[OT]: Rainwater Permit: "May I pretty-please have a drop of rain-waterUncle Sam?"

"Introduced by Sen. Paull Shin on January 13,2005, to authorize the department of ecology to require...any person using rain barrels and cisterns to collect rainwater to receive a permit..."

What will they think of to tax next!

I read in sci.electronics.design that Scott Stephens wrote (in ) about '[OT]: Rainwater Permit: "May I pretty-please have a drop of rain- water Uncle Sam?"', on Mon, 17 Jan 2005:

Oxygen, of course.

If that fucker passes, I'm outta here. Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, Japan, or even the South Pole is looking more interesting.

Watch it get voted in, just watch it get voted in... like so much other rubbish.

-- "Welcome to the new millennium, where ingenuity is dead and SpongeBob Squarepants rules the world..." MCJ 200406

I followed the link and discovered some stuff:

(1) The pages link to the "text and analysis" doesn't work.

(2) The bill is not just about rain water landing on your roof. It is also about all manner of run-off water.

(3) If I read it right, before this law, any stream that crosses you land was completely yours to take regardless of any people who relied on the water in the stream.

(4) The rain barrels and cisterns are included in the text to allow rules to exist so that folks don't need permits for rain water that fell on their own roof.

In other words, the law is being mischaracterized by those who oppose it.

In article , John Woodgate wrote: [...]

In the US they already tax Oxygen. Try buying some and you'll have to pay taxes on it.

Go read the actual text of the law. You may want to reconsider after you read it. Those who oppose it are mischaracterizing it. It is a common tactic.

I guess I don't understand. I can use my own rainwater, but not give it or sell it then? What is the law for? The feds are hoarding vast amounts of land on behalf of the birds and the bees and tree huggers, while the cost of real estate inflates. There was a near revolt in Alaska by some citizens angry because they could use their land for their purposes in the vast wilderness. This is more bullshit, more federal monopolizing, regulation, intrusion, and taxation.

Any state with a Department of Ecology is likely to start taxing each breath you take individually.

In AZ, Riparian rights used to be litigated with shotguns; the latest twist is the rewording of the part about how you used to be "allowed" to keep water that entered your property (_any_ water; rain, river, flood, etc.) except that you had to allow for downstreamers at a specified cubic-foot-per-second rate. Now, you "must" contain that same water to prevent downstreamers' having to cope with it (over the specified CFS minimum, that is). IOW you have to shoulder your own flood damages, but not pass them on.

Mark L. Fergerson

Visitors to AZ will note that all new commercial construction has shallow landscaped moats surrounding the property, to catch all the rainwater, rather than having it drain into the streets.

...Jim Thompson

over

We, here in AZ, have "once-in-100 years" floods about every 5-7 years ;-)

That's why you will see many parks that are depressed below street level. The most famous is Indian Bend Wash Park in Scottsdale, running for nearly nine miles, from just below Shea Boulevard to McDowell Road.

...Jim Thompson

Err - why do they not just *say that* then?

The qualifiers like "may permit" and "beneficial use" sort of hints at some agenda - here in Denmark the *real issue* is that pibed water is metered and Taxed at near extortinate rates so - of course - you are *not* allowed to use rain water for any purpose that would replace the pibed water.

Since this cannot be enforced, nobody gives a toss: My garden and greenhouse runs off a water tank and a small USD 99.95 water-plant, so popular here for some reason (the drip feeding needs pressure).

So, sure, "they" would like to tax rain water also. The Good Part is that while "they" are spending time with useless initiives like this, they are not doing anything else either!! We absolutely do not want all the "government" we pay for!!!

Not quite. AZ has first rights to the Colorado River.

...Jim Thompson

So you don't need to apply for a licence for rain to fall on your roof? That's a blessing! Only in America. ;-)

What's next?

"Uncle Sam, may I pretty-please have some sunlight in my backyard?"

Yes but you do need a permit to divert a river. That is the purpose of the law. If they hadn't included the text about cisterns, the law would have applied to that too.

In article , Scott Stephens wrote: [...]

The law is to prevent people from diverting rivers that happen to cross their land. A good example would be to prevent one farmer from putting his down stream competitors out of business by diverting the river so they get no water.

You (1) obviously didn't read the law (2) didn't understand what I said about the law.

As for the federal government hoarding land: what they have done has protected the source of drinking water for many cities, they have protected the pacific coast yew trees just long enough to save the lives of many cancer victims and so on. What would have happened if they had sold it? Your drinking water would have the run off from the lead smelter in it. By your logic, the federal government has no right to prevent the lead smelter from using the handy river.

I like that. Give the silly bastards something trivial to chase themselves with lest they get up to something really serious.

Bob

I read in sci.electronics.design that Ken Smith wrote (in ) about '[OT]: Rainwater Permit: "May I pretty-please have a drop of rain- water Uncle Sam?"', on Tue, 18 Jan 2005:

Haven't you had riparian rights before? I would have thought that they would have been brought over from Britain, at least, since they are very ancient here. I mean, 'from time immemorial' - before 1186.

I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark Fergerson wrote (in ) about '[OT]: Rainwater Permit: "May I pretty- please have a drop of rain-water Uncle Sam?"', on Tue, 18 Jan 2005:

Let us hope that the sponsors of the bill get a once-in-100 years cloudburst over their properties and attempt to contain the resulting flow!

Would they like some pictures of Boscastle?