Where do they draw the line on rain harvesting? It sounds as like having any vegetation on your property would be included.

I too live in a very dry area, but here we're actively encouraged to install water tanks and harvest our own water, with the understanding that for each litre of rain collected about 10 litres of dam water is saved.

[Edit: this makes no sense. sorry. What I mean is that if 10% of water makes it to the dams, then for each litre I collect, only about 100mL would have make it into the water supply.]

I have to wonder why she even asked in the first place?

She grows and sells organic food. So being registered as a farmer, she probably has to show where her resources are coming from or be fined.

This is a really interesting article. Tradable resource rights are often touted as a solution to environmental overuse but this is a good example of how they can go badly wrong.

But in this case, it appears that the resource rights don't correspond to actual resources; if the author of the article is correct, only a minute fraction of the rainwater that falls on Holstrom's property would ever actually benefit the senior rights-holders.

(Of course, if those senior rights-holders are farmers, they "benefit" from the right in the sense that if they can block Holstrom from watering her organic garden, they shut down a competitor.)

I wonder what they would say if she used a precipitator to get moisture from the air?

"Wow, that's an expensive and horrifically inefficient means of getting water, lady."

I'm proud to be an American, because at least I know I'm free....

This does sound like a ridiculous law - it's possible that all they need to change is to allow people to harvest water if it's to be re-released on the same property.

How are water rights distributed in the Western states? I'm wondering if this is analogous to a few large plantation owners locking up great swaths of arable land (which their ancestors acquired in good Lockean fashion after killing off the native inhabitants) and refusing to sell to a poorer entrepreneur who might use some of that property in a more useful and efficient fashion.

> I'm wondering if this is analogous to a few large plantation owners locking up great swaths of arable land (which their ancestors acquired in good Lockean fashion after killing off the native inhabitants) and refusing to sell to a poorer entrepreneur who might use some of that property in a more useful and efficient fashion.

People who use resources inefficiently eventually lose them to folks who don't.

Or, were you referring to national parks?

This does look really ridiculous at first. But when I come to think of it, both parties do have a point.

If ground water is something that is shared, then it does make sense to ban one from drilling a bore and extracting all of it even if one were to drill it in his property right?

She has to be a pawn in some larger game that intends to subvert water rights. Bills don't come into the state legislature over one organic farmer's attempt to capture rain water. This reads like a slimy PR piece to stoke "grassroots" support for overturning water rights.

Even if this were a piece in a larger debate, the stance the courts have taken is highly counter-intuitive (although granted it's not represented in this post), and completely opaque to me.

I can understand the concern to preserve the water rights of the most senior people (okay, that's a lie, i think it's stupid, but i'll capitulate to the court's desire to preserve the system). But i just don't understand how this is either a slippery slope (oh! a pun!) to loss of water rights/usage, or how this could possibly materially effect other water usage.

So... yeah, i'm skeptical about the court's position.

How is this a "slimy PR" piece?

regardless of who is right or wrong here, she's going about this the right way. Let the public know about it and she'll get her water if a big enough stink is created about it all.

she should just do it anyways. it's easier to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission.

Except that apparently, forgiveness costs $500/day.

And if she doesn't pay?

(The answer is: she gets in legal trouble, and the issue goes to a real court, with the possibility of appeals. Will three judges really think she can't use the water that lands on her roof?)

Will it cost her $350,000 to get that far?

> Will three judges really think she can't use the water that lands on her roof?

Odds are, yes.

What other laws do you want judges to ignore? On what basis? What are the odds that they'll only ignore the laws that you think that they should?

It's a matter of correcting the faulty science that led to the current decision. If using water from your roof really deprived the "rights holders" of their water, then that's one thing. But it seems that that's not the case, even though that's what officials are telling her.

(Courts decide facts, not laws.)