more governent control over private property. YIPPEEEE!!

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
damn whats next a federal buiding permit to build a barn? I wish the founding fathers could come back from the dead, walk in to both houses and bitch slap every last senator/congressman


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/14/private-property-clean-water-restoration-act/

The Clean Water Restoration Act currently pending in the U.S. Senate could reach to control even a "seasonal puddle" on private property.

Eleven senators and 17 representatives in the U.S. House have sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi blasting the measure as one of the boldest property grab attempts of all time.

This bill is described by opponents as a sweeping overhaul of the Clean Water Act that could threaten both physical land and jobs by wiping out some farmers entirely.

"Right now, the law says that the Environmental Protection Agency is in charge of all navigable water," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., chairman of the Senate Western Caucus and an opponent of the bill.

"Well, this bill removes the word 'navigable,' so for ranchers and farmers who have mud puddles, prairie potholes -- anything from snow melting on their land -- all of that water will now come under the regulation of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency," he said.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Isn't this similar to what happened in CA? Where the farmers/crops couldn't get any water because the EPA wanted to protect some fish?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
This touches two of my hot buttons, government taking private land without compensation and water pollution. On the one hand I hate the encroachment of government into every aspect of our lives, but on the other we dump far too much crap into our water. I've seen people in the Conasauga River, home to many endemic and endangered species of fish and mollusks, rinsing pesticides out of spreaders by pulling them into the center of the river or its tributaries.

And in California I have to come down on the side of the endangered species. I'd compensate the farmers, I'd truck or pipe in water from desalinization plants (okay, first I'd build desalinization plants), but I would not sacrifice a species for a regional commercial concern, even one as important as farming. I'd rather pay the higher food prices. And I'd start to regulate the crops that today are grown in arid and semi-arid regions, so that if you want to grow water-intensive crops you'd need to go elsewhere.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,665
52,459
136
Isn't this similar to what happened in CA? Where the farmers/crops couldn't get any water because the EPA wanted to protect some fish?

To be clear, it was a case of the federal government limiting farmers' access to an irrigation system that the federal government built to begin with.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,374
8,499
126
the constitution requires navigable
 
Last edited:

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Isn't this similar to what happened in CA? Where the farmers/crops couldn't get any water because the EPA wanted to protect some fish?

why are you so fucking stupid? The entire internet is at your fingertips and yet your mind is pathetic.

The EPA ruling was to protect the fish which in turn protected the FISHERMEN. Why would the farmers rights trample the FISHERMEN'S rights?

Interesting aside about how the republicans used this as a wedge issue that I see you were caught hook line and sinker (pun intended). They wanted those farmer votes so they pissed on the rights of the fishermen. It caused one of the largest wild salmon kill offs we have seen and I haven't been able to purchase wild salmon at my normal grocery store for 2 years.

Again, don't be fucking stupid when all the information in the world is at your fingertips.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
I read an article once about a woman who wanted to install a rain water collector to her roofs gutter system and was denied because the town "owned" the water even before it hit the ground. Would this make the Feds the owner of the rain now? What about swimming pools? Are they in charge of my bathtub while my kids are taking a bath and then control reverts back to me when I empty it or will I need a permit before bath time?
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
I read an article once about a woman who wanted to install a rain water collector to her roofs gutter system and was denied because the town "owned" the water even before it hit the ground. Would this make the Feds the owner of the rain now? What about swimming pools? Are they in charge of my bathtub while my kids are taking a bath and then control reverts back to me when I empty it or will I need a permit before bath time?

Do you know why the town makes claims on the rainwater? Did you ask that question or are you just mad? If you want to be informed about this topic I suggest you learn about water tables and how they work. 1 women collecting run-off would be a prime example of a red herring argument put forth by the real problem and that is the companies that suck freshwater out of an area bottle it and sell it in another. We are creating deserts by doing this, then when it rains the water wont be absorbed in the hard earth and will run off magnifying the problem.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
also if you want to change the regulation as it stands now then allow farmers to keep their water rights even if they don't pump the water. Right now they HAVE to pump their allotted amount or lose it. Also those bottling companies have been trying to move into farms and pay for the water rights, this is very dangerous as they are removing the water from the water table instead of the natural way where the water runs back into the table, albeit with some loss that can be replenished with rain water.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Do you know why the town makes claims on the rainwater? Did you ask that question or are you just mad? If you want to be informed about this topic I suggest you learn about water tables and how they work. 1 women collecting run-off would be a prime example of a red herring argument put forth by the real problem and that is the companies that suck freshwater out of an area bottle it and sell it in another. We are creating deserts by doing this, then when it rains the water wont be absorbed in the hard earth and will run off magnifying the problem.

you mean the colorado law that was stuck from the books?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/us/29rain.html

i dont care how you try to argue it was a stupid law period.

"in 2007 proved crucial to convincing Colorado lawmakers that rain catching would not rob water owners of their rights. It found that in an average year, 97 percent of the precipitation that fell in Douglas County, near Denver, never got anywhere near a stream. The water evaporated or was used by plants"
 
Last edited:

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
why are you so fucking stupid? The entire internet is at your fingertips and yet your mind is pathetic.

The EPA ruling was to protect the fish which in turn protected the FISHERMEN. Why would the farmers rights trample the FISHERMEN'S rights?

Interesting aside about how the republicans used this as a wedge issue that I see you were caught hook line and sinker (pun intended). They wanted those farmer votes so they pissed on the rights of the fishermen. It caused one of the largest wild salmon kill offs we have seen and I haven't been able to purchase wild salmon at my normal grocery store for 2 years.

Again, don't be fucking stupid when all the information in the world is at your fingertips.

I know dickall about the situation and really don't care that much but I thought the issue was with a species of fish going extinct?
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
you mean the colorado law that was stuck from the books?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/us/29rain.html

i dont care how you try to argue it was a stupid law period.

"in 2007 proved crucial to convincing Colorado lawmakers that rain catching would not rob water owners of their rights. It found that in an average year, 97 percent of the precipitation that fell in Douglas County, near Denver, never got anywhere near a stream. The water evaporated or was used by plants"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_table

water tables bro water tables not streams.

I'm not going to argue shit. I've been working for damn near 3 months straight so I don't care, I'm just setting some facts.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Do you know why the town makes claims on the rainwater? Did you ask that question or are you just mad? If you want to be informed about this topic I suggest you learn about water tables and how they work. 1 women collecting run-off would be a prime example of a red herring argument put forth by the real problem and that is the companies that suck freshwater out of an area bottle it and sell it in another. We are creating deserts by doing this, then when it rains the water wont be absorbed in the hard earth and will run off magnifying the problem.

I am just mad. I do not want to be informed about the topic and I don't give a fuck about water tables.

Do you honestly hear what you are saying? This isn't about companies sucking freshwater out of an entire area and turning it to desert. When the government will not allow you to DRINK THE MOTHERFUCKING RAIN THAT FALLS ON YOUR OWN GOD DAMNED HOUSE I dunno, maybe they are going a bit too far. Thats just me though.

I would hate to make you go to a different grocery store to pick up your salmon over it though so I guess I can see your side.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_table

water tables bro water tables not streams.

I'm not going to argue shit. I've been working for damn near 3 months straight so I don't care, I'm just setting some facts.

rain water bro... falling on your own roof... people want to drink it or use it to flush their toilets bro... Its even environmentally responsible bro... of course because some company somewhere sucked all of the water out of the place people shouldn't be allowed to use the rain. Matter of fact, if you get caught in a rain shower you should be forced to remove the water from your clothing before you go inside so you don't steal the cities rain. Right bro?

Come on, its fucking retarded to tell people they can't use the rain that falls on their residential roof. They actually make you rent the AIR over your own property in some places. Nothing absurd about that either eh?
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
I am just mad. I do not want to be informed about the topic and I don't give a fuck about water tables.

Do you honestly hear what you are saying? This isn't about companies sucking freshwater out of an entire area and turning it to desert. When the government will not allow you to DRINK THE MOTHERFUCKING RAIN THAT FALLS ON YOUR OWN GOD DAMNED HOUSE I dunno, maybe they are going a bit too far. Thats just me though.

I would hate to make you go to a different grocery store to pick up your salmon over it though so I guess I can see your side.

The law is in place to stop multinational water companies from stealing from the water table. If they need to tweak the law a little bit to allow residents (and not corporations but seeing as how corporations are seen as individuals in our law system I dont see how you can do it) to take some run off. Honestly it can't be tweaked because of what I just stated about corporations. So there - you cant drink rain water sorry. How many honest people does something like this effect compared to the MASSIVE damage that is being done or could be done.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
also if you want to change the regulation as it stands now then allow farmers to keep their water rights even if they don't pump the water. Right now they HAVE to pump their allotted amount or lose it. Also those bottling companies have been trying to move into farms and pay for the water rights, this is very dangerous as they are removing the water from the water table instead of the natural way where the water runs back into the table, albeit with some loss that can be replenished with rain water.

Now that actually makes some sense.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
ohh also my salmon comment was to spidytard the republican parrot who keeps regurgitating information so old and so proven wrong it makes the head spin.
 

bobsmith1492

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2004
3,875
3
81
I dunno about the crazy California people but here in Michigan the water tables are getting so high we're all gonna float away! There was HUGE fuss and bother over a new Ice Mountain water plant; people were worried it was going to drain all the state's water. Meanwhile, local industry and mining are already drawing 10 times more and have been for years, with negligible affect on the water table. (My opinion there is the lazy people wouldn't have an excuse to not work anymore...)
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I know dickall about the situation and really don't care that much but I thought the issue was with a species of fish going extinct?

You are correct. The current water rationing is due to the endangered delta smelt, Hypomesus transpacificus. There aren't a lot of fishermen vying for the delta smelt as it tops out at about 75mm, but in JSt0rm01's defense (though why on Earth you'd ever elect to see his rants escapes me - creating deserts with bottled water?) there is another ruling regarding similar protection for salmon and steelhead that will kick in next year unless stopped. That ruling is arguably at least partially political as well as scientific since neither salmon nor steelhead are endangered, unless you believe the Pacific Coast drainages host unique species or subspecies, and both are economically important species.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
You are correct. The current water rationing is due to the endangered delta smelt, Hypomesus transpacificus. There aren't a lot of fishermen vying for the delta smelt as it tops out at about 75mm, but in JSt0rm01's defense (though why on Earth you'd ever elect to see his rants escapes me - creating deserts with bottled water?) there is another ruling regarding similar protection for salmon and steelhead that will kick in next year unless stopped. That ruling is arguably at least partially political as well as scientific since neither salmon nor steelhead are endangered, unless you believe the Pacific Coast drainages host unique species or subspecies, and both are economically important species.

1. the smelt are apart of the food chain.

2. If in your mind you just laugh at the notion of "creating deserts from bottled water" then you have dismissed the thought without checking into it. I try not to live my life like this, if I have an interest in something I tend to want to learn about it.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
The law is in place to stop multinational water companies from stealing from the water table. If they need to tweak the law a little bit to allow residents (and not corporations but seeing as how corporations are seen as individuals in our law system I dont see how you can do it) to take some run off. Honestly it can't be tweaked because of what I just stated about corporations. So there - you cant drink rain water sorry. How many honest people does something like this effect compared to the MASSIVE damage that is being done or could be done.

Come on, once again this is so common sense its not even funny.

We have zoning laws in place already, right? Add in the word "commercial" between the words "your" and "roof" to the "you can't keep the rain that falls on your roof" law. Oooh, how about "This law only applies to collection areas over XXXX square feet".

Problem solved. What else you got?

Seriously, normal people should not have to ask the Government if they can drink the water that falls on their damned heads. It is completely absurd and I am actually shocked that anyone would argue otherwise.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
Come on, once again this is so common sense its not even funny.

We have zoning laws in place already, right? Add in the word "commercial" between the words "your" and "roof" to the "you can't keep the rain that falls on your roof" law. Oooh, how about "This law only applies to collection areas over XXXX square feet".

Problem solved. What else you got?

Seriously, normal people should not have to ask the Government if they can drink the water that falls on their damned heads. It is completely absurd and I am actually shocked that anyone would argue otherwise.

As I said you would need to tweak the law that is in place to allow this. I also have no idea how zoning laws are out in the middle of no where? I really don't have information on this subject to make a debate out of it. Obviously you have a great understanding of the issues of law writing and zoning so I defer to your expertise.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Do you know why the town makes claims on the rainwater? Did you ask that question or are you just mad? If you want to be informed about this topic I suggest you learn about water tables and how they work. 1 women collecting run-off would be a prime example of a red herring argument put forth by the real problem and that is the companies that suck freshwater out of an area bottle it and sell it in another. We are creating deserts by doing this, then when it rains the water wont be absorbed in the hard earth and will run off magnifying the problem.

So, punish everyone, right?
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_table

water tables bro water tables not streams.

I'm not going to argue shit. I've been working for damn near 3 months straight so I don't care, I'm just setting some facts.

ok so when it rains the water flows from my downspouts into my lawn, but if i have a rain collector barrel and collect that rain water and use it to water my garden im not feeding the water table. sorry man but i just dont get your argument.

hell even the Colorado law makers reversed the stupid law because its STUPID!
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
6
81
Isn't this similar to what happened in CA? Where the farmers/crops couldn't get any water because the EPA wanted to protect some fish?
Some fish that were vital to maintaining the ecosystem of coast and who's survival were key to maintaining the food chain of many of the fish which were a major part of the fishing industry of that coast. Also, the farmers were attempting to farm a desert, that only had water because of huge efforts to redirect water to that area.

Don't leave out the details because they negate your talking point.