Colorado "rain barrel bill" hits choppy water in tough House debate

[fizzgig]

A bill that would allow Colorado residents to legally put out rain barrels to catch water dripping from their roofs boiled down to a debate over precedent and "common sense" in the statehouse Friday.

The measure, letting residents put out a 100-gallon barrel and catch up to 600 gallons a year to use on their gardens, passed a narrow voice vote, and it appears to be in danger when a roll-call vote is held next week.

Colorado water law says water that falls on your roof isn't yours; it belongs to the system and ultimately downstream users who own a water right, said Rep. Don Coram, R-Montrose.

Rep. Jessie Danielson, D-Wheat Ridge, countered: "It still goes into the same ground it would if it came down the gutter and straight into the ground."

the rest from the denver post.

[NaturalHigh]

1. I haven't lived in Colorado for almost nineteen years...

and they've been debating this since I was there.

[fizzgig]

5. i've been hearing about it since i was a kid

i honestly don't know that this bill will ever pass.

[silverweb]

2. Saw this coming.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]The miniscule percentage of rain that people might catch and save would have NO effect on groundwater levels.

Saying it belongs to "the system" means only that the profiteers are afraid of people paying for less water - especially once corporations succeed in privatizing the supply, which is the ultimate goal.

Once again, as always, this obstruction is purely corporate profit driven.

[fizzgig]

4. the 600 gallon limit is enough to water your lawn once, maybe twice

the greed is sickening.

[silverweb]

11. Absolutely sickening.

[niyad]

3. yes, people, colorado really has laws that forbid one to capture rainwater. a fact that

comes as a huge surprise to many when discussing water conservation efforts for home use, etc.

no, we cannot capture rainwater, no passive systems, etc. yes, there are times this is one truly messed-up state (and no, legal pot is NOT responsible for this insanity)

[fizzgig]

6. yeah, there is still some insanity here

but it's much more progressive than it was when i was a kid.

[niyad]

7. I live in fundieville, so still lots of insanity.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. I was amazed to find out about this.

Last edited Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Here it's not only legal, it's encouraged. I have two rain barrels - one captures rain off the house roof, the other off the garage. The rain that goes into the barrels is the same rain that would otherwise fall on my yard, and I merely store that very same water in the barrels and just put it on the yard later, when it isn't raining. I am unable to wrap my brain around the rationale for prohibiting rain barrels. It's the same damn water going to the same damn place! The only thing that changes is when it goes there!

[madamesilverspurs]

8. Needs some very serious thought.

When visiting family in Washington State a couple years back, I was amazed to learn that residents aren't allowed to capture the rain off the roof; especially surprising given the area's well known raininess. Now they're looking at drought, with snowpack in the Olympic Mountains at 3% of normal.

Gonna get more interesting all over the place.

[Canoe52]

13. That changed in 2009

Washington state changed the law in 2009. The original law was 100 years old and was intended to prevent private parties from building reservoirs and diverting water, not to single out rain barrels.

[Warpy]

9. No kidding, it does all go the same place, it just saves potable water on the way

I have no idea why this is being debated at all, it should be one of those no brainer decisions.

I guess the usual light switch thinkers and zero tolerancers are on the prowl again.

[packman]

12. Reason for debate - water company profits

Yes, a few gallons here and there won't make that much difference - But, imagine several hundreds of people bypassing the meter and using rain barrel water for gardens, car washing, etc. Could mean quite a bit for the company running which is usually a monopoly for water distribution.

[Warpy]

14. That's exactly it

Now I could see a reason for debate if people were having those rain barrels siphoned off to sell to water starved farmers or something, but putting it back where it would have gone in the first place does no harm to anyone but a fat pig of a water company exec who sees a few dollars escaping his grasp.

Funny, around here, a rain barrel might cause me to break ground for a kitchen garden, if we'd been getting enough to support a rain barrel or two. Without them, forget it, water is so costly that any veg I grew would have invisible gold plating on it.