Colorado, Utah Residents Who Collect Rainwater Risk Breaking the Law

Rain, property of the state of Colorado and Utah

As someone familiar with Colorado the news that collecting rainwater was against the law was stunning. Now I find that the state of Utah has a similar law.

According to Jeff Demos, the state of Utah is busy implementing a new law, Utah Bill 128, that would allow residents to collect up to 2500 gallons of rainwater “at a time”. As a former owner of a 1200 gallon cistern, that’s a lot of water, and a lot a rain, something the drought stricken southwest is in short supply of. Unless Bill 128 becomes formal, collecting rainwater in Utah is illegal:

“Under state law, the precipitation that falls on your property doesn’t belong to you, but a proposal moving through the Utah Legislature would allow residents to legally capture and use it.

Current law prohibits those who don’t own water shares from collecting rainwater, which is considered state property because it feeds state waterways and recharges underground aquifers.”

According to the LA Times, “collecting” rainwater in Colorado is illegal:

“Reporting from Denver — Every time it rains here, Kris Holstrom knowingly breaks the law.

Holstrom’s violation is the fancifully painted 55-gallon buckets underneath the gutters of her farmhouse on a mesa 15 miles from the resort town of Telluride. The barrels catch rain and snowmelt, which Holstrom uses to irrigate the small vegetable garden she and her husband maintain.

But according to the state of Colorado, the rain that falls on Holstrom’s property is not hers to keep. It should be allowed to fall to the ground and flow unimpeded into surrounding creeks and streams, the law states, to become the property of farmers, ranchers, developers and water agencies that have bought the rights to those waterways.”

Yet some lawmakers are addressing this incredibly nitwit law in Colorado:

“Lawmakers in the Colorado legislature are expected to vote on a bill later this year that would update the current law regarding rainwater harvesting. The Colorado Water Examiner has reported that Kathleen Curry and Jim Isgar plan to introduce a bill to allow rural property owners to utilize rainwater catchments on a small scale. The bill will limit the catchments to properties served by an “exempt well,” that is, a well that is allowed to pump regardless of priority because the amount of water produced is so small that it is assumed that no senior rights holder will be harmed.”
–RainwaterCollecting.com

Illegal Contraband?

While the states of Colorado and Utah go after the “little” guy who collects rainwater from his roof, the state of Arizona has implemented a new ordinance which mandates developers of commercial properties to “harvest” rainwater for landscaping:

The city of Tucson, Ariz., on Tuesday became the first municipality in the country to require developers of commercial properties to harvest rainwater for landscaping.

The new water-saving measure — approved by a unanimous vote by the City Council — mandates that new developments meet 50 percent of their landscaping water requirements by capturing rainwater. The new rule goes into effect June 1, 2010.
–RainwaterCollecting.com

The ordinance is the first of its kind in the country.

The drought in Colorado, especially on the western slope of the Rockies, has devastated the area, killing off the centuries old pinyon pine trees and spruces. What the drought didn’t kill brought the advent of insects that bored into the distressed trees, leading to their eventual doom, leaving areas ripe for wildfire consumption. One summer, the only precipitation came in the form of a thunderstorm that dropped an inch of rain in a short period of time. At times, the humidity hovered at 0 and dust storms shrouded the horizon. The only saving grace, the snow that fell in the winter at the higher elevations in the nearby mountains. It was the melting of the snow that filled the local reservoirs and later traversed the rocky course of the Colorado River through the desert until it met the sea in California.

Dwellers of the high elevation desert area are intimately familiar with water rights and the watershed of the Colorado River, each drop already parceled out to not only the residents of Colorado, but also to the states of New Mexico, Arizona, California, Wyoming, and Utah.

Locals rely on “irrigation” and “water shares”. In some areas, a water tap, where one can “tap” into an existing water line, have already been snapped up or sell at exorbitant costs such as $25,000 per tap. Those who own irrigation shares are doled out a limited amount of water, such as one quart every 15 minutes until the maximum amount of shares is reached. Shares vary, such as 10,000 gallons per month per tap. Ranchers who were fortuitous enough to have purchased the taps before the land was developed for smaller “ranches”, use the water in the form of irrigation. Without the irrigation water there wouldn’t be hay for livestock in the coming winter months, or water to fill the livestock’s ponds.

Irrigation water is limited to a relatively short period, beginning in the late spring and ending, at times, by early June. Wells are limited too, by the lack of water to drill, the granting of a permit, the cost to drill, and the minerals, such as too much iron, which make the water useless for irrigating landscape. After the reservoirs are filled, then the local towns and ranchers lay claim to their share. By the end of the summer, a lovely lake will have been sucked almost dry. For those without a water tap, a trip to the local town, with a heavy plastic cistern in the back of the truck, or on a trailer, is required.

After the drought began, many who lived outside cities and towns were forced to rely on purchasing water or using rainwater as an alternate source for landscaping. Lawns fell by the wayside as they consume vast amounts of water. Plants that are drought tolerant, such as Russian Sage, California Poppies, Cosmos, Salvia, and Yarrow, which grow at high altitude, became favorites.

And yet, I was astounded to discover that the states of Colorado and Utah consider rainwater state property in the guise of “groundwater”. Long ago women used rainwater for washing their hair. The rain was collected in barrels after it had fallen off the roof. Rainwater was also used for watering the yard. A simple, yet effective way to recycle water. State officials in Colorado and Utah believe rainwater is essential for feeding the local waterways and replenishing the aquifers and that “senior water rights” trump the rain that falls on your roof. Yet, for every drop of rainwater that finds it way to the local stream, other raindrops “water” the ground, otherwise every plant, such as sagebrush, not in the vicinity of a gully, would perish from lack of water.

The states of Colorado and Utah already own the watershed and the rivers and streams that are located within their boundaries. Yet the laws seem to call into question the matter of just who “owns” the rain before it hits the “ground”?

In the case of rainwater which is collected after it lands on a roof, the rainwater never has a chance to hit the ground before it ends up in a barrel. And a “sillier” thought, what about the rain that falls on a lawn? Is it illegal to “allow” the rain to seep into the grass and not allow it to find its way to the nearest gully? Or the person who gets “caught” out in the rain? Is this person “illegally” collecting rain on his clothes? Yes, I know this sounds “silly”, but no sillier than the bureaucrats who have deemed collecting rainwater as illegal, especially in this day and age of recycling, which rainwater collecting is all about.

For those who live in areas where rain is abundant, a drought may mean 10 inches less than the average total of 40 inches, and having to hook up a hose and actually water the lawn. Yet in areas of the southwest, a drought compounds the extreme lack of rainfall, where, on average, some areas only receive 10 inches or less, including snowfall totals. The longstanding drought in Colorado has left some areas receiving less than 5 inches of total precipitation. Those with gardens have become “water” aficionados, learning how to use what precious little water they have in order to keep landscapes alive or to grow a garden. Now I learn that the state owns, not only the water that melts from the winter snows up in the mountains, but the water that falls from the sky on my property.

In some places, people are taxed for the “view”, such as residents in Plainfield, New Hampshire. Resident Brian Wilder disputed his property tax claiming the “view” cost him $4,000 a year extra in taxes:

“Brian Wilder took his case to court after he tried and failed to lower his property tax bill on 175 acres he owns in Plainfield.

From his house, he can enjoy an expansive view of Mt. Ascustney in Vermont.

Wilder is an attorney in Lebanon and he argued his own case in Sullivan County Superior Court.

He told the court his land wasn’t worth the town’s assessed value of 601,000 dollars.
the bulk of my taxes is associated with the view. my house was assessed for, i believe its 178, its a modest house. so, the bulk that i’m paying is probably, or definitely attributable to the view. and i want to say as a result of that view, i want to say as a result of that view, and i haven’t run the numbers, its just a guestimate, but the view..costed me about 4 thousand dollars a year.

Plainfield officials say every landhold in town was assessed the same way, using one model.

Under the model, the Wilder land was judged to be six times more valuable than similar land that had a minimal view.”
–NHPR

And yet, what about blind people who own property with a view?

The city of Austin, Texas, “owns” the trees on resident’s property under the Tree and Natural Preservation Code:

“The code basically states that all developments must obtain permission from the city of Austin before removing any living trees. If a tree is dead, you can do whatever you wish to remove it. The city would like to preserve any living trees that are eight inches or larger. If your tree is larger than nineteen inches in diameter then it is designated as “Protected” and they don’t want you to cut these trees down. If you have a tree that has a diameter in excess of sixty inches, then you MUST apply for a permit from the city to cut this tree down. They may or may not allow you to cut it down. Each and every case is unique and different, so they must examine the details of the site and specific about the removal request.
-Betina Foreman’s Blog

The Code also applies to residents, and not to just developers.

In some cases, not only do we not own the minerals beneath our soil, or the trees in our yards, but in Colorado and Utah we also do not own the rain that falls from the sky. What will be next on the list? The dirt beneath our feet? The outcrop of rocks in our yard? The smell of the pine trees? The rays of the sun? Or the wind that blows through the leaves of our trees?

It’s not too hard to envision, in the near future, of municipalities placing mini-measuring stations in our yards, busy measuring the rays of the sun, the speed of the wind, or the amount of rainfall, for a future tax or a way to ensure we’re not stealing the rain, or gathering too many rays of the sun, or gusts of wind, for the “theft” of potential solar or wind energy. Each of our trees will be measured, then assigned a number, and assigned their own GPS signal, so bureaucrats can track them. The rocks in our yard will be measured and assigned numbers. Anemometers will measure and track the wind that blows through our yard.

Seems farfetched, but then again, who’d of thunk rain, which landed on your roof, was “property” to be “owned” by the state?

By LBG

Image – Rain Barrel
Image – Rain

Tags: Austin, Colorado, Colorado River, drought, illegal, irrigation, laws, property tax, rain, rain barrel, rainwater, Texas, TREES, utah, views, water rights