outcome does not look good for us. And I do not believe that "climate change" (in and of itself) is all that threatening (at present or near future). I'm not some rabid environmentalist running around trying to make people change. I'm a wait and see kind of guy. But I don't think it's necessary. To my own satisfaction, I can see humans eventually screwing ourselves with our unnatural behavior patterns and our inability to harmonize with nature.


and at this time we are the dominant species. The natural / unnatural argument has never held weight with me.


That's fine. It doesn't need to. You can twist it any way you like but I don't see dolphins flying at 30,000 feet in jets. At least not on purpose. We're doing so many things no other creature does that it's impossible to predict exactly what the results will be. But it's entirely possible to point out that playing games with fire (just for the pure hell of it) is unwise.


We overpopulate nature will either kill us off, or using our reasoning abilities we will find a way to overcome that and continue as a species.


Like I said. It's a matter of time. Not if. The only way to avoid it is if we find other earth planets that we can actually get to in reasonable time. If we spread beyond earth, then we can talk sustainable. We already have millions of people who are not using their reasoning to survive and only exist because charity. I even heard something about people who are eating dirt to survive. Clearly we are not presently using our brains in terms of reproduction.


If we fail, other species will evolve to take over.


That's just it. Most of them don't HAVE to because they are already in harmony with their environment. Mostly simply because they do not have the mental capacity to cheat and overpopulate. There are only as many wild animals on any given piece of land as that piece of land can support. And they generally don't have to farm. They are not balancing themselves on a tightrope that will wipe their entire species out if it breaks.


All very natural. Even if we end up surviving by spreading to other planets, it's still natural for our species to do so.


It is unlikely we will spread to other planets before it becomes necessary because the effort required is extremely high. Humans follow the path of least resistance. Sure. We might send a man to the moon or even to Mars. There's a big difference between doing that and colonizing Mars or finding another earth out there somewhere and colonizing it.


The Earth will always be just fine.


Yes. As Carlin said. The planet will be find. It's HUMANS who are #ed.


until the Earth can no longer support life.


And we're speeding it up. Maybe the earth doesn't like life.

I know this is not a popular viewpoint. Again, humans are also arrogant. We always believe we can get ourselves out of anything. Well, there's a dead end not too far down the road for every one of us. I see no justification for that kind of delusional thinking.

LATER EDIT -

You know. I just had to add this. It's really amazing to me what kinds of bizarre arguments people will come up with to justify their magical belief that population control isn't necessary but all other types of regulations are.
edit on 10-9-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders


Humans follow the path of least resistance.


At least up until now in our history that is simply not the case. History does not support that conclusion.

Interesting you used that phrase since wild animals actually do follow the path of least resistance as a matter of survival.




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join