No rain for you?

[scythe]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... ?track=rss

Is this serious? I mean, really? Really?!

[Tanner]

Do you ever get tired of being outraged, scythe?

[Pixon]

Scythe is right to be outraged.

I'm glad I live in Canada.

[jean-luc]

That is madness. I don't think there's any law restricting rainwater harvesting in Oregon.

[BNW]

WHAT THE HELL. I am right there with you scythe. I hope they realize that since they are irrigating their vegetable garden with it, that it will eventually come back to them, either by run-off from the actual irrigation, or from when the people pee after they eat the damn plants. These people need to get a life and find some legitimate reasons to bicker with each other.

Oh NO, the clouds went across state borders!!! That state is stealing our water!!

[capt_weasle]

Having lived in Colorado for ten years I can understand why saving rainwater for specific uses could be useful, but on the other hand it isn't like many people harvest rainwater. I don't think there should be laws against it, though I do believe there are still laws regarding watering lawns during droughts. I remember once it got so bad we could only water our lawns on certain days depending on whether the address of the house was odd or even. Oh, and I had to walk uphill both ways to school in three feet of snow without a jacket.

[otters]

I feel sorry for all you Coloradoans. You've got such a bad drought that one woman collecting rainwater in buckets is going to leave your entire state bone dry. *shudder*

[Kablizzy]

How long have I told you guys that this is the shittiest state in the union? REALLY.

[taaveti]

I don't know... I think the law is reasonable. Granted, it was designed to protect people from much larger-scale disruptions to their water supply (e.g. someone damming a river, and thereby totally screwing over the farmers downstream), but scale shouldn't matter when determining if something is right or wrong: stealing a penny is still stealing.
The real point of the article seems to be to play on our emotions and our natural urge to support the little guy. If it were the story of a poor farmer who relies on a rain-fed stream to water his crops and the evil corporation whose huge rain collection system has caused his stream to run dry, we'd be crying out in support of the existing laws. Instead, it's the story of a poor woman who collects rain water and the evil corporation citing the law in an attempt to preserve their diminished rain-fed stream.

[Eiturlyf]

You Americans can get very wierd sometimes.

[lord_day]

I don't know... I think the law is reasonable. Granted, it was designed to protect people from much larger-scale disruptions to their water supply (e.g. someone damming a river, and thereby totally screwing over the farmers downstream), but scale shouldn't matter when determining if something is right or wrong: stealing a penny is still stealing.
The real point of the article seems to be to play on our emotions and our natural urge to support the little guy. If it were the story of a poor farmer who relies on a rain-fed stream to water his crops and the evil corporation whose huge rain collection system has caused his stream to run dry, we'd be crying out in support of the existing laws. Instead, it's the story of a poor woman who collects rain water and the evil corporation citing the law in an attempt to preserve their diminished rain-fed stream.

While I think the law is ridiculous and outdated, I also agree with this guy. The spin on the story is the main thing that has us up in arms here.

[T3chno]

GUYS THE GOVERNMENT OWNS NATURE NOW TOO!!!11!

But does the government own earthquakes and hurricanes too?