posted on May, 10 2009 @ 07:28 PM
This really is an incredible piece of legislation that should not stand up to analytical logic in a court of law, in fact it should be able to be
argued as being both unreasonable and dismissive of sovereign right. Of course, the legislation is meant to protect an avenue and generation of income
for the water authority...and certainly needs challenging. It needs challenging not by one household, but by many as a collective, as it is not
affecting one household only, but all those that fall withing the legislation's apparent jurisdiction. The challenge has to be legal, not illegal or
violent, or confrontational in any of those two areas.
The point at which to look at is the legislation's origin. What arguments were proposed for the right of the legislation to stand? What counter
argument was there placed in challenging it? Who were the proponents of the legislation, and who against. What ruling decided the legislation's
authority, and by what summation? There is a need to research these points, that is where to begin.
Now, we are talking about the precipitation of water from the atmosphere as rain...a quite natural event, and as far as I am aware, it is
impracticable to legislate for natural events, except where an event might cause potential loss, injury of life, and/or damage to property. However,
the legislation cannot pertain to the event itself, only to the human activity it causes or affects. Water itself is equally a 'natural' source, but
legislation on water should only be applicable to the water captured by the water utility, stored by such utility, who then transports it to your
house by some means. Did they 'create' the water, or make it fall? Legislation can only pertain to that man-made chain of supply and demand. Until
the water from the heavens is captured at the water utility's points of capture, such water cannot be deemed ownable by anyone.
You cannot market natural events, you have to be able to prove ownership by some argument, and I would deem this impossible, but should some clever
fellow bring a proposal to the table that provides some such argument, then by that argument they can be sued for damage, from the floods and for any
loss of life. For if you own it, you control it, and are therefore responsible for it (as 'cause'), for its precipitation.
The point is, the legislation warrants argument against it, and it looks to me that it would not stand up to it.