Woman, denied rain water from her own roof.
- Thread starter xes
- Start date
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Ah.
As you may have gathered I didn't actually read the link and incorrectly assumed it was some Bechtel type cuntery.
Where does "capitalism" come into it?
The state (in this case Colorado) is saying that privately owning a piece of land doesn't give automatic rights to all resources on it (in this case water).
The state 'owns' the water and people are required to obtain permits from the state. The state has the legal right to allocate those permits using criteria it puts in place.
A system like this is to stop people having unregulate control over water simply because they own land 'upstream' of other people.
I don't think the system is correct in this specific case as there are very good environmental reasons for allowing small scale 'grey water' systems and people should have *some* level of water rights, even if these are not limitless and even if the wider environmental impact is taken into account in the process. However the general principle of regulating water use makes perfect sense and "capitalism" doesn't come into as regulation could occur equally under 100% state ownership or other non-capitalist political and economic systems.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
having read that article, it would seem to me that if you were to go outside in the rain, any water on your clothes that went down the drain would be illegal by the same logic
That's what I thought. Maybe they should try suing the judge as well.
I can't see how you conclude that. It doesn't say how 'water harvesting' is defined but presumably they have legal criteria about what consists of. If water fell on your clothes then went down the drain you are not 'harvesting', storing, diverting or using it.having read that article, it would seem to me that if you were to go outside in the rain, any water on your clothes that went down the drain would be illegal by the same logic
edited to add:
"Diversion or Divert - remove or control from or within its natural course or location, by means of a water structure such as a ditch, pipeline, boat chute, reservoire or well."
source: Citizen's Guide to Colorado Water Law, 2nd edition
link: http://cfwe.org/CitGuides/CG-Law2004.pdf
WouldBe
Dislicksick
According to the article that only applies to rivers and streams not rain water harvesting.
ah I see, so this lady's roof, guttering and tanks constitute a "water structure" and are therefore covered
so the crux of the matter is the point at which rainwater becomes a tributary of a stream?
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Tributaries are normally traceable so the water board should be able to clearly show how the water gets from her roof to the river.
And also nothing to do with capitalism. It's a government law.
Whether it should be in place or not is a different question. But people have no problems protesting against dams in countries that stop water getting into other countries. This is like a small-scale version of that.
Whether it should be in place or not is a different question. But people have no problems protesting against dams in countries that stop water getting into other countries. This is like a small-scale version of that.
This isn't 'effectively privatising' it at all - it is making it into a publically-controlled resource. Companies don't "own" the air - they are forced to buy a government permit. The government remains the final authority and final giver-of-permission.
This has switched from a situation where companies could freey use a public resource to one where they have to pay to do so, but where they still don't own the resource, they are just paying for an allocated permit.
The government continues to be the ultimate "owner" (in as far as any government can actually own a global resource). The market mechanisms involve the distribution of permits not a transfer of ownership.
newharper
Manxome Tove
What if a Journo, say, took out a camera crew and had her/himself filmed standing with his mouth open swallowing rain next to a stream.
Harvesting I'd call it.
Now I know that that is a pointless exercise and that water management in such states is of primary importance.
However the problem here is,
http://www.waterinfo.org/colorado-water/colorado-water-rights
It doesn't really matter what I would call it or you would call it - the legality comes down to how the Colorado laws define it.
The document I linked to just talks generally and doesn't contain detailed descriptions of how large things have to get before they are subject to the law there. Any open container left on the ground and any depression (eg a garden pond or swimming pool) will collect rainwater. I am guessing (but don't have any links t prove it right now) that there is a set of guidelines or rules about what is and isn't subject to planning law there. I am also guessing (but again don't have any links to prove it) that someone with their mouth open is not covered by planning law.
Having government control over natural resopurces that would otherwise be over-exploited is a good idea imo, whether it is water, fisheries, trees or the planet's capacity to absorb carbon dioxide. It would be nice if there were no pressure on any of these things and people were free to do what they wanted without politicians, bureaucrats, planners or courts getting in the way, but that isn't the reality any more. Any system should ideally be as fair as possible but it is better to have restrictions than to have a free-for-all which destroys the environment.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Both in that statement and in the link provided by Float there is no mention of rights over rain just ground and surface water.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Already corrected myself two posts above this one.
Still - fuck capitalism anyway though aswell as bureaucratic state overregulation.
newharper
Manxome Tove
So you think if you catch it before it hits the ground the law doesn't apply.
Good point, and one surely worthy of further investigation by the lawyers involved.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Oh do spare us, we are but mere mortals, save us from the tyranny of your all-knowing wisdom...
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Jewish megacorps, perchance?
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
This has everything to do with the longstanding opinions of the posters who I'd have been picking a fight with long before you ever signed up to this forum, so how about you mind your own business?
You never know, you might learn something.
You barging into a thread where people are having an on-topic discussion and trying to detrail, troll and/or flame *is* my business.
Being a long term poster you therefore no doubt know the u75 faq, but I will quote some bits for you:
"...Users who make a stream of posts with no meaningful content and/or continually post up off topic material in inappropriate threads/forums will be banned..."
"...Persistently disruptive posters will be banned. Repeated efforts to derail the debate could result in forum access termination..."
"...We're happy to host lively and robust debate but racists, bullies, sexist oafs, bigots and general all-round irritating arses are not welcome on these boards. Over the top swearing, endless personal attacks and needlessly disruptive conduct is not permitted and posters who continue such behaviour after being asked to stop will be banned. Threads that descend into personal insult-a-thons will be binned..."
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
and by mentionign it you are just as guilty of derailing...
ignore the fights and they dissappear quickly add to them and suprise suprise they fucking escalate as more people are drawn in...
are you new to earth or summit...
Surprise surprise
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
Similar threads
