[OT]: Rainwater Permit: "May I pretty-please have a drop of

S

Scott Stephens

Guest
www.washingtonvotes.org/2005-SB-5113

"Introduced by Sen. Paull Shin on January 13,2005, to authorize the
department of ecology to require...any person using rain barrels and
cisterns to collect rainwater to receive a permit..."

What will they think of to tax next!
 
I read in sci.electronics.design that Scott Stephens
<scottxs@comcast.net> wrote (in <hLudnSF30o9OdHbcRVn-2g@comcast.com>)
about '[OT]: Rainwater Permit: "May I pretty-please have a drop of rain-
water Uncle Sam?"', on Mon, 17 Jan 2005:
www.washingtonvotes.org/2005-SB-5113

"Introduced by Sen. Paull Shin on January 13,2005, to authorize the
department of ecology to require...any person using rain barrels and
cisterns to collect rainwater to receive a permit..."

What will they think of to tax next!
Click to expand...
Oxygen, of course.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
 
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:37:48 -0600, Scott Stephens
<scottxs@comcast.net> wrote:

www.washingtonvotes.org/2005-SB-5113

"Introduced by Sen. Paull Shin on January 13,2005, to authorize the
department of ecology to require...any person using rain barrels and
cisterns to collect rainwater to receive a permit..."

What will they think of to tax next!
Click to expand...
Wasn't Washington a blue state? What do you expect?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
In article <hLudnSF30o9OdHbcRVn-2g@comcast.com>,
Scott Stephens <scottxs@comcast.net> wrote:
www.washingtonvotes.org/2005-SB-5113

"Introduced by Sen. Paull Shin on January 13,2005, to authorize the
department of ecology to require...any person using rain barrels and
cisterns to collect rainwater to receive a permit..."

What will they think of to tax next!
Click to expand...

I followed the link and discovered some stuff:

(1) The pages link to the "text and analysis" doesn't work.

(2) The bill is not just about rain water landing on your roof. It is
also about all manner of run-off water.

(3) If I read it right, before this law, any stream that crosses you land
was completely yours to take regardless of any people who relied on the
water in the stream.

(4) The rain barrels and cisterns are included in the text to allow rules
to exist so that folks don't need permits for rain water that fell on
their own roof.


In other words, the law is being mischaracterized by those who oppose it.




--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
In article <hsuddYGEB$6BFw5Y@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
John Woodgate <noone@yuk.yuk> wrote:
[...]
What will they think of to tax next!

Oxygen, of course.
Click to expand...
In the US they already tax Oxygen. Try buying some and you'll have to pay
taxes on it.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
In article <J6CdneiNHMsKyHHcRVn-2g@buckeye-express.com>,
Mark Jones <abuse@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Scott Stephens wrote:
www.washingtonvotes.org/2005-SB-5113

"Introduced by Sen. Paull Shin on January 13,2005, to authorize the
department of ecology to require...any person using rain barrels and
cisterns to collect rainwater to receive a permit..."

What will they think of to tax next!


*Absolutely amazing*

If that fucker passes, I'm outta here. Sweden, the Netherlands,
Norway, Japan, or even the South Pole is looking more interesting.
Click to expand...
Go read the actual text of the law. You may want to reconsider after you
read it. Those who oppose it are mischaracterizing it. It is a common
tactic.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:37:48 -0600, Scott Stephens wrote:

www.washingtonvotes.org/2005-SB-5113

"Introduced by Sen. Paull Shin on January 13,2005, to authorize the
department of ecology to require...any person using rain barrels and
cisterns to collect rainwater to receive a permit..."

What will they think of to tax next!
Click to expand...
Maybe they'll find customers who bother to actually read what they're
bitching about:

"The department may permit by rule the use of rain barrels and cisterns
to collect rainwater intended for beneficial use on the same property
from where it was collected."

In other words, rain barrels and cisterns capturing water that falls on
your own property are specifically excluded.

Thanks,
Rich
 
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote in
message news:pan.2005.01.18.04.38.24.983720@doubleclick.net...
"The department may permit by rule the use of rain barrels and cisterns
to collect rainwater intended for beneficial use on the same property
from where it was collected."

In other words, rain barrels and cisterns capturing water that falls on
your own property are specifically excluded.
Click to expand...
Err - why do they not just *say that* then?

The qualifiers like "may permit" and "beneficial use" sort of hints at some
agenda - here in Denmark the *real issue* is that pibed water is metered and
Taxed at near extortinate rates so - of course - you are *not* allowed to
use rain water for any purpose that would replace the pibed water.

Since this cannot be enforced, nobody gives a toss: My garden and greenhouse
runs off a water tank and a small USD 99.95 water-plant, so popular here for
some reason (the drip feeding needs pressure).

So, sure, "they" would like to tax rain water also. The Good Part is that
while "they" are spending time with useless initiives like this, they are
not doing anything else either!! We absolutely do not want all the
"government" we pay for!!!
 
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:05:40 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

(4) The rain barrels and cisterns are included in the text to allow rules
to exist so that folks don't need permits for rain water that fell on
their own roof.
Click to expand...
So you don't need to apply for a licence for rain to fall on your
roof? That's a blessing!
Only in America. ;-)
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.
 
In article <kl0qu09fn55t4360gvs72i4l0aq614ck39@4ax.com>,
Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:05:40 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

(4) The rain barrels and cisterns are included in the text to allow rules
to exist so that folks don't need permits for rain water that fell on
their own roof.

So you don't need to apply for a licence for rain to fall on your
roof? That's a blessing!
Only in America. ;-)
Click to expand...
Yes but you do need a permit to divert a river. That is the purpose of
the law. If they hadn't included the text about cisterns, the law would
have applied to that too.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:59:22 +0100, Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:

The Good Part is that
while "they" are spending time with useless initiives like this, they are
not doing anything else either!! We absolutely do not want all the
"government" we pay for!!!
Click to expand...
I like that. Give the silly bastards something trivial to chase themselves
with lest they get up to something really serious.


Bob
 
Ken Smith wrote:
In article <J6CdneiNHMsKyHHcRVn-2g@buckeye-express.com>,
Mark Jones <abuse@127.0.0.1> wrote:

Scott Stephens wrote:

www.washingtonvotes.org/2005-SB-5113

"Introduced by Sen. Paull Shin on January 13,2005, to authorize the
department of ecology to require...any person using rain barrels and
cisterns to collect rainwater to receive a permit..."

What will they think of to tax next!


*Absolutely amazing*

If that fucker passes, I'm outta here. Sweden, the Netherlands,
Norway, Japan, or even the South Pole is looking more interesting.


Go read the actual text of the law. You may want to reconsider after you
read it. Those who oppose it are mischaracterizing it. It is a common
tactic.
Click to expand...
What's next?

"Uncle Sam, may I pretty-please have some sunlight in my backyard?"
 
In article <WgbQO9DWvS7BFwmg@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
John Woodgate <noone@yuk.yuk> wrote:
[...]
Haven't you had riparian rights before? I would have thought that they
would have been brought over from Britain, at least, since they are very
ancient here. I mean, 'from time immemorial' - before 1186.
Click to expand...
In the state of Texas, the biggest pump wins. Any water on your land or
below your land is yours to pump out.

In Californian, LA wins. Any water LA wants badly enough they get.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote (in <otmqu019f2sv5j1mljqukabulr605hldd2@
4ax.com>) about '[OT]: Rainwater Permit: "May I pretty-please have a
drop of rain-water Uncle Sam?"', on Tue, 18 Jan 2005:

Not quite. AZ has first rights to the Colorado River.
Click to expand...
I think you ought to cut off the top 1000 feet of the Grand Canyon,
which hasn't seen the river water for umpteen million years, and ship it
to Louisiana to stop the Mississippi flooding.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
 
In article <otmqu019f2sv5j1mljqukabulr605hldd2@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]
In Californian, LA wins. Any water LA wants badly enough they get.

--

Not quite. AZ has first rights to the Colorado River.
Click to expand...
Only because LA doesn't want it badly enough. (Can you tell that I'm not
in LA)

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
In article <JkpXvdAeIW7BFwEE@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
John Woodgate <noone@yuk.yuk> wrote:
[...]
I think you ought to cut off the top 1000 feet of the Grand Canyon,
which hasn't seen the river water for umpteen million years, and ship it
to Louisiana to stop the Mississippi flooding.
Click to expand...
This is easier:

In Lodi California they go to great efforts to flood the fields to grow
rice. Along the Mississippi they go to great lengths to prevent the corn
fields from getting flooded. Why not just swap farmers.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
Read all about it from the tight-ass who convinced the senator to
sponsor the bill:

http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Comment.aspx?ID=8892&ActionID=131789

I can't make head or tail of it.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
 
Rainwater is not clean. It's acutally quite dirty, being laiden with
dust, acids, nitrous oxides, pesticides, hydrocarbons, etc. Why a
permit in any state? Where is this point going? History shows that as
soon as a foot is in the door, it paves the way for further
intervention. Haven't we enough intervention already? Selling
rainwater on the black market... sheesh! Who's the paranoid one.

"UnKle Sam, may I please use solar cells to collect solar energy and
ship this to Kalifornia for hydrogen cars?"

Hmm... maybe that is where this is going... rainwater becoming very
valuable as fuel as hydrogen autos become popular... setting the
framework for monopoly in motion already...
 
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:24:44 -0600, Scott Stephens wrote:

Ken Smith wrote:

I followed the link and discovered some stuff:

(2) The bill is not just about rain water landing on your roof. It is
also about all manner of run-off water.

(4) The rain barrels and cisterns are included in the text to allow rules
to exist so that folks don't need permits for rain water that fell on
their own roof.

In other words, the law is being mischaracterized by those who oppose it.

I guess I don't understand. I can use my own rainwater, but not give it
or sell it then? What is the law for?
Click to expand...
The way I understand it, the law is for preventing people who happen to
have bought a piece of land with a natural stream running across it from
damming that stream and using, or selling, that water which if
uninterfered with, would have flowed downstream where somebody else has
the same dilemma.

Apparently, the only legal way to collect stream water is to wait for it
at the delta.

Cheers!
Rich
 
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:59:22 +0100, Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote in
message news:pan.2005.01.18.04.38.24.983720@doubleclick.net...
"The department may permit by rule the use of rain barrels and cisterns
to collect rainwater intended for beneficial use on the same property
from where it was collected."

In other words, rain barrels and cisterns capturing water that falls on
your own property are specifically excluded.

Err - why do they not just *say that* then?

The qualifiers like "may permit" and "beneficial use" sort of hints at some
agenda - here in Denmark the *real issue* is that pibed water is metered and
Taxed at near extortinate rates so - of course - you are *not* allowed to
use rain water for any purpose that would replace the pibed water.

Since this cannot be enforced, nobody gives a toss: My garden and greenhouse
runs off a water tank and a small USD 99.95 water-plant, so popular here for
some reason (the drip feeding needs pressure).

So, sure, "they" would like to tax rain water also. The Good Part is that
while "they" are spending time with useless initiives like this, they are
not doing anything else either!! We absolutely do not want all the
"government" we pay for!!!
Click to expand...
That's one fundamental problem with democracy that nobody has yet figured
out how to address: It doesn't matter how wrong you are, as long as you
have a lot of company.

Cheers!
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top