Who's Rain is it Anyway? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 04-23-2009, 08:49 AM

Get it? Like the Who's Line show? Never mind.

Quote:

Who Owns the Rain? Hint: It's Not Always Homeowners
Across the country, resourceful homeowners have embraced rainwater capture as a way of conserving community water supplies while maintaining healthy gardens. Unfortunately, rain barrels are sometimes at odds with the law. Facing certain water scarcity, cities and states have begun to wrestle with the conundrum of water rights versus conservation. When it all shakes out, will you own the rain that falls on your own property?
By Andrew Moseman
Published on: April 22, 2009

Capturing rain may be one of humanity's most ancient methods of acquiring water, but now it's coming back in vogue. Rather than press their luck with drought, conservation-conscious homeowners are setting up rudimentary rain barrels and elaborate rainwater storage systems to catch precipitation for nondrinking purposes, such as watering their lawns. But while rainwater may seem like a global common, nowadays it depends on where you live: By capturing rainwater, some homeowners are breaking the law. This has put city and state governments in an awkward position—smack in the middle of competing water users and advocates, often from within their own agencies, of conserving water to protect supplies.

While laws about rainwater collection are often murky, Colorado's are quite clear: Homeowners do not own the rain that falls on their property. The Rocky Mountain state uses a convoluted mix of first-come, first-serve water rights, some of which date back to the 1850s, and riparian rights that belong to the owners of land lying adjacent to water. A single person catching rain wouldn't make a difference to water rights holders, according to Brian Werner of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. But if everyone in Denver captured rain, he says, that would upset the state's 150-year-old water-allocation system. The Colorado Department of Natural Resources estimates that 86 percent of water deliveries go to agriculture, which is already stressed by dwindling supplies. And because 19 states and Mexico draw water from rivers that originate in the Colorado Rockies, backyard water harvesting can have widespread implications (of course, the same goes for water that comes from the tap in these regions).

That said, "nobody has the inclination to go tell Grandma Jones that she can't catch some rainwater and put it on her tomatoes," Werner says. To his knowledge, the state has never prosecuted anyone for backyard water harvesting, so he tells people to go ahead with small-scale projects at their homes. Nevertheless, some state officials, such as Rep. Marsha Looper, have pushed legislation to legalize at least some rain collection. Two such bills are now working their way through the state legislature: One would allow rainwater collection only in rural areas, while the other would green-light urban pilot programs. The new rules will test the effects of increased collection, Werner says—Colorado doesn't want to let its millions of city-dwellers trap rainfall until they better understand the effects on the water system.

While most states don't appropriate water all the way back to the source the way that Colorado does, rainwater capture raises thorny legal issues all over the country, says David Aiken, a water law expert at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln's Water Center. Many cities have begun the delicate dance of encouraging residents to conserve water by catching rain without flagrantly violating their own laws—and, in some cases, they've changed the law to accommodate homeowners. The city of Tucson, Ariz., which receives a meager 12 inches of rainfall in an average year (much of it coming in big downpours), decreed not only that collecting the rain is legal, but that all new commercial development starting in June 2010 must include a rainwater collection system. Seattle encouraged the same in new developments even though the state had interpreted its water laws to say that any rain collector was subject to a permit process, according to state hydrologist and lawyer Kurt Unger. Rather than rewrite the laws or try to force everyone in Seattle to get a permit, he says, the state granted Seattle a city-wide permit, allowing residents to set up cisterns and rainwater storage without becoming criminals. However, Unger says, that solution was easier to implement in Seattle than it would've been in Colorado—farmers aren't directly reliant on the Emerald City's rainwater, so less political strife comes from collecting it. "All that water would've drained into Puget Sound," he says. "So who cares?"

Unger says so many Seattle residents trapped their rainwater that it would've been pointless for the state to resist, even if they wanted to. But such enthusiasm hasn't been shared across the West until recently. Many residents of Western states just didn't see the point of collecting rainwater, or didn't want to retrofit their homes to capture the paltry amount of rainfall in their area, according to Michael Dietze, a professor specializing in sustainable living at Utah State University. "When you need the water out here, it's not raining," he says. However, that era is coming to an end: People have realized that large-scale rainwater collectors can make a big difference, even in an arid climate, Dietze says. A legal fight erupted last August in Utah—which, like Colorado, had a blanket ban on rainwater collection—when car dealer Mark Miller wanted to capture rainwater on the roof of his dealership and use it to wash cars. Utah's legislature just passed a bill last month, which now awaits the governor's signature, that would allow catchments up to 2500 gallons—but Dietze thinks that won't be the end of it. After all, he manages the Utah House, the university's model sustainable home, whose 6500-gallon rooftop rain collector breaks even the new state law.

With water systems across the country already highly or fully appropriated, and with drought aggressively depleting supplies, Aiken predicts that legal battles over who owns the rain won't go away anytime soon. Old water-allocation systems remain in direct conflict with a growing movement for DIY water conservation, including rainwater collection—an approach advocated by the Environmental Protection Agency for at least a decade. But just how seriously conservation butts heads with existing water rights remains to be seen. "That's going to depend on Obama's EPA," Aiken says, "and what they prioritize."

State Water Rights - The Law Behind Collecting Rainwater - Popular Mechanics

It never even occurred to me that rain-capture might be illegal. It's certainly counter intuitive at first glance that the rain that falls on your property isn't necessarily your own, but when you take into consideration the fact that rain water allocation is necessary in some areas to maintain water systems things become a bit more complex.

If you're thinking about capturing rain water, you may want to call your city or county and see if there are any legal implications. I know it's a hassle, but it would be a bigger hassle if this became so popular that local farms start to see decreased production of produce and suddenly grapes cost $12 a pound.

So what are your thoughts? Do you capture rain water? Are you considering capturing rain water? Do you think these laws are reasonable?

Poppinjay · 04-23-2009, 08:59 AM

Kansas and Colorado have had a decades long battle over ownership of water. Basically, Colorado is such an arid state, that they want it all, and everybody else's too. I've lived in both states and found Colorado to be quite thugish over water rights.

In Virginia, rain barrel systems are highly encouraged. During a drought last summer, people were not allowed to water their lawns unless they used rain barrel water. The result was that rain barrel lawns remained green while utility users had to let their lawns and gardens die.

snowy · 04-23-2009, 09:55 AM

It's legal here. The local hippie food co-op has a catchment system to water its landscaping and the small nursery they have at one of the stores. They also offer workshops on how to build your own catchment systems. Our city even wants to get in on it--they want to build a system that will allow them to irrigate our parks with rainwater.

We'll probably build a catchment system once we have a larger garden; I know my folks would like to have one built. Right now what we have doesn't require a lot of watering.

Willravel · 04-23-2009, 10:00 AM

The one I have here wasn't really "built". I cut one of the drains and put an old garbage can under it, then surrounded the garbage can with potted plants so it doesn't look too ghetto. It didn't cost me anything and last week it provided plenty of water. I doubt I'll have to use the sprinklers or drip system in my back yard this week.

Oh, btw, don't forget to cover it when it's not raining! These things would make a great breeding ground for mosquitoes and the like.

inBOIL · 04-23-2009, 02:20 PM

It seems like catchment systems are overall more efficient; the collected water doesn't have a chance to evaporate before it's used, and you don't have to waste resources purifying and pumping water all around. True, the reduction in water available to farmers may matter in dry years, but guaranteeing a certain amount of water to people when that water may not fall from the sky is inherently risky.

FuglyStick · 04-23-2009, 03:07 PM

all your purple rains are mine

Charlatan · 04-23-2009, 03:47 PM

We don't have water collection rules here, in fact it's just the opposite. There is so much rain that they need beef up drainage. That said, there is a limited amount of drinking water and the government works hard to reclaim what it can while also working on better methods of desalination.

It's been said that in the future wars will be fought over fresh water. I have no doubt this will be true.

yournamehere · 04-23-2009, 04:00 PM

Funny that this thread came up at this time. As an unemployed landscape architect - unemployment is near 40% in our business in my part of the country - I've been researching starting a rainwater harvesting system business. In Arizona, not only is it encouraged, but there's a 25% tax credit (up to $1000) for installing a "water conservation system." It used to only be for graywater collection for landscape irrigation, but has been amended to include rainwater harvesting systems. I think Tucson's new Rainwater Harvesting Ordinance is a great idea; one that I hope sets a precedent for more western cities, counties, and states.

Rainwater is not only "free" in most places, but it's higher in nitrogen than municipal or well water; it contains no salts; and is slightly acidic, which makes it a nutrient for plants, and it facilitates plants' uptake of other nutrients. This also makes it a good supplemental source for pools, whose owners in arid regions are always fighting a battle to lower the pH because of hard water. It can also leach existing salts below the root zones of plants, and can be an emergency source of water in wildfire-prone areas.

The problem here, as stated in the quoted article, is that when you can collect the most water - you don't need it, because it rains so hard in so short a time. Here in Phoenix, we get about 8 inches of rain per year; half of it between July1 and September 15. Storage tanks need to be a compromise between price and practicality. Even though a relatively small, 1,200 SF roof can capture up to 3,000 gallons during our 10-week monsoon, it's impractical to store that amount on a small residential lot (At 7.48 gal/cu ft, 3000 gallons would require a 400 cubic foot tank) . But as long as mosquitoes and light are kept from entering the tank, it can be stored until needed. Personally, I think a tank between 600-800 gallons is a good compromise. Total cost for gutters, tank, and a pump to integrate it with an existing drip irrigation system would be around $2500-$3000 for an average, 1500 SF house. And let's not forget that (in AZ) would come with a $625-$750 tax credit. You're not going to get a quick return on your investment as long as water is kept artificially inexpensive - as it is here. Most people's motivation will be the same as for buying hybrids or installing solar panels - because it's the right thing to do for our planet and our children's future.

However, the time it takes for ROI could change rapidly - water could easily quadruple in price in the next 10-20 years, and if water bans occur - it could save your landscape. I think this is going to be a very big green industry in the years to come, if states like Colorado would get their heads out of their asses - and it looks like that may happen.

ps - just in case anyone wants to consider it for their property, here's the math:
You can collect 0.6 gallons per inch of rain per square foot of roof space.

Charlatan · 04-23-2009, 04:38 PM

In dryer parts of the world they have high capacity cisterns, often underground below the house.

yournamehere · 04-23-2009, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

In dryer parts of the world they have high capacity cisterns, often underground below the house.

Quite right, but excavation and hauling the dirt off-site is very expensive. And the way they're building subdivisions these days, you can't even fit a Bobcat through the side yard gates any more.

I've seen underground storage systems so huge and elaborate that they are integrated with water features - even waterfalls and ponds. They are appropriate (in scale and cost) for some commercial places that want to make a statement - like corporate HQs or upscale office buildings. Or for someone who just wants to keep up with the Joneses, I guess.

Well, I imagine they're also appropriate where the need for water outweighs the cost. Even an underground storage cistern is cheaper than digging a well in arid regions. And in most regions, digging a well gets more expensive every year. The water table here is 400 feet lower than it used to be.

Charlatan · 04-23-2009, 05:51 PM

I was thinking less about retrofitting a cistern as much as installing one during construction of new houses.

yournamehere · 04-23-2009, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I was thinking less about retrofitting a cistern as much as installing one during construction of new houses.

A great idea.
Arizona also has a $200 per dwelling tax credit for developers who install a water conservation system on new construction. I suppose it could be an option for home buyers. If you're going to amortize the cost of a rainwater harvesting system over 30 years, you might as well go big!

ngdawg · 04-25-2009, 07:59 PM

Never occurred to me that collecting rain water would be illegal. We've had two 55 gallon barrels set up behind our garage for years-gutters are rigged into a Y to one barrel and the second catches the overflow with a tube attached to both. We use a submersible pump to water the garden from them.
We also have a drywell, but covered that with a large planter out of concern that someone might step on its flimsy wooden cover and fall in. We used it to pump out pool water when we had a pool.

ASU2003 · 04-25-2009, 08:05 PM

This sounds fishy, if the house wasn't there, the water would go right into the ground. All this system does is postpone that. It's not like it won't get used eventually.

It sounds to me like the water utility wants to make more money and some government official is going along with it.

I don't need to capture rain here, but there might be a market in covert water capture devices it looks like.

Willravel · 04-25-2009, 08:43 PM

The property homes are built on are often designed to drain rain water to the street. As a former landscaper, I can personally attest to this. It's not that the property will drain, it's that property where there are houses will generally drain. Since we're talking about property with houses when we mention rain-capture, we're talking about potential drainage. It tickles me how much this is reminding me of economics.

yournamehere · 04-26-2009, 09:14 AM

I think that's the benefit (or lack of) of rainwater harvesting that drove the O.P., right, Will?

If you take a fairly well vegetated piece of undeveloped land, it has a runoff coefficient of between .2 and .5; depending on soil type, vegetation, and slope. That means that during an "average" rain event, 20% to 50% of the rain will drain off the property.

Once you develop that land, and cover it with buildings, parking lots, sidewalks, and patios, you're changing the runoff coefficient of much of that property to around .8 or .9; meaning that up to 90% of the rain will now drain offsite. This has a significant accumulative effect on not only downstream properties, but also on the stability and sedimentation of the watercourses that deliver that runoff.

On one hand, it can cause severe erosion and flooding; on the other hand, it can supply a free source of water for the operation of water treatment plants, or - as is the case in Phoenix - water for the cooling towers of a nuclear power plant. Or - it can simply find its way hundreds of miles downstream to a reservoir or river, where it will eventually be collected by the powers that be, and sold as a commodity.

It is economics - nobody wants their customers to get their product for free. On a residential site, approximately half of all water use is for outdoors, where rainwater could fulfill the needs even better than what comes out of the meter. How do you think Walmart would feel if half their products were stacked out in the parking lot; free for the taking?

MSD · 04-27-2009, 09:43 AM

It seems to me that it would be ideal to water gardens and lawns with rain, and for properties with a septic system and leaching field to collect rain water and use it in place of greywater for flushing toilets. There would be no net loss or gain of water to the ground with this kind of setup. I'm sure there can be a way to allow rainwater collection in a way that is environmentally sound and economically friendly. Despite my capitalist views, I just don't see public water supply as something that should be anything but a publicly owned and controlled utility.

For Colorado's case, I can see incentives and regulations as a way to balance things; If people collect rainwater and use it for irrigation and greywater, they will take less from municipal water supplies. If excess or purged collected water can be directed back into the water table or fresh water streams/rivers/lakes, there shouldn't be much of a drain on the public supply. Overall, I think that it shows we need to be careful not to overdevelop to the point that infrastructure can't handle it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

It's been said that in the future wars will be fought over fresh water. I have no doubt this will be true.

The continued Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights is partially rooted in water resources in the region. I have little doubt that this is a significant issue and that water distribution and sharing treaties will necessarily be a significant part of any two-state peace plan.

The_Jazz · 04-27-2009, 10:17 AM

I guess I'm one of the few that doesn't see a problem with this sort of regulation. The water only happened to fall on "your" property by chance. It could have just as easily fallen 20 miles in any given direction. Colorado is attempting - in its draconian way - to protect the greater good. Given the arid conditions, getting that excess water into the storm system is necessary to keep up the water economies of the area.

In other words, all politics is local. And this is as local as it gets. I'd be shocked if this ever got to be an issue in places that get lots of rain, like Charlatan already pointed out. In Singapore, they'd be more concerned that you're keeping water that could become a health hazard. After all, it's going to rain soon again anyway, so what do you need to irrigate? But in the American West, it's a completely different game. And the rules of that game are going to vary by imaginary political line - by necessity.

Charlatan · 04-27-2009, 04:20 PM

Jazz makes a good point. Here there is a very real concern with standing water and the breeding of mosquitoes. Mosquitoes bring Dengue Fever. There are campaigns on billboards, TV, radio, movie theatres... everywhere to have people do the "five minute inspection" for any standing water around the house. Collecting water in a rain barrel (without proper screens to prevent mosquito breeding) would be subject to fines.

yournamehere · 04-28-2009, 11:37 AM

Mosquitoes are controllable with screens / filters and by lengthening and putting a few angles in the pipe leading into the cistern - they are not masters of mazes. I do agree that mosquitoes are a problem to be reckoned with; although I'm more concerned about my dogs getting heartworms than me getting West Nile Virus or Dengue Fever.

This also helps prevent the other unwanted entity - light - from entering the cistern directly. With light, you get algae. Cisterns must be opaque, and I know of a few brands whose lighter colors just don't get the job done. In hotter regions, it's also not a bad idea to shade the structure with a vine trellis or a "living wall." This not only reduces the amount of light falling on the cistern; it also reduces the temperature of the water inside. You don't really want to be irrigating plants with 110 degree water - a drawback to above-ground storage tanks in the Southwest. Of course, it helps if you can put the storage tank on the north side of a house, but there are many factors in locating the cistern that may outweigh that. When I get around to installing mine, it's going at the SW corner of my house, so I can sit on my back porch without constantly being reminded that my next-door neighbors have a 2-story house only 15 feet from my wall. It'll make a nice visual and sound screen, and keep the late afternoon sun off the south and west corner of the house. That also happens to be where the irrigation valves for the back yard are located, so it makes integrating the systems easier.

genuinegirly · 04-28-2009, 11:48 AM

yournamehere, you're a great resource on this subject. Thank you for contributing!

ngdawg, your setup sounds efficient and easy to manage.

I know of a greenhouse that has an ingenious water catchment system - though not collecting rain water. The greenhouse has a sloped floor that collects the water in a corner, and pipes direct it to a cisturn with a hose/misters hooked up. It tends to run into problems with salt, though. Fertilizers used in that greenhouse are not organic, but soluble and salt-based. You need to flush out the system every now and again with fresh water to avoid salt buildup.

yournamehere · 04-28-2009, 04:33 PM

Charlatan, a bigger mosquito concern in our neck of the woods is the large number of foreclosed homes with pools. "Green pools" have become a major health hazard here. The city actually searches for them with helicopters, and when they find one, or when one is reported by a neighbor, they send someone to jump over the wall, and they dump in a bucketful of a species of fish that feed on mosquito larvae.

I can't speak to the effectiveness of this - seems to me that if it works, you'd eventually be trading mosquitoes for dead fish; continuing and compounding the cycle. I don't know - perhaps they've figured out the amount of fish that can continually feed on an average mosquito-infested pool.

Usually a 6-ft deep pool would empty itself in a year just from evaporation, but the algae growth on the surface slows that down quite a bit.

Cynthetiq · 04-28-2009, 05:04 PM

from what i know of when looking for homes in Las Vegas, the pools were drained and all water was removed from the homes via winterizing the plumbing. This protected the investment from damage.

It also made it hard to see if the pool had damage because it was sealed and boarded up.

04-23-2009, 08:59 AM	#2 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Kansas and Colorado have had a decades long battle over ownership of water. Basically, Colorado is such an arid state, that they want it all, and everybody else's too. I've lived in both states and found Colorado to be quite thugish over water rights. In Virginia, rain barrel systems are highly encouraged. During a drought last summer, people were not allowed to water their lawns unless they used rain barrel water. The result was that rain barrel lawns remained green while utility users had to let their lawns and gardens die. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

04-23-2009, 09:55 AM	#3 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	It's legal here. The local hippie food co-op has a catchment system to water its landscaping and the small nursery they have at one of the stores. They also offer workshops on how to build your own catchment systems. Our city even wants to get in on it--they want to build a system that will allow them to irrigate our parks with rainwater. We'll probably build a catchment system once we have a larger garden; I know my folks would like to have one built. Right now what we have doesn't require a lot of watering. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

04-23-2009, 02:20 PM	#5 (permalink)
inBOIL I have eaten the slaw	It seems like catchment systems are overall more efficient; the collected water doesn't have a chance to evaporate before it's used, and you don't have to waste resources purifying and pumping water all around. True, the reduction in water available to farmers may matter in dry years, but guaranteeing a certain amount of water to people when that water may not fall from the sky is inherently risky. __________________ And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you.

04-23-2009, 03:07 PM	#6 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	all your purple rains are mine __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

04-23-2009, 03:47 PM	#7 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	We don't have water collection rules here, in fact it's just the opposite. There is so much rain that they need beef up drainage. That said, there is a limited amount of drinking water and the government works hard to reclaim what it can while also working on better methods of desalination. It's been said that in the future wars will be fought over fresh water. I have no doubt this will be true. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

04-23-2009, 10:00 AM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The one I have here wasn't really "built". I cut one of the drains and put an old garbage can under it, then surrounded the garbage can with potted plants so it doesn't look too ghetto. It didn't cost me anything and last week it provided plenty of water. I doubt I'll have to use the sprinklers or drip system in my back yard this week. Oh, btw, don't forget to cover it when it's not raining! These things would make a great breeding ground for mosquitoes and the like.

04-23-2009, 04:00 PM	#8 (permalink)
yournamehere Invisible Location: tentative, at best	Funny that this thread came up at this time. As an unemployed landscape architect - unemployment is near 40% in our business in my part of the country - I've been researching starting a rainwater harvesting system business. In Arizona, not only is it encouraged, but there's a 25% tax credit (up to $1000) for installing a "water conservation system." It used to only be for graywater collection for landscape irrigation, but has been amended to include rainwater harvesting systems. I think Tucson's new Rainwater Harvesting Ordinance is a great idea; one that I hope sets a precedent for more western cities, counties, and states. Rainwater is not only "free" in most places, but it's higher in nitrogen than municipal or well water; it contains no salts; and is slightly acidic, which makes it a nutrient for plants, and it facilitates plants' uptake of other nutrients. This also makes it a good supplemental source for pools, whose owners in arid regions are always fighting a battle to lower the pH because of hard water. It can also leach existing salts below the root zones of plants, and can be an emergency source of water in wildfire-prone areas. The problem here, as stated in the quoted article, is that when you can collect the most water - you don't need it, because it rains so hard in so short a time. Here in Phoenix, we get about 8 inches of rain per year; half of it between July1 and September 15. Storage tanks need to be a compromise between price and practicality. Even though a relatively small, 1,200 SF roof can capture up to 3,000 gallons during our 10-week monsoon, it's impractical to store that amount on a small residential lot (At 7.48 gal/cu ft, 3000 gallons would require a 400 cubic foot tank) . But as long as mosquitoes and light are kept from entering the tank, it can be stored until needed. Personally, I think a tank between 600-800 gallons is a good compromise. Total cost for gutters, tank, and a pump to integrate it with an existing drip irrigation system would be around $2500-$3000 for an average, 1500 SF house. And let's not forget that (in AZ) would come with a $625-$750 tax credit. You're not going to get a quick return on your investment as long as water is kept artificially inexpensive - as it is here. Most people's motivation will be the same as for buying hybrids or installing solar panels - because it's the right thing to do for our planet and our children's future. However, the time it takes for ROI could change rapidly - water could easily quadruple in price in the next 10-20 years, and if water bans occur - it could save your landscape. I think this is going to be a very big green industry in the years to come, if states like Colorado would get their heads out of their asses - and it looks like that may happen. ps - just in case anyone wants to consider it for their property, here's the math: You can collect 0.6 gallons per inch of rain per square foot of roof space. __________________ If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors: "If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too." It won't hurt your fashion sense, either. Last edited by yournamehere; 04-23-2009 at 07:06 PM..

04-23-2009, 04:38 PM	#9 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	In dryer parts of the world they have high capacity cisterns, often underground below the house. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

04-23-2009, 05:51 PM	#11 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I was thinking less about retrofitting a cistern as much as installing one during construction of new houses. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

04-25-2009, 07:59 PM	#13 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	Never occurred to me that collecting rain water would be illegal. We've had two 55 gallon barrels set up behind our garage for years-gutters are rigged into a Y to one barrel and the second catches the overflow with a tube attached to both. We use a submersible pump to water the garden from them. We also have a drywell, but covered that with a large planter out of concern that someone might step on its flimsy wooden cover and fall in. We used it to pump out pool water when we had a pool. __________________ Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

04-25-2009, 08:05 PM	#14 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	This sounds fishy, if the house wasn't there, the water would go right into the ground. All this system does is postpone that. It's not like it won't get used eventually. It sounds to me like the water utility wants to make more money and some government official is going along with it. I don't need to capture rain here, but there might be a market in covert water capture devices it looks like.

04-25-2009, 08:43 PM	#15 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The property homes are built on are often designed to drain rain water to the street. As a former landscaper, I can personally attest to this. It's not that the property will drain, it's that property where there are houses will generally drain. Since we're talking about property with houses when we mention rain-capture, we're talking about potential drainage. It tickles me how much this is reminding me of economics.

04-26-2009, 09:14 AM	#16 (permalink)
yournamehere Invisible Location: tentative, at best	I think that's the benefit (or lack of) of rainwater harvesting that drove the O.P., right, Will? If you take a fairly well vegetated piece of undeveloped land, it has a runoff coefficient of between .2 and .5; depending on soil type, vegetation, and slope. That means that during an "average" rain event, 20% to 50% of the rain will drain off the property. Once you develop that land, and cover it with buildings, parking lots, sidewalks, and patios, you're changing the runoff coefficient of much of that property to around .8 or .9; meaning that up to 90% of the rain will now drain offsite. This has a significant accumulative effect on not only downstream properties, but also on the stability and sedimentation of the watercourses that deliver that runoff. On one hand, it can cause severe erosion and flooding; on the other hand, it can supply a free source of water for the operation of water treatment plants, or - as is the case in Phoenix - water for the cooling towers of a nuclear power plant. Or - it can simply find its way hundreds of miles downstream to a reservoir or river, where it will eventually be collected by the powers that be, and sold as a commodity. It is economics - nobody wants their customers to get their product for free. On a residential site, approximately half of all water use is for outdoors, where rainwater could fulfill the needs even better than what comes out of the meter. How do you think Walmart would feel if half their products were stacked out in the parking lot; free for the taking? __________________ If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors: "If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too." It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.

04-27-2009, 10:17 AM	#18 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I guess I'm one of the few that doesn't see a problem with this sort of regulation. The water only happened to fall on "your" property by chance. It could have just as easily fallen 20 miles in any given direction. Colorado is attempting - in its draconian way - to protect the greater good. Given the arid conditions, getting that excess water into the storm system is necessary to keep up the water economies of the area. In other words, all politics is local. And this is as local as it gets. I'd be shocked if this ever got to be an issue in places that get lots of rain, like Charlatan already pointed out. In Singapore, they'd be more concerned that you're keeping water that could become a health hazard. After all, it's going to rain soon again anyway, so what do you need to irrigate? But in the American West, it's a completely different game. And the rules of that game are going to vary by imaginary political line - by necessity. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-27-2009, 04:20 PM	#19 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Jazz makes a good point. Here there is a very real concern with standing water and the breeding of mosquitoes. Mosquitoes bring Dengue Fever. There are campaigns on billboards, TV, radio, movie theatres... everywhere to have people do the "five minute inspection" for any standing water around the house. Collecting water in a rain barrel (without proper screens to prevent mosquito breeding) would be subject to fines. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

04-28-2009, 11:37 AM	#20 (permalink)
yournamehere Invisible Location: tentative, at best	Mosquitoes are controllable with screens / filters and by lengthening and putting a few angles in the pipe leading into the cistern - they are not masters of mazes. I do agree that mosquitoes are a problem to be reckoned with; although I'm more concerned about my dogs getting heartworms than me getting West Nile Virus or Dengue Fever. This also helps prevent the other unwanted entity - light - from entering the cistern directly. With light, you get algae. Cisterns must be opaque, and I know of a few brands whose lighter colors just don't get the job done. In hotter regions, it's also not a bad idea to shade the structure with a vine trellis or a "living wall." This not only reduces the amount of light falling on the cistern; it also reduces the temperature of the water inside. You don't really want to be irrigating plants with 110 degree water - a drawback to above-ground storage tanks in the Southwest. Of course, it helps if you can put the storage tank on the north side of a house, but there are many factors in locating the cistern that may outweigh that. When I get around to installing mine, it's going at the SW corner of my house, so I can sit on my back porch without constantly being reminded that my next-door neighbors have a 2-story house only 15 feet from my wall. It'll make a nice visual and sound screen, and keep the late afternoon sun off the south and west corner of the house. That also happens to be where the irrigation valves for the back yard are located, so it makes integrating the systems easier. __________________ If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors: "If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too." It won't hurt your fashion sense, either. Last edited by yournamehere; 04-28-2009 at 11:39 AM..

04-28-2009, 11:48 AM	#21 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	yournamehere, you're a great resource on this subject. Thank you for contributing! ngdawg, your setup sounds efficient and easy to manage. I know of a greenhouse that has an ingenious water catchment system - though not collecting rain water. The greenhouse has a sloped floor that collects the water in a corner, and pipes direct it to a cisturn with a hose/misters hooked up. It tends to run into problems with salt, though. Fertilizers used in that greenhouse are not organic, but soluble and salt-based. You need to flush out the system every now and again with fresh water to avoid salt buildup. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy Last edited by genuinegirly; 04-28-2009 at 11:55 AM..

04-28-2009, 04:33 PM	#22 (permalink)
yournamehere Invisible Location: tentative, at best	Charlatan, a bigger mosquito concern in our neck of the woods is the large number of foreclosed homes with pools. "Green pools" have become a major health hazard here. The city actually searches for them with helicopters, and when they find one, or when one is reported by a neighbor, they send someone to jump over the wall, and they dump in a bucketful of a species of fish that feed on mosquito larvae. I can't speak to the effectiveness of this - seems to me that if it works, you'd eventually be trading mosquitoes for dead fish; continuing and compounding the cycle. I don't know - perhaps they've figured out the amount of fish that can continually feed on an average mosquito-infested pool. Usually a 6-ft deep pool would empty itself in a year just from evaporation, but the algae growth on the surface slows that down quite a bit. __________________ If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors: "If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too." It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.

04-28-2009, 05:04 PM	#23 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	from what i know of when looking for homes in Las Vegas, the pools were drained and all water was removed from the homes via winterizing the plumbing. This protected the investment from damage. It also made it hard to see if the pool had damage because it was sealed and boarded up. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!