This stuff doesn’t happen in California, because there is a general overlay of riparian use, so you get to use some amount of water that flows past your land (something, I am sure, includes rainwater on your property). This doesn’t happen in the Eastern US because they are all on a riparian system, so folks get a proportional use of the water.

Now, I’ll leave it for you folks as a policy matter, but as the law stands this is a completely correct decision. Now, trying to changing anything in the water universe — in Colorado especially — is both dangerous and boring, so it doesn’t much happen. But this is totally consistent with the current mechanism of water rights.

It is illegal. Its not a gray area in the law.

A week in, I decided to see the country side, and *EVERY* house had them…I thought these were simply expensive eco-toy for the elite. Nope, everyone had them. It was an eye opener…these were on my list to research now that I’m back in the states. Honestly, I can’t imagine how a system like this used to do things like water the lawn or wash laundry would be a bad thing…the water doesn’t need to be purified or run through a sanitation system and this alone should solve a lot of energy needs. No need to have it transported by pipes…its already there.

Just sounds a little too short sighted considering this water is eventually going to make it into the system anyways…

“I may be way off base here, but the last time I checked a satellite image of earth, water wasn’t exactly scarce.

When are we going to begin developing more de-salinisation technology to help alleviate a lot of these issues with water? Especially in California?”

You are way off base; Saltwater is not scarce, but freshwater is, especially in the Western U.S.

De-salinisation is still prohibitively expensive and not a viable solution to the growing problem of *freshwater* scarcity.

It would be worthwhile to study the history of struggles over water resources in the 19th century that gave rise to the laws of today.

Rainwater collection is part of the permaculture/xeriscape ethos, with its emphasis on “Re-localization”, but as others have pointed out, it does *maybe* screw others downstream; I think the law needs further revision as to what one can and cannot do with rainwater capture rather than a blanket ban on it. But then again, IANAL. I’m not overly impressed when lawyers come on BoingBoing and say “This is correct”. A good lawyer should be able to argue the legal merits of nearly any position, pro or con.

I can sympathize with not screwing others downstream, but supporters of these kind of laws keep talking about diverting streams/ditches, which to me comes across as a bait-and-switch; We’re talking about *rainwater* collection on one’s property, quit changing the subject.

I think there’s room for compromise; the existing law may make sense and even have some legitimacy, but it strikes me as over-broad and needs more nuance.

The property system we have is the one the bigshot property owners WANT. We’re not going to have some kind of different one where the horrible “monopolistic” corporations are gone but you, personally, are rich. The “free market” is a slogan the bigshots use to get what they want, to get rid of public funding and regulation that doesn’t happen to benefit them, and you are helping them by promoting their slogan.

A regulated, free market would allow someone to start buying out everyone else’s barrels, but then face them with the option of either becoming a monopoly with publicly-agreed-upon price limits or limiting the percentage of village rain barrels they can buy out so that you can buy a few and try to compete.

Given Public Choice Theory and regulatory capture, it’s actually the regulated markets that become the most coercive in inflating price.

An unregulated market would then allow someone to start buying out everyone else’s barrels, coercing the holdouts, and then selling water to everyone at an inflated price.

If the price exceeds that of importing it, or retrieving water through some other means, then the “natural monopoly” will be broken and competition will resume.

It’s virtually impossible for a business to secure a monopoly without government complicity.

Exactly. This essentially boils down to environmental impact problems.

Here’s another example that makes more sense to people. You own a swath of land and a river crosses through it. Despite the fact that you “own” this section of the river, you do not have the privilege of being able to damn or divert the river, nor may you just dump whatever you like willy nilly in it. There are zoning regulations, environmental impact regulations, etc.

And the reasons become obvious when we look at it in terms of a stream. The reality is that people downstream are dependent upon the continual flow of water. For drinking, irrigation, washing, whatever. By simply having the privilege of being upstream from them, you control their destiny.

To please the anarchist in all of us, I’m certain that, in absence of a government, a system would arise to resolve conflicts over the water supply, but since we exist in a reality where there is a government, this is one of the few cases where intervention is justified.

Sort of. I recognize that the market is usually more efficient than government intervention. It’s like Netwonian physics: good enough for day-to-day use, but not infallible.

I think that the cases where the markets are inefficient or, even better, where they produce undesirable results despite their efficiency, are far more common than people raised on American rah-rahism in the post-Cold War era are likely to admit.

You don’t own it!

Surprised no-one else brought up the Simpsons episode where Burns got shot…what with putting up the big sunshade so folks would HAVE to buy his electricity.

Suddenly, no runoff reaches the ditch and the farm is put out of business.. Is that fair?

That farm was depending on a positive externality.

The risk of losing its “free riding” should be incorporated into its business model.

No. The government IS the people.

No, that’s a fantasy.

Government is just the people who work within the organization (politicians, clerks, postal workers, IRS agents, forest rangers, etc.), just like Microsoft is only the people who work there, and Dow Chemical is only the people who work there, etc.

It’s just an organization — albeit the one with the most and biggest guns. So, actually, that makes them the biggest gang.

The CBC put out an (imho) excellent documentary titled ‘The Corporation’. One of the segments covers when Bechtel did this in Cochabamba, Bolivia. Add it to your Net Flix queue today!

Or just download it.

Has nobody made a Dune reference yet?

I know, there never seemed to be the right context to mention windtraps.

It is illegal. Its not a gray area in the law.

It’s not illegal until you get caught. ;)

No one owns anything unless they have “merely filed paperwork with the government.” Otherwise the guy with the guns can just take it all.

So the only reason you’re not a slave isn’t because of some kind of inalienable right, but just because the government you happen to be a citizen of says so?

See, the thing about the Bill of Rights in the United States was that it’s supposed to merely recognize natural rights, not grant them — that’s not a power that any government has.

That said, I think we should do this because I think it will lead to results I like, not because of some abstract argument from first principles.

That’s the problem with normative analysis. (i.e. “truthiness”) You can’t just pick the results you like best; you have to recognize the ones that are most accurate (or logically consistent).

Otherwise, I say that ice cream for dinner is healthy, the sun revolves around the earth, and when you die you actually live forever in a magical realm called “heaven”.

A price set for affluent people to water their lawns might be higher than for poorer people can afford.

Now.. you’re the one talking about price fixing? That’s your second statement there.

You simply seem want everything to be for the richest or whatever is the most convenient for your own use. No cooperation. No making allowances for other people or anyone else’s needs.

Whoa there bub. That’s a disgustingly antisocial attitude you’re promulgating.

I’m certain that, in absence of a government, a system would arise to resolve conflicts over the water supply, but since we exist in a reality where there is a government, this is one of the few cases where intervention is justified.

Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy?

That’s a tautological justification.

I’m more worried about how someone started owning it to begin with.

They squatted on some land, threatened to shoot anybody who didn’t agree that it was theirs, and got together with some other squatters and agreed that this was a fair system.

Now 10 generations later, I’m supposed to shut up and accept that property rights are some sacred matter because my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents didn’t think of it and they did.

Not buying it.

When does the water belong to somebody?

When it leaves the cloud?
While it is falling?
When it hits the ground?

Do the clouds belong to somebody?

Who owns the water as it is evaporating and becoming a cloud?

Can I own the water cycle?
Can I buy cloud rights?

People that own land…can they sue for damages to the land from the minerals removed by water as it drains through?

:)

Whoa there bub. That’s a disgustingly antisocial attitude you’re promulgating.

Please explain why you consider that “disgustingly antisocial”.

So, a product required for people to *live* can be bid up?

Just like food, housing, clothing, heat, electricity, etc? Yes. Demand exceeds supply for all of those, or else they would be free.

No cooperation. No making allowances for other people or anyone else’s needs.

Cooperation is facilitated through price signals for distributed coordination (i.e. spontaneous order / emergence).

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/The_Corporation/60034810?lnkctr=srchrd-sr&strkid=2133491498_0_0

N – YR dtc. Thnk bt WHY ths lw s n plc – Cn y fr nc thnk tht smn mght nt b cllctng t fr prsnl s? 55 gllns s dffrnt frm 55,000 gllns. Jst bcs Y r rspnsbl ndvdl dsn’t mn w cn d wy wth lws md t kp THR ppl frm bng sshls.

Y hpps mk m sck.

Rain falls. Runs off into the watershed and is diverted into those ditches.

Colorado tracks *all* water. The average rainfall is part of the allocated water. Its accounted for in terms of planning and coordination. Water in a barrel in your yard isn’t available to the person who needs it at the time that person can pull out their water allotment. Multiply that by a bunch of others pulling water, and that is a rather serious issue.

Its not changing the subject. Water does not magically appear. It comes into the watershed from several known sources, of which rainfall is one. You are diverting water from reaching those ditches. That depletes the amount available at that time for people who have prior rights.

It could be more nuanced and it really is a lot more nuanced than anyone on here has even thought to look into. All water in Colorado is a managed resource. That’s the core underlying principle at work here. Been in play since 1876. It does not matter whether the water comes from rain or from runoff in the mountains. (Wells are also covered, but have different criteria).

But one point I would make is that the water laws are only a clunky solution to the fact that you got too gddmnd many people living where they shouldn’t and using water in an unsustainable way.

Exactly! Using laws instead of prices allows people to ignore reality (at their own eventual peril).

You aren’t explaining *why* that’s a better system.

If you deny the entire validity of governments, as I do (I’m also opposed to anarchism as well- you just can’t please me), that’s an entirely different debate. Governments exist and this is clearly within the established domain of government operation.

Its not like water rights are “free”. You have to purchase them.

Can I put in a rendering plant next to a housing development? Can I dump anything into the watershed causing any damage I choose?

Face it, almost every activity is dependent on other people respecting your rights enough to allow you to continue operations.

There is no business model that has “core requirement is no longer available”. That properly is known as bankruptcy law, not water law.

A housing development that is new does not have the right to put a long term business or operation out of business by its very existence. If housing developments, in some areas, can reject new airports, new garbage dumps, or other activities which impact them, then why would not the farms also have similar laws in place to protect their livelihood?

This is the state where towns sue each other for stealing snowfall.

This is the state were no one owns any water. :)