Comments about ‘Legislator to sponsor bill allowing rainwater collection by residents’

It's rediculous that government can claim ownership of the rain. What kind of stupid mentality do we have in government to say we can't use rain water? Water rights and water permits are meant for the use of wells, rivers, and canal waters. Next thing that will happen we'll get taxed for the rain falling on our yards and watering our lawns, claiming we are using their water from the sky. Then some stupid legislator will come up with a means of laying claim to the snowfall and a user fee for that. Government is getting rediculous to what it is laying claim to.

Where are the boo-birds screeching that collecting rainwater is a "crime"?

Legislators have perverted the concept of "crime" to include acts without victims, such as collecting rainwater. Oftentimes they enact these liberty-stealing laws at the bidding of the media-law enforcement-prosecutorial-corrections-prison construction industrial complex.

Thankfully, some are pushing back against these victimless crimes.

Neither of you understand the issue here. It is not that the government is trying to claim ownership of rainwater, its the simple fact that rainwater goes into the ground and into the watershed that people pay money to use. Because of the current laws and water purchase and distribution plans, collecting rainwater is technically a form of theft. Understand the laws before you stand up on your bully pulpit about the government.

This is actually about government...way too much of it!

It is both. If people are collecting water for personal use, and not selling it, the gov should leave it alone. If buyers are using too much community water, go bother them and not those who are trying to be self-sufficient rather than depend on everyone else (gov and taxpayers). Now the government IS saying they own the rain. Next... AIR.

If your neighbor diverted a ditch full of rain-water through your house, you would expect the Gov. to intervene.

While this is a long over-due move, the poster "You don't get it" is also correct. If stormwater is left uninterrupted, it will seep into the aquafers, rivers/streams/ponds, which becomes a commerce issue (farms/livestock/even power). However, no one can collect 100% of the water that falls on their property. I believe this legislation works to meet in the middle. If you want to learn more about the topic of rainwater harvesting, latest news, designs, usages, consideratios, and hazards, search for "Rain Tank Depot"

Saying that collecting rainwater is theft is like saying that food storage is hoarding. Doesn't it stand to reason that if someone collects rainwater, that they will be using less of the communal water systems? I see that as a benefit for everyone.

Mr. "You dont get it", doesnt get it. His reasoning would make ownership of those rainclouds and subsequent rain the property of California, Oregon, Nevada or Idaho, after all those clouds passed over those states and possibly picked up moisture from those states. Perhaps because I was born here, I too should also be the property of this state. Along these absolute crazy lines of thought, one should not be able to take air into their lungs without a permit, license, or permission from the state for fear of breaking the law. Mr. "you dont get it" is a perfect example of the lack of common sense thinking that we have in some of our public offices today.

Rainwater collected is not destroyed, but used as any other source, then also drains into the natural aquafer, or evaporates to start the cycle again. If collected water irrigates a garden or lawn before rejoining the aquafer, there is a gain in efficiency. Reducing demand on municipal treatment systems would seem an advantage. What, exactly, is the downside?