
All she wants is the rain water that lands on her roof - soundsop
http://www.wildlifemanagementpro.com/2008/07/09/water-rights-and-rain/
======
spectre
Where do they draw the line on rain harvesting? It sounds as like having any
vegetation on your property would be included.

------
cubicle67
I too live in a very dry area, but here we're actively encouraged to install
water tanks and harvest our own water, with the understanding that for each
litre of rain collected about 10 litres of dam water is saved.

[Edit: this makes no sense. sorry. What I mean is that if 10% of water makes
it to the dams, then for each litre I collect, only about 100mL would have
make it into the water supply.]

------
ars
I have to wonder why she even asked in the first place?

~~~
anigbrowl
She grows and sells organic food. So being registered as a farmer, she
probably has to show where her resources are coming from or be fined.

This is a really interesting article. Tradable resource rights are often
touted as a solution to environmental overuse but this is a good example of
how they can go badly wrong.

~~~
noonespecial
I wonder what they would say if she used a precipitator to get moisture from
the air?

~~~
jrockway
"Wow, that's an expensive and horrifically inefficient means of getting water,
lady."

------
quoderat
I'm proud to be an American, because at least I know I'm free....

------
Bensch
This does sound like a ridiculous law - it's possible that all they need to
change is to allow people to harvest water if it's to be re-released on the
same property.

------
sethg
How are water rights distributed in the Western states? I'm wondering if this
is analogous to a few large plantation owners locking up great swaths of
arable land (which their ancestors acquired in good Lockean fashion after
killing off the native inhabitants) and refusing to sell to a poorer
entrepreneur who might use some of that property in a more useful and
efficient fashion.

~~~
anamax
> I'm wondering if this is analogous to a few large plantation owners locking
> up great swaths of arable land (which their ancestors acquired in good
> Lockean fashion after killing off the native inhabitants) and refusing to
> sell to a poorer entrepreneur who might use some of that property in a more
> useful and efficient fashion.

People who use resources inefficiently eventually lose them to folks who
don't.

Or, were you referring to national parks?

------
padmanabhan01
This does look really ridiculous at first. But when I come to think of it,
both parties do have a point.

If ground water is something that is shared, then it does make sense to ban
one from drilling a bore and extracting all of it even if one were to drill it
in his property right?

------
gills
She has to be a pawn in some larger game that intends to subvert water rights.
Bills don't come into the state legislature over one organic farmer's attempt
to capture rain water. This reads like a slimy PR piece to stoke "grassroots"
support for overturning water rights.

~~~
knowtheory
Even if this were a piece in a larger debate, the stance the courts have taken
is highly counter-intuitive (although granted it's not represented in this
post), and completely opaque to me.

I can understand the concern to preserve the water rights of the most senior
people (okay, that's a lie, i think it's stupid, but i'll capitulate to the
court's desire to preserve the system). But i just don't understand how this
is either a slippery slope (oh! a pun!) to loss of water rights/usage, or how
this could possibly materially effect other water usage.

So... yeah, i'm skeptical about the court's position.

------
fishercs
regardless of who is right or wrong here, she's going about this the right
way. Let the public know about it and she'll get her water if a big enough
stink is created about it all.

------
riffic
she should just do it anyways. it's easier to beg for forgiveness than to ask
for permission.

~~~
noonespecial
Except that apparently, forgiveness costs $500/day.

~~~
jrockway
And if she doesn't pay?

(The answer is: she gets in legal trouble, and the issue goes to a real court,
with the possibility of appeals. Will three judges really think she can't use
the water that lands on her roof?)

~~~
anamax
> Will three judges really think she can't use the water that lands on her
> roof?

Odds are, yes.

What other laws do you want judges to ignore? On what basis? What are the odds
that they'll only ignore the laws that you think that they should?

~~~
jrockway
It's a matter of correcting the faulty science that led to the current
decision. If using water from your roof really deprived the "rights holders"
of their water, then that's one thing. But it seems that that's not the case,
even though that's what officials are telling her.

(Courts decide facts, not laws.)

