Washington Votes

2005 Senate Bill 5113 (Regarding rainwater collection)

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Sen. Paull Shin, (D-Edmonds) on January 13, 2005, to authorize the Department of Ecology to permit by rule, under conditions appropriate to the water resources inventory area, the use of rain barrels and cisterns to collect rainwater intended for beneficial use on the same property from where it was collected. The bill remedies a regulatory problem stemming from a 1917 law that requires the state to issue use permits for all waters, including rain water. In recent times some counties have been denying building permits for residences that included cisterns due to lack of clarity about the 1917 law. This bill would remove the mandatory permitting process and allow the Department of Ecology to establish general rules for the use of rain barrels and cisterns for beneficial use. For many years, people have collected rainwater for use on their property. This practice, while generally harmless, may be illegal. This bill is designed to clear up the confusion regarding the legal use of rain barrels and cisterns to collect water for beneficial use on one’s own property. Landowners would not need to seek permits on an individual basis.
    • Referred to the Senate Water, Energy, and Environment Committee on January 13, 2005.
      • Testimony in support offered to the Senate Water, Energy, and Environment Committee on January 26, 2005, by Senator Shin, prime sponsor; Richard Marin, Nordland, WA; Joe Stohr, DOE, Tim Pope, Northwest. They testified that it is good stewardship to allow this use and this bill is good language and policy. The DOE receives calls weekly regarding requirements for permits for rain barrels and the DOE doesn't require it although law technically says permits are needed. A review of program is suggested after a period of time along with a report back to the Committee. Residential uses vary from a few very small systems of 6,000 to 7,000 gallons to 30,000 gallons. Limiting water to use on property limits the size of cisterns and recharge from cisterns occurs throughout the year. Re-use is a good thing but the bill should be broad enough to allow some commercial and agricultural uses.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Sen. Paull Shin, (D-Edmonds) on January 13, 2005. New Comment

1) A concerned citizen [by Anonymous Citizen on July 22, 2008]
The extra trouble to remove the law would be more effective.
All laws are imposing, to make a new one to remove an old one may be easier, but still allows it to even be changed.
It is correctly stated that the new law would remove aquiring a permit to collect rain water, however, it is a new law and subject to change. Take the extra time, the extra effort, the extra work, the extra whatever, and just remove the old law.
The easy way out. How sad.



Reply New Comment

Line

2) Cherokee Nation [by Anonymous Citizen on June 14, 2008]
I am native american can this horrible law effect me and my land?
Reply New Comment

Line

3) beyond belief america [by Anonymous Citizen on October 25, 2007]
We always collected rainwater for bathing,washing your hair and laundering delicate fabrics. Of course this was before that rampant disease'greed' became fixed in our society!
Reply New Comment

Line

4) Re: Collecting rainwater [by Anonymous Citizen on April 22, 2007]
Well, who cares what the senators and congressmen propose? They have made themselves obsolete by their callous disregard for policies that favor the PEOPLE'S VOICE(examples are too numerous to dwell on here..)for so many decades, and NOW they think that we are just going to dessicate away for thirst because...they...pass...a...law???? HAHA!! what a joke!! We are not going to just dry up and go away.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) Banning Collection of Rainwater [by Fnelson on April 22, 2007]
They bought Frank Luntz's pitch to control access to water. They plan to turn this country into another Bolivia before the uprising there. They had the gall to cover the sales pitch on C-SPAN, and some dummy Congressman from Washington State, I've forgotten his name, was all ga-ga in the presence of the arguments of the "great" Frank Luntz.


Reply New Comment

Line

6) heads I win [by Anonymous Citizen on April 22, 2007]
Forget voting altogether, because it doesn't matter who wins.

Unrelated comment: It sure would be nice to see a few hundred heads rolling down the street.
Reply New Comment

Line

7) They cant Flouridate Rain Water [by Anonymous Citizen on April 21, 2007]
IMHO they want us all to be forced to drink the poison flouride. For a start, it makes people complacent, apathetic, causes dementia and makes the sheeple easy to control. They want to rule over every minute detail of our lives, make us all proles. the writing is on the wall. Orwell was prophetic. Ever wonder who is really over 'security' of americas water supply? Why would they want it unlawful to collect your own rain? Ask questions. THINK your own thoughts. Do not swallow whole MSM TV memes. Why do you think they call it "programming" anyway?
Reply New Comment

Line

8) Take it back [by Anonymous Citizen on February 19, 2007]
After reading much of the discussion it finally dawned on me, it's a slow brain day, that the Government has declared itself the owner of the rain, any time you see belongs to the people it really means government; how else could any of us be charged with trespassing on public lands? So I think they should keep their rain off my roof. Either that or pay me for the use of my land as a collection and filtration system.
I can only wonder how many other silly laws we still have floating around on the books.
Reply New Comment

Line

9) New Businesses [by Anonymous Citizen on February 15, 2007]
I think we must be in an era for creating new business. Just think of the possibilities!!!!!Selling rain meters!
Training programs for the rain cops!
Print staionary for the rain commission!
Special Garment Manufactoring for Rain Agents
Invent the "Rainometer Testometor"
Ebay - Rain for sale
Of course this needs taken care of!!!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

10) A Total No-Brainer [by Anonymous Citizen on February 9, 2007]
Of course property owners should have the right to collect rainwater without getting a stupid permit! Tell me this bill passed, or was it totally ignored because it's such a no brainer? I find nothing which indicates whether it did or not. I did hear in the Fall of 2006 that King County Executive Ron Sims was trying to find a way to tax those property owners who collect rainwater, so what's the status on this?
Reply New Comment

Line

11) S5113 [by Anonymous Citizen on October 3, 2006]
It is about time to do away with the silly law - one that I never imagined existed.

Reply New Comment

Line

12) Warren Holmgreen [by Anonymous Citizen on August 16, 2006]
What, in heaven's name, happened to the tried and true concept of a person OWNING his property and being able to use it as he deems advantageous and valuable to himself (as long as it does not impenge on anothers like usage of his own property). Presuming the power to regulate, in any way, the use of the rain that falls on one's property is a socialistic move and ANY infringment of a property owner's right to do with it as he likes should be stricken from the law...not simply modified. I submit this with the doubt that "the moderator" will "approve" it.
Reply New Comment

Line

13) Amen [by Anonymous Citizen on April 21, 2007]
Amen I say to to you; when does it become your property and not that of the government?
Reply New Comment

Line

14) Rainwater [by Anonymous Citizen on August 16, 2006]
You didn't read it... the purpose of this bit of legislation is to REMOVE the permit requirement ALREADY in place.

Does the name Roseanadana mean anything to you?
Reply New Comment

Line

15) do away [by Anonymous Citizen on August 1, 2005]
I've got a suggestion...if this outdated 1917 law is the problem, get rid of it instead of trying to overlegislate and micromanage every aspect of living. A permit to collect rainwater? That has got to be the STUPIDEST thing I've ever heard of.
Reply New Comment

Line

16) I absolutely agree [by Anonymous Citizen on June 14, 2008]
What gives the government the right to outlaw the use of rain water on private property? This is a natural law. Natural resources cannot be regulated. Not on personal property. And if it can we are living in a communist nation. What ever happened to freedom?
Reply New Comment

Line

17) Rainwater Collection [by Anonymous Citizen on February 27, 2008]
2005 Senate Bill 5113 (Regarding rainwater collection)The hell with a permit, we have been collecting rain water for years. Not only is this a great idea but it lowers my Utility bill within the city of Renton. The City of Renton also has one of the most regressive utility tax in the State of Washington.


Reply New Comment

Line

18) The allocation of water [by nsphilip on April 22, 2005]
When rain falls (lately we should be so lucky), it percolates through the ground until it becomes part of the third largest collective body of water on the planet: groundwater. Groundwater occurs at varying depths and to various extent throughout the world. In Washington, we are fortunate (most of the time) to have significant precipitation, which contributes to both groundwater "recharge," as it's called, and the snowpack in the mountains (Cascades). The snowpack drives the availability of water in surface water (streams and lakes). When there is little to no snowpack, more demand is placed on teh groundwater resources within state borders to fulfill the needs of the citizenry and their various beneficial uses of water (drinking, irrigation, fire supression, stock watering, aestetics, etc.).
The increasing population has the greatest affect on the demand for water in many ways: more people require more water for food, drink, and recreation.

The water law in Washington has gone through dramatic changes, both philosophical and in legal print in the last hundred years. This has been so to ensure the growing population has enough water to satisfy their needs.

It has been state law that a permit is required fo collect rainwater in a rainbarrel for use on the same property on which that water is collected since 1917. When was the last time you heard of someone knocking on anyone's door and telling them to turn their barrel upside-down to prevent water from collecting there? The answer is never. And if you have heard about your cousin's friend's aunt's brother who was fined for his barrel, and you believed such a tale, your problems are much greater than the illegal rain barrel you have under your downspout.

And just remember...

When it's gone, we're gone.
Reply New Comment

Line

19) What color is it? [by nsphilip on April 22, 2005]
Has anyone heard of a blue law? I think this qualifies.
Reply New Comment

Line

20) Listen, smartypants: [by randis on April 25, 2005]
Here's the post that explains the bill. Read it, then shut up:

*******************************
I am the citizen who brought this to Senator Shin. I am a City Councilmember and a person who is building a Rainwater Harvesting System for my own home in Edmonds, WA. I am also a member of the American Rainwater Catchment Systems Association - the national organization that promotes the collection and use of rainwater.

Partway through the building of my own system, I learned that there is an old law on the books in
Washington State that gives the Department of Ecology authority over all waters in the State.

As I have studied the background and the unique issues associated with "water rights" in the State, I have come to realize that no one-size-fits-all solution works throughout the State. There are some very real considerations for farmers and for stream systems that many of us just don't understand very well.

With all that said, the Department of Ecology understands the wisdom of allowing folks to collect rainwater and use it - fully 50% of potable water is used in the laundry room and to flush toilets. For some time they have not been enforcing the regulation that would require a person to obtain a permit to collect rainwater.

"Permit by Rule" is language that I worked out with the Department of Ecology that simply means that they (DOE) can determine reasonable cistern sizes for each Watershed and anything below that size DOES NOT require a permit.

It is a very clean solution that those of us spending our time and money to build a Rainwater Harvesting System for our homes are quite happy with.

Please understand that this is a very good piece of proposed legislation that will ultimately benefit many people. If you get a chance, please encourage members of the Legislature to support this bill.

Respectfully,
Richard L. Marin

Reply New Comment

Line

21) not clear enough [by nsphilip on April 26, 2005]
I suppose my rant was not clear of my support for the proposed legislation. Back off, randis. Why are you such a tyrant regulator of the threads? Are you the master tailor? The dumb people have as much a right to speak as you.
Reply New Comment

Line

22) Tyrant regulator? [by randis on April 27, 2005]
Hardly. What I am is intolerant of the kind of adamant ignorance, wherein people are determined to ignore the evidence in favor of their snap judgements and preconceived notions. It's exactly that kind of person who should learn to shut up and listen, and exactly that kind of person who should learn how the world and government work before casting a vote based largely upon rhetoric and fear caused by that rhetoric. Intelligent discourse and debate have been replaced with baseless accusations and unthinking emotional responses.

Until people can engage in conversations that deal with actual facts and not their misconstrued (or even entirely uninformed) perceptions, I shall continue to be forceful in my castigations, because that's exactly as much respect they show for their neighbors, themselves, their government, and their country.

They care so little and have so little respect that they would not do so much as learn what they're arguing about before lobbing bombs at the people they think are the enemy, even when the "enemy" is actually the very people defending their own point of view.
Reply New Comment

Line

23) git 'er done [by nsphilip on May 17, 2005]
The slow blade penetrates the shield, randis. Rainwater will be a larger issue soon.
Reply New Comment

Line

24) One question: [by randis on May 18, 2005]
If the previous law was that you had to pay to collect rainwater, and this bill undoes that requirement, how does that increase, however incrementally, the purview of government?
Reply New Comment

Line

25) explanation [by nsphilip on May 18, 2005]
Once there exists an exemption from a law, the law will then also have a nice definition of what is not exempt. The state will therefore be able to exert its authority without appearing trite or knitpicky, because instead they will be able to hammer on those collectors who have large underground cisterns (like some folk out in eastern Washington), or those planning on developing cisterns (e.g. University of Washington). The logic is protecting the water defined by law to be the property of the state so there is plenty for everyone (the effects are felt by many hydrogeologically). I understand it doesn't seem to add up when you take a look at our climate, but our water resources are diminishing due to immigration (in the general sense) and rainwater is going to be regulated sooner than later.
Reply New Comment

Line

26) So, what I'm saying is... [by randis on May 18, 2005]
...that rather than use existing laws that do exactly what the State (according to your conspiracy theory) wants to do, the State has gone through the trouble of passing a law that would nullify the very law that does what they want to do, only to create an environment in which they can incrementally do what they want to do?

In other words, they've got the bird in hand, but they're throwing it at the bush in the hopes that they will not only get the original bird, but the two that were there anyway? I can't say I'm surprised to hear that that's what you think governments are up to, based on the intelligence of the vast majority of posters on this thread.

The level of adamant ignorance and illiteracy have proven that people in Mass. are either too stupid or too proud to admit that they've ever made a mistake. That must be why so many people in my state relate to George W., who, when asked if he'd made a single mistake in office, couldn't come up with one solitary thing. We got who we deserve.
Reply New Comment

Line

27) ignorance [by Anonymous Citizen on May 18, 2005]
I wasn't theorizing. I was telling you what is going on. It is up to you whether to believe me when I say I am way closer to this thing than you are. Since you don't know much by way of the reasons behind the situation (which exist outside of the proposed bill) I encourage you to contact your local legislator (who has the next 7 months off) and ask him yourself...of course...he or she doesn't really know what is going on either.
Reply New Comment

Line

28) Again, I must ask... [by randis on May 19, 2005]
The state had a law that allowed for the enforcement of fees to collect rainwater. This applied to everyone. The law was not generally enforced. Most everyone would agree that unenforced laws that don't serve a recognizable public good should be either removed (difficult) or nullified through a new law (easy).

If all the state had to do was enforce the existing law to make all that money, why didn't it? And if the state is doing this so it can make more money in the future, and you agree (as most everyone here does) that WA loves to tax and loves to spend, then why wouldn't the state enforce a fee to get money instead of letting it sit and never collecting anything from it, even when they have the right to do so?

You're saying, in as many words, that instead of collecting fees from everyone who collects rainwater under the 1917 law (which, by the way, it seems everyone is up in arms against, even though most are too stupid to understand that fact), the state would rather go through the trouble of creating a new law to nullify the old law so it can, in fact, create the old law over again.

You're saying exempting a few to collect from the rest is more lucrative for the state of high taxes and rampant spending than collecting from all. Even though I was an English major, even I can do that math.
Reply New Comment

Line

29) let's try this again [by nsphilip on May 19, 2005]
The intent is not to generate positive cash flow into the general fund. It costs far greater resources to fund the permitting process than the negligible fees associated with applying for and receiving the permits themselves. The ultimate goal is to protect water as a resource, and to account for as much of it as possible to ensure the equitable distribution of that resource among the people of Washington so that we all can enjoy those things water provides: aestetics, clean cars, fishing, boating, swimming, green lawns, lovely gardens, clean bodies, life; seemingly we all want it in that order.
Reply New Comment

Line

30) Buy stock in RJ Reynolds or Alcoa? [by randis on May 23, 2005]
"The ultimate goal is to protect water as a resource, and to account for as much of it as possible to ensure the equitable distribution of that resource among the people of Washington so that we all can enjoy those things water provides: aestetics, clean cars, fishing, boating, swimming, green lawns, lovely gardens, clean bodies, life; seemingly we all want it in that order."

If current law already protected it as a resource by regulating the size and kind of cistern/barrel/ditch that could be used and charging a fee for that approval, wouldn't it make more sense to either keep the law and increase the fee instead of cancelling the old law and creating a new one that creates and open-ended relationship between citizens who want to use rainwater and the state that regulates existing waterways?

Rain is not a resource per se. It does not exist as a resource to be tapped. It is ephemeral, and can neither be caused nor prevented by the people upon which rain may fall. Claiming rights on rain before it falls is an impossibility legislatively as well as pragmatically.
Reply New Comment

Line

31) so you do get it [by nsphilip on June 6, 2005]
Now you are beginning to understand why the law is not so much enforced until it becomes an issue of someone plannng to harvest so much rainwater that it might have an affect on the resources that are regulated more aggressively. Keep using your head. You will understand fullly in the end.
Reply New Comment

Line

32) The only problem with that is... [by randis on June 7, 2005]
Do you understand how much water would have to be collected to actually affect the natural resource of groundwater/reservoirs? And especially in rain-heavy Washington? You could have drums the size of oil tankers collecting rainwater and still not make even a slightly noticeable ding in anything. Your understanding of the natural process of water circulation, aquifers, and storage are woefully deficient, and only serve to make you sound like an even bigger conspiracy theorist.
Reply New Comment

Line

33) funny thing is... [by nsphilip on June 21, 2005]
I am not here to argue with anyone, I am simply telling you how it is. Your qualitative analysis is very subjective, and your statement represents every proplem with the typical ignorant constituency of every legislator who ever tried to get anything accomplished whe water resourses are submitted in legislation. I might even guess that you will take my calling you ignorant as an insult, when it is simply an observation based on statements you have, in fact, made yourself.
Reply New Comment

Line

34) look out! [by Anonymous Citizen on April 30, 2005]
Bombs away!
Reply New Comment

Line

35) read!-act [by Anonymous Citizen on April 3, 2005]
The following are quotes which convey some important feelings on this matter. Tony





"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day. But a series of oppressions, ... pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of reducing us to slavery." -- Thomas Jefferson



"I believe that there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison



"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." -- Thomas Jefferson



"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains..." -- Patrick Henry



They who say all men are equal speak an undoubted truth, if they mean that all have an equal right to liberty; to their property, and to their protection of the laws. But they are mistaken if they think men are equal in their station and employments, since they are not so by their talents. – Voltaire



"There is no liberty to men who know not how to govern themselves." -- Henry Ward Beecher



"Courage, then, my countrymen, our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty." -- Samuel Adams



"Dear Fellow American Patriot, When this country was in its very infancy, our Founding Fathers pledged their fortunes, their sacred honor, indeed their very lives to stand against tyranny. These men and their families led us on to victory. Historians have calculated the total membership of these true heroes to be only 3% of the country at that time. To these men, Liberty was worth more than life itself. The nation that was born from their sacrifices has never since been duplicated in the history of the world. Our nation is once again in peril of losing its very essence to tyrants who would steal from us the life blood that has made our country great. It is by the grace of Almighty God that you have been chosen to join with us in the fight to restore our Nation back to its original greatness; back to a Nation where wo/men are free to believe as they choose, work for themselves and prosper according to their efforts and faith - where Rights are again protected by Law, not ignored or destroyed by the policies of bureaucrats. So welcome brothers and sisters! Knowing that resistance to tyranny is obedience to God, I am honored to call you my countrymen. May God Bless you!" -- Thomas Brissey, St. Simons Island, Georgia, Independent Representative for the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship



"The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." – John Hay, 1872

"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." -- Samuel Clemens, author who wrote under the nom de plume, Mark Twain



"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men." -- Abraham Lincoln



"It's the action, not the fruit of the action, that's important. You have to do the right thing. It may not be in your power, it may not be in your time, that there'll be any fruit. But that doesn't mean you stop doing the right thing. You may never know what results come from your action. But if you do nothing, there will be no result." – Gandhi



"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time, no one was left to speak up." -- Rev. Dr. Martin Niemoeller, July 1, 1937; arrested by the Third Reich



"It will, I believe, everywhere be found, that as the clergy are, or are not what they ought to be, so are the rest of the nation" -- Jane Austen



"... there is much truth in the Italian saying, 'Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.'" -- Benjamin Franklin



"As life is action and passion, it is required of a man that he be part of the action and passion of his times lest he be judged never to have lived." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.



"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared" -- Marcus Tullius Cicero 42 BC



"Do not be afraid of your enemies - in the worst case they can kill you; Do not be afraid of your friends - in the worst case they can betray you; Be afraid of the indifferent ones: it is from their silent blessings that all the evil is happening in the world!" -- Bruno Yasensky, Russian writer.



"We have it in our power to begin the world again". -- Thomas Paine in "Common Sense" (1776)


Reply New Comment

Line

36) Just to understand you... [by randis on April 4, 2005]
Am I correct in assuming that you think it's tyrannical to nullify laws that are almost 90 years old that decrease your freedoms? Am I also correct in assuming that you have only read cursorily the bill, and skimmed over a couple posts before displaying your stupidity to the entire planet?
Reply New Comment

Line

37) Dude! Chill out! [by Anonymous Citizen on April 4, 2005]
You got it backwards. Go back and reread the earlier posts. This is a non-issue.
Reply New Comment

Line

38) OWG evil agenda [by Anonymous Citizen on March 25, 2005]
This is truly horrible. Pay us, or die! (Your money or your life!)

Here's an interesting scenario: When you are born you could be issued with so many litres of air, water and the amount of sunshine that will shine upon you. You will pay for this, of course, a debt that will be accumulate over your life as the interest is paid and the principle increases. Should you live longer than your alotted time, i.e. your issue "runs out" or you become disabled and cannot continue to pay you will die, BUT your debt you will be given a "rates holiday" (where have I heard that before?) but your offspring and any surviving family members will still have to pay - it will be added to their debt. This way those who set themselves up in power will be sure of 100% compliance from the people - the plebs - with any silly idea that they come out with, and also sure of an army that can be called up at a moment's notice to stomp on anyone who does not want to comply.

They can even do what governments have done throughout the ages and if they hear any stirrings from the people they just feed them "Coronation Street" and the odd rugby game and put more fluoride in their water, and any threat will soon be extinguished.
Reply New Comment

Line

39) You poor fool. [by randis on March 28, 2005]
The current law requires you to pay a fee to collect rainwater. This bill seeks to undo that law. Are you done acting like a twit?
Reply New Comment

Line

40) But What if the Bucket has Holes?? [by Anonymous Citizen on March 29, 2005]
Funniest thing happened today. I went to check on how much Rainwater that I collected thru the great big hole in the living room roof and you can't believe what I found! Somebody, probably a Canadian, (He had an Assualt Weapon so's I didn't ask him where his hockey stick was) was standing there Smoking a Cigarette and holding MY private bucket through which I couldn't see any water! Know this is a really rotten thing to go and do. I am not saying that he SHOT the bucket! He moved it out from under the hole and now I do'nt not just have any Rainwater, but a really damp Sofa that reeks of smoke and at least ten new holes in the blasted roof! This sort of thing must be banned immediately if not sooner! It's getting real tiresome buying new buckets cause of random pissed off Canadians.
Reply New Comment

Line

41) Frivolous Lawsuits [by Anonymous Citizen on March 16, 2005]
Kind of off topic, but look at what happened today in Seattle. The parents of Rachel Corrie sued Caterpillar (the heavy equipment manufacturer) because a bulldozer they had sold some years previously ran over and killed their daughter in Israel in 2003.

The lawsuit alleges that Caterpillar violated international and state law by providing bulldozers to Israeli Defense Forces, knowing the machines would be used to demolish homes and endanger people.

One of the lawyers (their is a team of attornies suing Caterpillar) stated she hoped "Caterpillar will admit it is partially responsible for Ms. Corrie's death and stop providing Israel with bulldozers". (John Deere, Komatsu, Case and Kubota better sit up and take notice).

Incredibily the suit also alleges that Caterpillar knew that its equipment was being used to commit human rights violations, knew that Rachel Corrie and other civilians were foreseeable victims of these human rights violations, and even with that knowledge ... they continued to supply that equipment."

So now every sales purchase receipt will have to include an extensive questionnaire detailing the buyers intended purpose for the machine, who will be in control of the machine at all times, will the machine ever be used to commit an illegal action, and I'm assuming you couldn't ever sell a piece of used heavy equipment without a long involved due diligence process to make sure the new owner had no unsavory intentions.

Of course Caterpillar will now have to spend hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars defending itself. If this litigation were to prevail, you might as well kiss the rest of the heavy machinery manufacturers/sellers in U.S. goodbye. Of course there will be those who think just such lawsuits are good things, but it appears to be such a specious argument which borders on ridiculous.
Reply New Comment

Line

42) Rainwater [by Midge on March 2, 2005]
This bill is nothing less than highway robbery. Pretty soon we will be taxed on what our gardens grow. I hope Paul Shinn realizes his ingegrity has slipped to the "bottom of the barrell" on this bill. VOTE NO!
Reply New Comment

Line

43) Are you really this daft? [by randis on March 3, 2005]
This bill has been fully explained, and it has been shown to abolish the current system of paying for a permit to collect rainwater in barrels or cisterns. Way to show the world that you're incapable of something like READING by shooting your mouth off before getting any of the facts. Nice one.
Reply New Comment

Line

44) ask yourself... [by Anonymous Citizen on March 24, 2005]
Does the water in the sky need a permit to fall to the earth? Laws are "man made" not nature made. They exist on paper in static lineal form and people agree to follow because of the labels certain people have via words. "politician, King Queen and so on.

Think about it, a permit to collect water, and now a bill removing the requirement for the permit? Man made laws on paper, yet the rain still falls when it needs to. Anyone care to propose a bill requiring nature to have a permit to rain?

Tink beyond these laws and ask yourself one question...where will it stop, how much will be enough?


Reply New Comment

Line

45) Wonderfully said! [by Anonymous Citizen on June 14, 2008]
We can not control nature. It can not be governed.
Reply New Comment

Line

46) Congratulations on being slow AND stupid. [by randis on March 24, 2005]
The current law requires you to obtain a permit to collect rainwater. This bill seeks to negate that requirement. Now that you're done not reading this, just like you didn't read all the rest of the posts that I and others (including Paul Shinn himself) have made explaining the bill, would you like to apologize for your dumb post, or would you rather just slink off silently like all the other recent comers who also couldn't manage to read the clear and simple explanations of this bill?
Reply New Comment

Line

47) Slow and stupid [by Anonymous Citizen on April 4, 2005]
The words of a true philosopher? It is interesting to note how easy it is for someone to lose their patience and make such derogatory remarks. Such remarks as yours make you "appear" to be a person of authority and as someone who knows best as opposed to anyone else's views. In short, it is a facade. It looks like rain today in some parts of CA, while you worry about which "bills" give you a permit to collect water in cisterns and barrels, and which bills to use as a counter to the permits, rain will still fall.

Here is a suggestion. If you are not Native Indian, find one who still follows their own family-nation traditions and tell him or her about these bills and give him your reasoning for being so concerned with them and ask their opinion of the matter? Oh and don't forget, they and Africans And ancient Latinos (Mayans) were here first, and they lived harmoniously without written laws for millions of years before Europeans "discovered" America.

Think outside the box, man. There is one law you should know about though:

What you put out comes back to you "magnified" and the effects will show up and countless ways.

Daft, slow and stupid? Hmmmm....what will be the effect of what you wrote in your life? Will you even care?

Oh well, have a nice rainy week:)

Reply New Comment

Line

48) You're awfully puffed up for someone with so little reason to be. [by randis on April 5, 2005]
"The words of a true philosopher?"

No, the words that best describe someone for whom the entire discussion has been distilled and purified but is still incapable of comprehending it, even months after the fact. Someone like that is slow and stupid, especially when that person then decides to blow a lot of hot wind that other people who were possibly only stupid blew before him or her.

"It is interesting to note how easy it is for someone to lose their patience and make such derogatory remarks. Such remarks as yours make you 'appear' to be a person of authority and as someone who knows best as opposed to anyone else's views. In short, it is a facade."

Interesting. It's a facade, despite the fact that Paul Shinn gave the entire justification for the bill, and showed how clearly it removes the very problem people think this bill will create. I prove myself capable of understanding the English language while others insist they're right despite being proven wrong, and my supposed intelligence is a facade? Wow...I didn't know that gripping tightly to one's ignorance in the face of the facts was a sign of intellect. My bad.

"It looks like rain today in some parts of CA, while you worry about which 'bills' give you a permit to collect water in cisterns and barrels, and which bills to use as a counter to the permits, rain will still fall."

There isn't a bill that would require permits; there is, however, a law that does. And the fact that so many people are incapable of understanding such simple ideas when they are spelled out in plain English is further proof that fewer people should be voting than do even now.

"Here is a suggestion. If you are not Native Indian, find one who still follows their own family-nation traditions and tell him or her about these bills and give him your reasoning for being so concerned with them and ask their opinion of the matter? Oh and don't forget, they and Africans And ancient Latinos (Mayans) were here first, and they lived harmoniously without written laws for millions of years before Europeans 'discovered' America."

What's your point? If you'd pay attention, you'd realize that if there's one entity that's been dedicated to genocide for longer than any other, it's the American government against the American Indian. See the thread about teaching Native American history in WA public schools to learn more about that, and the enlightened views of WA residents who think that history is a waste of time while European history is the only relevant history to learn.

"Think outside the box, man. There is one law you should know about though:

What you put out comes back to you 'magnified' and the effects will show up and countless ways."

How's this for thinking outside the box? I don't live by corny trite sayings. Life cannot be distilled into a catchphrase, except for the age-old truism, "people are dumb."

"Daft, slow and stupid? Hmmmm....what will be the effect of what you wrote in your life? Will you even care?

Oh well, have a nice rainy week:)"

Stuff it.

Reply New Comment

Line

49) voter [by Anonymous Citizen on March 1, 2005]
When you need a permit for rain collection, I would also like to add the need for gauges on toilets for all the liquid released into the recepticals, and perhaps values put on all waste liquids, and then tax the toxic ones, please!
Reply New Comment

Line

50) Hey, "voter!" [by randis on March 3, 2005]
Currently you DO require a paid permit to collect rainwater. You are now complaining (a few months behind the curve of the rest of the morons) about a bill that would eliminate the need to obtain a permit to collect rainwater. Your apology is noted.
Reply New Comment

Line

51) It's me [by Anonymous Citizen on February 27, 2005]
Yes I guess it did, and it's about time
Reply New Comment

Line

52) Senate Bill 5113 [by Anonymous Citizen on February 14, 2005]
I'm all for claification, but this is not the way to do it.
I know it's hard for the legislature to understand that we do not need laws for everything, but the easiest way to clarify this is to repeal the 1917 law. real simple.

Is it against the law to collect snow? Sun rays? breath oxygen?
Reply New Comment

Line

53) For crying out loud! [by randis on February 15, 2005]
Listen, slowbie: it takes far more work to repeal a law, and especially a part of a law, than it does to create a new law that amends or nullifies the previous one. Please, look up the legislative process, and when you understand what's involved, maybe then you'd stop complaining. Maybe then you'd also realize that this law is about undoing the old law, and that nobody is proposing the moronic hyperbolic "breathing tax" that the majority of intellectual lightweights seem to think this bill is the precursor of.
Reply New Comment

Line

54) Rainwater [by Anonymous Citizen on February 14, 2005]
With all of the more pressing things that the Senate and the House could be spending thier time on we have to put up with some moron wanting to tell us that we need a permit to gather rain water.If the State owns the rainwater then the state should be held responsible for any damage done by said water.The lawyers would really have a field day with this one.
Reply New Comment

Line

55) Friggin' incredible. [by randis on February 15, 2005]
This bill has been fully explained, and the best you could do is repeat the ignorant gibberish that the majority of posters on this thread have blabbed? Hold on to your hat, smartypants: THE CURRENT LAW SAYS YOU MUST GET A PERMIT TO COLLECT RAINWATER. THIS BILL WOULD END THAT REQUIREMENT.

Now that you understand what this is about, will you kindly either apologize for not bothering to do your due diligence by actually reading the posts in the thread? Or, in lieu of that, at least retract what you said and never vote again? Thanks.
Reply New Comment

Line

56) Water is God's gift [by Anonymous Citizen on February 8, 2005]
Governments can only regulate to control the person they created, "man" has always been above government, the same as God is above "man". They have control over this legal person (JOHN HENRY DOE)their creation. They can't regulate to control God's creation (John Henry Doe) because we don't know there is a difference they claim we volunteer to be JOHN HENRY DOE.
go to www.natural-person.ca this site will take up many hours.

Allan
Reply New Comment

Line

57) say what? [by MrProgressive on February 10, 2005]
Now you're just being a looney. Maybe Moses should part the waters in your personal rain barrel, bud.
Reply New Comment

Line

58) Well, Allan... [by randis on February 9, 2005]
It's unfortunate that you haven't read all the posts, because you'd see that this bill seeks to undo the law that declares that the state may regulate rainfall. If you'd like to redeem yourself, please read the changes that would be made to the law, and read the posts that fully explain those changes. Then, if you're still feeling froggy, you can come back in and admit you were mistaken. Good day!
Reply New Comment

Line

59) This is easy [by Anonymous Citizen on January 31, 2005]
You should research the number of recent laws regarding water- property rights and wells. Its astronomical.
They are preparing for hydro powered vehicles.. but of course before they let that technology loose they need to control the water as much as they now control oil.
Reply New Comment

Line

60) Try reading next time. [by randis on January 31, 2005]
If you had paid attention, you'd see that this bill is about reducing the control over private citizens collecting rainwater, because the bill would stop the 1917 requirement to obtain a permit to use barrels or cisterns to collect rainwater.
Reply New Comment

Line

61) Your so right! [by Anonymous Citizen on February 16, 2005]
All we need is more laws to clarify the laws that are on the books that don't make sense. Keep the lawyers in business. WHAT WE NEED IS LESS LAWS NOT MORE!
Reply New Comment

Line

62) Please learn before talking. [by randis on February 17, 2005]
Removing laws is far more difficult than adding them. If adding one law easily will do the same thing as removing one law with difficulty, why go the difficult route? The effect is the same, and it is a wiser use of government time, money, effort, and resources. Unless, that is, you don't like it when the government not only increases your freedom but does it on the cheap.
Reply New Comment

Line

63) Clarification [by Anonymous Citizen on January 28, 2005]
Thank you Representative Shinn for clearing up the intent and meaning of this bill . As you can see there is a strong belief < with good reason>
of what the purpose of government is , and who it whose rights it should defend . Especially when it comes to the rights of property owners .
Reply New Comment

Line

64) Unfortunately... [by randis on January 31, 2005]
...people are too blinded by their own ignorance, stupidity, or self-righteousness to allow anything, even the truth, to change their perceptions of reality.
Reply New Comment

Line

65) Peak Oil and Rolling Blackouts: We NEED private collection of rainwater [by Anonymous Citizen on January 28, 2005]
If you are paying attention at all to the discussions on the world's energy situation, by now most of you would be knowledgable about Peak Oil, the point at which worldwide oil production can no longer keep up with consumption demands. World energy experts are saying this will be within the next five (YES-- FIVE) years. The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas www.peakoil.net and Peak Oil Action www.peakoilaction.org are good places for information on this.

What does it mean for us? Like during rolling blackouts which could become a stark reality soon here, it means that pumps that remove sewage, move water for domestic use and many other functions would effectively shut down. I would argue that we are at war in Iraq and soon to be Iran (??) not because of militant Islamism but because our "non-negotiable" American Dream is being threatened by a finite resource, and our economy is directly threatened because our dollars are tied to our economic strength which requires massive petroleum input to stay afloat. No oil, no work, no work, no GDP, no foreign investment, no oil, no military, no empire.

Based on the research it means that the future could well be decentralized, local and with citizens helping each other, while our elected officials of every political stripe twiddle their thumbs about the legality of innocent action like collecting rainwater.

It behooves us then to be proactive and work together. In the meantime see the dvd movie "End of Suburbia: Oil depletion and the collapse of the American Dream"
Reply New Comment

Line

66) Here's an idea: [by randis on January 31, 2005]
Next time you tell one of your little stories, HAVE A POINT. It makes it so much nicer for the listener!
Reply New Comment

Line

67) kudos, anonymous! [by Anonymous Citizen on January 26, 2005]
You see the BIG picture! It's not gonna be gonna be the Revised Roman Empire....
Reply New Comment

Line

68) facisim [by Anonymous Citizen on January 26, 2005]
the administrations subsidies of the biggest polluters in the world, who poison the air we breathe and the water we drink and which KILLS americans everyday is paid for with our tax dollars.....sounds like facisim to me....the enrichment of the few while everyone elts gets shit on....and lets silence the critics by slander and harrasment...character assassination...silence the news outlets by allowing them to be owned by some of these same polluters....what the hell ever happened to our anti-trust laws? it's almost hopeless, the hole we're digging is getting deeper and deeper and one day the soldiers won't guard us against the terrorists the'll be guarding the multinationals and the government against us!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

69) Um... [by randis on January 27, 2005]
What does your conspiracy theory have to do with trying to remove the permit-obtaining requirement of rainwater collection by private individuals on their own property for use on said property?
Reply New Comment

Line

70) Commonwealth of the People [by Anonymous Citizen on January 26, 2005]
There is a right that all humanity has, and in particular is guaranteed by our nation under the Constitution. That right is freedom of life, liberty and persuit of happiness. What has been protected under this right in the past is what is known as the "commonwealth" of the people. The right to the basic needs for our free life; clean air, pure water, a place to lie down on the earth.
The original legislation says nothing about rain water because is was never the "intent" of the original legislators to try to govern or "own" the rain, the wind, the sunshine, the night, the Commonwealth of the people.
What we see today is Corporate Ingress on the Commonwealth. Corporate polluters continue to destroy the Commonwealth (our environment) for profit. And seek to take control of every necessity for life to their profit. This is not idle commentary. You only need to research what the big conglomerates that sell water in a bottle are up to. In some countries they have claimed ownership of water coming up from the earth in a privately owned well and have taxed people for its use.
What is dangerous about this legislation is that rain water is not mentioned in the original, nor eluded to. But this law if enacted will PUT THE USE OF RAINWATER IN THE HANDS OF REGULATORS.
This is NOT wisdom speaking, this is CORPORATE INGRESS ON THE BASIC RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.
No one has to do anything to collect rainwater. It falls from heaven to quench the thirst of the land and its peoples. To imply that there is a need to regulate my choice to put a barrel out to collect it or not crosses the boundary of freedom to life as provided in the Constitution.
And considering that the County, State and Federal Governments ARE CORPORATIONS this should be a red flag to all free people. We no longer function under the Constitution. Our governments function under Corporate Statutory Law. If they didn't, this issue would have never even come up for discussion. Ask any attorney.
Reply New Comment

Line

71) How can so few people be so reasonable, and so many not be? [by randis on January 27, 2005]
"The original legislation says nothing about rain water because is was never the "intent" of the original legislators to try to govern or "own" the rain, the wind, the sunshine, the night, the Commonwealth of the people."

Really...because the original legislation mentions appropriating water for beneficial purposes. Since the waterways are regulated entirely by the state, the waters to be appropriated are rainwater and groundwater. Because appropriating water for beneficial use requires the individual to obtain a permit, the state DOES currently govern rainwater collection. Therefore, if you believe collecting rainwater shouldn't require a permit, you must support this bill. It's just that simple.
Reply New Comment

Line

72) Rainwater [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2005]
I hope your right!
Reply New Comment

Line

73) Rainwater [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2005]
I live in Snohomish county....about 60 miles from the Canadian border...I have been talkong to well owners..I am city water...They seemed very concerned about this
Reply New Comment

Line

74) Why can't people keep level heads? [by randis on January 27, 2005]
And did these concerned people know that currently they are required, by law, to obtain a permit? Or is this their first exposure to anything regarding permits for rain collection, and therefore they automatically assume this bill means people will need to get permits to collect rainwater (kind of like a bunch of people on this board have)?
Reply New Comment

Line

75) Randis and Shin lie [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2005]
Randis,

It is hard to be polite when someone stands in my face and lies. YOU READ:

RCW 90.03.010 Appropriation of water rights -- Existing rights preserved.

The power of the state to regulate and control the waters within the state shall be exercised as hereinafter in this chapter provided. Subject to existing rights all waters within the state belong to the public, and any right thereto, or to the use thereof, shall be hereafter acquired only by appropriation for a beneficial use and in the manner provided and not otherwise; and, as between appropriations, the first in time shall be the first in right. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to lessen, enlarge, or modify the existing rights of any riparian owner, or any existing right acquired by appropriation, or otherwise.

This means from 1917 all riparian rights have been preserved. NO PERMIT FOR RAIN BARRELS REQUIRED. ANYWHERE IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET THE PICTURE?????
NO THE STATE DOES NOT OWN THE RAIN WATER!!!!! Until it gets to a public water way AND only has control of the water until it leaves the public water way.

ANY GOV. ENTITY NOW CHARGING PERMITS FOR RAIN BARRELS IS OPERATING UNDER COLOR OF LAW AND ARE CRIMINALS. Go arrest them and prosecute them if you are such a good guy.

This is typical pull the wool over the eyes of the public. With this bill the DOE can (may) do as they please BUT it still don't override the (RCW 90.03.010 Appropriation of water rights -- Existing rights preserved.) It does however confuse the issue and appears to give the DOE the right to control rain barrels. AND here is the rub. Any law that can not be understood by reasonable men is unconstitutional from it's onset and is void. However it is you and Shin that seem "not" to understand what you wrote. Only we all know too well that you know exactly what you are doing.. When Shin makes his explanation he leaves out the full quote of the law and very conspicuously you both leave out the part that no one's riparian rights have ever been
removed by the State Of Washington. (How novel is that?) ONLY PEOPLE CONSPIRING TO DEPRIVE PEOPLE OF THEIR RIGHTS DO STUFF LIKE THAT. CROOKS, CHEATS AND CHARLATANS.
OR ---- PEOPLE THAT CAN'T READ and/or DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY READ.
Personally I think you can read and know full well what you are doing.

But then you claim no one can read, we are all morons and idiots and no one understands the proposed bill and you persist it says no permit required when in fact it says no such thing. NEWS FLASH: We all understood it and we all see through your BS. Several people even know why this bill is being introduced. MAY PERMIT is not MUST PERMIT. MAY permit means that they may not as well. How ever this does not supercede anyone's riparian rights guaranteed under the 1917 law. Which is a law by the way, not a rule..

I could go on but I'll quit. If you don't get it by now there is nothing more I can say. If you are pulling shenanigans again there is nothing more I can say.

Reply New Comment

Line

76) You're trying so hard, but you're still mistaken. [by randis on January 25, 2005]
Well, at least you did a little research. However, you failed to read the bill and the statute it seeks to amend. Here is what requires you to obtain a permit to collect rainwater, from RCW 90.03.250 and 1987 c 109 s 83:

"Any person, municipal corporation, firm, irrigation district, association, corporation or water users' association hereafter desiring to appropriate water for a beneficial use shall make an application to the department for a permit to make such appropriation, and shall not use or divert such waters until he has received a permit from the department as in this chapter provided. The construction of any ditch, canal or works, or performing any work in connection with said construction or appropriation, or the use of any waters, shall not be an appropriation of such water nor an act for the purpose of appropriating water unless a permit to make said appropriation has first been granted by the department"

So, as you can see, currently you must apply for a permit to collect rainwater. The following is the amendment to those two statutes that would nullify this condition:

"The department may permit by rule, under conditions appropriate to the water resources inventory area, the use of rain barrels and cisterns to collect rainwater intended to be put to a beneficial use on the same property where the rainwater is captured."

Now, who's pulling the wool over whose eyes? This clearly says that currently you must obtain a permit, and that with the passage of this bill you won't have to. Now, explain to me again how this is a bad idea.
Reply New Comment

Line

77) bluewillow [by Anonymous Citizen on January 23, 2005]
am having a hard time making the threads show my name.......Washington stste is where they are thinking about metering wells
Reply New Comment

Line

78) Re: Bluewillow [by Raider on January 24, 2005]
Thinking about metering wells??

Where is your documentation? What legislation is being or has been proposed?

Otherwise a statement like this holds as much water as the statement, "The Klingons are attacking in Borneo but have blocked all reports from getting out of there!! And are on the way to invade the earth!!!"

Must be that some Mexican illegal alien told them about the employment opportunities here.

Raider

Reply New Comment

Line

79) showing I.Ds [by Raider on January 24, 2005]
If you have an account here and which it to be shown then try to "LOG IN". That usually cures this problem, eh??

Raider

Reply New Comment

Line

80) Rain water [by Anonymous Citizen on January 23, 2005]
They are thunking of metering wells in washington state
Reply New Comment

Line

81) Charging for rain water? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 23, 2005]
I totally agree with the last comment. How dare
they charge us for water from the sky that God/
Nature provides to sustain us on this earth. I will not pay for the rainwater! Sure the satilites
will snap pics of peoples yards "collecting" it,
but if i have to i will get around it by putting
up some kind of "umbrella" or other camouflage. Oh, so you're gonna come around and check into our
yards now? Soon as you leave - the rain barrel
goes back up! Next you'll be charging us for the
very air we breathe, and then the ground we walk
on, and then the speech coming out of our mouths,
and then our vision gazing upon the earth. Most
sheep will not balk, but others of "us" will defy
YOU any way we can!
Reply New Comment

Line

82) 777 and Counting [by Anonymous Citizen on January 22, 2005]
Anyone reading this thread alarmed that in less than three weeks in session your legislators introduced 777 different pieces of legislation?? Maybe we should start a pool? I predict 1,000 new bills by Feb. 7th. What do you guess?
Reply New Comment

Line

83) Ooops, make that 842 new bills [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2005]
More than I thought, 842 proposed bills by January 24th. Is this a record, or normal state of affairs?
Reply New Comment

Line

84) number of bills [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2005]
this is fairly common. We'll probably see between 2,000 and 3,000 bills introduced by the time session ends in April. Perhaps more. Plus we'll see hundreds (if not more than a thousand) amendments and bill substitutes).
Reply New Comment

Line

85) Now were up to 807 [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2005]
Ok, 30 new bills in one day. Is everyone keeping up?? Did the bill establishing our new Poet Laureate get passed??
Reply New Comment

Line

86) more than that [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2005]
if you look at the numbers by the end of each day, typically there are between 70 and 130 bills entered each day in first half of session.
Reply New Comment

Line

87) 842 Bills by Jan 24th. [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2005]
I would assume some of these bills are recycled from prior sessions, or are they drafted in advance by the outside parties advancing their ideas? How many staff would it take to draft 1,000 bills in 3 weeks?
Reply New Comment

Line

88) new vs. old bills [by Anonymous Citizen on January 24, 2005]
A few of these bills were drafted from previous sessions, but most are new. When a biennium starts over (which happens each odd-numbered year), the bills start over too. When the 2006 session begins next year, the legislature will recycle an awful lot of bills from the 2005 session.
Reply New Comment

Line

89) Campaign promises? [by Raider on January 24, 2005]
Sure looks like they are trying to keep all the campaign promises they made on the campaign trail to be elected. Regardless whether you mean Washington State Legislature or U.S. Congress.

Raider

Reply New Comment

Line

90) NowayJose [by Anonymous Citizen on January 22, 2005]
Utterly preposterous, fraudulent, unfair, and unworthy of consideration.
Reply New Comment

Line

91) I totally agree [by randis on January 24, 2005]
It's completely unfair and ridiculous that someone would want to nullify the law that says people have to get a permit to collect rainwater. Everyone should have to pay a fee before considering using a barrel or cistern to collect rainwater. I think there should be more bureaucracy, fees, and fewer freedoms and liberties. I'm glad to see SOMEONE is on the same page as I am!
Reply New Comment

Line

92) What is next? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 22, 2005]
What would be next, if you drink the rain water as it falls will the really inain thinnk they will have to add cholrene to it to save our teeth?
Reply New Comment

Line

93) Inbreeding?? [by Raider on January 24, 2005]
Another example of the reasons to make inbreeding Illegal.

Errr, excuse me!!

It is fluoride which is added to to water to ward off tooth decay not chlorine which is added to water to kill bacteria.

But on second thought, go ahead and drink both and prevent anymore contamination to the "Genetic Pool".

Raider

Reply New Comment

Line

94) Anonymous Canadian [by Anonymous Citizen on January 22, 2005]
After in our news media, Bush was going to introduce FREEDOM around the WORLD. We are shuddering here in Canada what this means when we see the Introduction of Bills like this.


Reply New Comment

Line

95) rainwater [by bluewillow on January 22, 2005]
Where I live they are thinking about putting meters on private wells so they can charge for water
Reply New Comment

Line

96) re: Rainwater [by Raider on January 24, 2005]
Okay, I will bite; just where do you live?

I can see how this is possible under the current laws of Washington State.

Probablility? Different story in that the investment in meters cannot be small, not to mention the labor cost of installation. Look at the large cities that can't afford to update the ancient meters they are now using. With the governments on the verge of filing Bankrupcy (again for the Feds) new projects as this are unlikely to begin.

Raider

Reply New Comment

Line

97) Where? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 23, 2005]
What area is that?
Reply New Comment

Line

98) Your Outa your gourd my friend! [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
You people who propose such matters, as permits to collect rain-fall are freaks of nature in ever sense of the word.

TRY IT-
Reply New Comment

Line

99) What Rain Water? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
This is not good legislation. Just a way for Gov to make more money. Next you will want to charge for the air we breath and the sun we see. This is just a stupid law.
Reply New Comment

Line

100) Did you bother to read any other posts? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
If you had, you'd see that currently the law DOES require you to obtain a permit to collect rainwater. This bill would nullify that law, which was passed way back in 1917. And plenty of other ignoramuses have already played the "tax the air we breathe" card, so if you're not going to get the facts straight, at least come up with something original.
Reply New Comment

Line

101) Rainwater Collection [by ardeananvik on January 21, 2005]
Politicans no longer have the guts to vote taxes in, so they vote in FEES. This is nothing than a money grabbing scheme by DOE. This is disgusting and the owner of this bill, a Paul Shinn should be ashamed. But he is a liberal and knows nothing of shame.

Defeat this bill. I am watching, Rep Haigh!!!!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

102) You didn't read anything, did you? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
If you had, you'd see that in 1917, the law that requires you to obtain a permit was entered into the books. This bill seeks to remedy that condition by allowing the state to permit by rule (read: allow people to do something without them having to pay a fee or get a license) people to collect rainwater and use it on their property. Are you telling us all you have a problem with Paull Shin trying to make your life easier and eliminate a bit of useless bureaucracy? Is that REALLY what you're saying? Or are you saying you didn't bother reading, or were incapable of comprehending, the bill as it appears on this website (or the explanation by Sen. Shin himself)? Which is it?
Reply New Comment

Line

103) SB-5079 needs more attention than this one!!!!! [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
http://www.washingtonvotes.org/2005-SB-5079

2005 Senate Bill 5079 (Directing a special runoff election for governor)

Introduced by Sen. Pam Roach on January 12, 2005, to declare the results of the gubernatorial election of November 2, 2004, to be null and void. It directs that an entirely new, special runoff election be conducted to decide the next governor of Washington. This gubernatorial runoff election shall be held on the date of George Washington's birthday, Tuesday, February 22, 2005.

Reply New Comment

Line

104) They all need attention. [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
More robbery.

SB#-5136
* Introduced by Sen. Mark Doumit on January 14, 2005, to determine that a fire protection district can protect that district’s tax levy from adjustments by imposing up to twenty-five cents per thousand dollars of assessed value of the tax levies authorized by the revised code of Washington outside of the five dollars and ninety cents per thousand dollars of assessed valuation limitation established under if those taxes otherwise would be prorated under. See Companion HB 1106.
o Referred to the Senate Government Operations and Elections Committee on January 14, 2005.

SB#-5138
* Introduced by Sen. Ken Jacobsen on January 14, 2005, to revise transportation fees so that the total replacement fee will be placed in the motor vehicle fund. License renewal fees increase from twenty-five to seventy five dollars annually.
o Referred to the Senate Transportation Committee on January 14, 2005.

Reply New Comment

Line

105) Read the bill [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
It says the state shall "permit by rule." This means you will not need a permit. No black helicopters here fellas.
Reply New Comment

Line

106) May is not Shall [by Anonymous Citizen on January 22, 2005]
May = May or May not. This equals discretion. Shall = Must. No discretion. No choice. You did not read the bill.
Reply New Comment

Line

107) Bill of Rights [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
The right to be let alone is the underlying principle of the Constitution's Bill of Rights.-- Erwin N. Griswold

Property rights are not the rights of property; they are the rights of humans with regard to property. They are a particular kind of human right. -- David Friedman

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. -- Ayn Rand

When we find ourselves wondering about the meaning of conditions and events, its always useful to ask, who profits? -- Richard Mitchell

Reply New Comment

Line

108) What are you talking about? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
Seriously, this bill is about cutting out bureaucracy. Are you suggesting you're against that? You prefer that you MUST get a permit to collect rainwater? That's what you're saying?
Reply New Comment

Line

109) I just read the bill [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
The permit is granted for beneficial use, so if we wanted to use it for non- beneficial use we could?such as for submerging head first those that come up with such stuff. Never mind, that could be construed as beneficial by most that can still think,dang
Reply New Comment

Line

110) You did NOT read the bill. [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
If you had, you'd see the underlined item 4, which states that the state will permit by rule people to collect and use water on the same property. Permit by rule means allow without regulation. Seriously, try reading it again, and without seeing the word "permit" as solely meaning "a document that grants one particular rights as determined by a governing body."
Reply New Comment

Line

111) It's a Public Health Issue, not an inffingment on personal freedoms. [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
One of the major functions of a government is to oversee public health, among other things.

In this light, the collection of rainwater for domestic use (ie. drinking water, and bathing) is illegal in many jurisditions and has been for a long time.

The act under discussion seems to be to reverse that, to make it legal once again for people to collect and use drinking water.
To do so would offest having to draw water from other sources.

To obtain a permit to do this, The likely intent of the legislation is to have a vehicle which permits the inspectors to make sure the water is safe for the use it is intended for. So, the inspector wants to make sure you don't collect your drinking water in a dirty old oil drum or some such and become a drain on the state revenues by making yourself sick.

There is also the issue of people potentially coming down with Avian flu or some other disease if they drink water that includes bird droppings from the roof in it, or use it for watering livestock. This is a very real concern these days. Remember that there have been outbreaks of this disease recently, as British Columbia poultry producers can testify. The epidemic nearly wiped out B.C.'s entire poultry production in early 2004 before it was contained, and millions of birds were incinerated.

So, by requiring a permit, the government bill is making the act of collecting rainwater, if properly done in accordance to current health standards, legal.

So It's a health issue. It is also a qualified expansion of personal liberties, not a criminally minded infringement on them.
Reply New Comment

Line

112) Health Issue? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
What does the Department of Energy have to do with Public Health issues? This is an infringement of people getting something for free and the government wants their share (tax) on the people.
This is the same reason Hydrogen Power cost so much. Big government is big money and big money will loose tons if hydrogen is low priced. Power companies and oil companies would go under immediately and so would all that free stock the honorable? Senator has received.

Reply New Comment

Line

113) DOE = Department of Ecology [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
Please, read before you make nonsensical statements.
Reply New Comment

Line

114) sounds good in theory but, [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
Island county already allows cisterns for home permitting without getting the dept of Ecology involved. The problem with the DOE ( you would know this if you had dealings with them) is that you had better bring your lunch if you actually expect a responce from them. This is just another way to grow beuracracy and increase control over the people.The local health depts can regulate buckets of water if they want.
Reply New Comment

Line

115) If you had actually read the bill... [by randis on January 21, 2005]
...you'd see that currently you MUST obtain a permit, and this bill would make it so you wouldn't have to. Learn to read.
Reply New Comment

Line

116) Read the bill [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
If they can permit a process they can turn down the permit as well. They can regulate you to death in time and they will. This is big brother at his best. You can be penalized if you have a bucket of rain catchment in your yard. Don't forget once they get their foot in the door, pretty soon they are completely in your face with regulation. Case in point,The King Co CAO, now they own 65% of your land if you want a permit and you still get to pay taxes on it, see proprights.org. This is a never ending process and every day we wake up with less freedom.
Rubber Duck
Reply New Comment

Line

117) Please, learn to read yourself. [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
The current law says you MUST obtain a permit (read: document that grants you specific rights or privileges) to collect rainwater. The bill would allow the state to permit by rule (read: allow people without any required tests, fees, or other prerequisites) to collect rainwater. Yes, Big Brother is about cutting down on bureaucracy and making privacy more secure. Seriously, get your head out of your paranoid conspiracy theory-filled hind quarters.
Reply New Comment

Line

118) Eliminate the law period [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
Why not just eliminate the law and get it off the books. Most people are smart enough to use a rain barrel without directions or regulation? Most of us are choking on regulations already and our elected officials should spend their time channeling their resources to a more constructive cause,such as the flush O meter, combined with the tp tax.
Reply New Comment

Line

119) old horseman [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
AMEN
Reply New Comment

Line

120) don't drink the cool aid [by old horseman on January 20, 2005]
If it was so dangerous to collect rainwater already how do you suppose that no one has had a problem with something as minor as a rain barrel, Randis with his room temp IQ has not noticed that when something is turned over to the dept. of ecology or othernuncontrollable canstantly growing beauacracies is when the citizens get the ax, This is how tree huggers shut down any free enterprise on private property. Which is why I have a gate and if you come to it and are not invited you get to introduce your self to an armed person and two dogs.
Reply New Comment

Line

121) You prefer breaking the law to having this be legal? [by randis on January 21, 2005]
So you agree that you'd rather a law remained on the books that complicates life and creates a situation that could result in you being fined than someone create an amendment to that law that removes the illegal nature of an activity that is agreed upon by all to be harmless and, in many cases, helpful.
Reply New Comment

Line

122) DEAR LEFTY [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
YOU STILL DON;Y GET IT DO YOU
Reply New Comment

Line

123) No, I don't get it. [by randis on January 21, 2005]
First off, how am I a "lefty?" How did you know I'm left-handed, anyway? I didn't know that smaller government and less bureaucracy was a "leftist" sentiment. I always thought that was a markedly right-wing idea. Are you saying Republicans are for bigger government and more bureaucracy?

And what is there for me to get? You, apparently, have not read the bill or the law it seeks to amend, and you don't understand that currently you must obtain a permit to collect rainwater, and that this bill would change that so you wouldn't have to get a permit. It seems that I'm not the one who still doesn't get it.
Reply New Comment

Line

124) Nor do I?? [by Raider on January 24, 2005]
Maybe this person would holler more if he were arrested, finger printed, photographed, convicted and fined for not having nor producing a valid permit when it is asked for??

See:
RCW 90.03.090
Water master's power of arrest.

The water master shall have the power, within his or her district, to arrest any person in the act of violating any of the provisions of this chapter and to deliver such person promptly into the custody of the sheriff or other competent officer within the county and immediately upon such delivery the water master making the arrest shall, in writing and upon oath, make complaint before the proper district judge against the person so arrested.

[1987 c 202 § 250; 1917 c 117 § 12; RRS § 7362. Formerly RCW 90.08.030.]

RCW 90.03.100
Prosecuting attorney, legal assistant.

It shall be the duty of the prosecuting attorney of any county to appear for or on behalf of the department or any water master, upon request of any such officer in any case which may arise in the performance of the official duties of any such officer within the jurisdiction of said prosecuting attorney.

[1987 c 109 § 71; 1917 c 117 § 13; RRS § 7363.]

RCW 90.03.400
Crimes against water code -- Unauthorized use of water.

(1)(a) The unauthorized use of water to which another person is entitled or the willful or negligent waste of water to the detriment of another, is a misdemeanor.

(b) For instances of the waste of water under this subsection, the department may alternatively follow the sequence of enforcement actions as provided in RCW 90.03.605.

(2) The possession or use of water without legal right shall be prima facie evidence of the guilt of the person using it.

(3) It is also a misdemeanor to use, store, or divert any water until after the issuance of permit to appropriate such water.

[2003 1st sp.s. c 15 § 2; 2003 c 53 § 418; 1917 c 117 § 40; RRS § 7392. Formerly RCW 90.32.010.]

RCW 90.03.410 Crimes against water code -- Interference with works -- Wrongful use of water -- Property destruction -- Penalty.

(2) Any person or persons who shall wilfully or unlawfully take or use water, or conduct the same into his ditch or to his land, or land occupied by him, and for such purpose shall cut, dig, break down or open any headgate, bank, embankment, canal or reservoir, flume or conduit, or interfere with, injure or destroy any weir, measuring box or other appliance for the apportionment and measurement of water, or unlawfully take or cause to run or pour out of such structure or appliance any water, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor or, if there is actual physical injury to or destruction of any real or personal property, of property destruction and shall incur the penalties set forth in *RCW 9.61.070.

(3) The use of water through such structure or structures, appliance or appliances hereinbefore named after its or their having been interfered with, injured or destroyed, shall be prima facie evidence of the guilt of the person using it.

[1971 ex.s. c 152 § 8; 1921 c 103 § 2; 1917 c 117 § 41; RRS § 7393. Formerly RCW 90.32.020.]

Reply New Comment

Line

125) Tea Party [by shatch on January 20, 2005]
The words "Tea Party" come to mind. Olympia will continue to push untill we push back!
Reply New Comment

Line

126) I've already explained how they're not the same. [by randis on January 20, 2005]
The Boston Tea Party happened because taxes were being levied against the colonies without the colonies being represented in Parliament back in England. I'm quite sure you can't say you're not all being represented by someone in the legislature.

By the way, as others have pointed out before me, it's currently illegal to collect rainwater. Since it's more difficult to remove old laws from the books than to add new ones, they are attempting to remedy the current situation by adding a law that would effectively anull the old law. Whether the permits will require a fee is anyone's guess.

Please, if you're going to analogize, make sure it's at least marginally pertinent. Otherwise, you just sound like a knucklehead. And please, people, at least do a smidgen of homework before you spout off like Mt. Vesuvius.
Reply New Comment

Line

127) Yeow [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
I can't believe this thing still has legs.
Reply New Comment

Line

128) And I can't believe... [by randis on January 21, 2005]
...that this late in the game you haven't managed to read the explanation of the bill and how it actually REMOVES the need to obtain a permit to collect rainwater in cisterns. Next time you want to say something, make sure others haven't already said it, and make sure you're not completely incorrect. Thanks.
Reply New Comment

Line

129) Getting A Feeling [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
I have a sneaky feeling the anger/astonishment/resentment being posted here may have something to do with the King County CAO legislation. People who don't live in cities (and might actually collect rainwater in a cistern) and feeling mightily threatened by increased regulations on their land. If you live in unincorporated King Count you practically need a permit to lop down the Himalayan Blackberry vines, and if it's a native blackberry...forget it. It stays! So I'm no sure this thread is really about rainwater anymore.
Reply New Comment

Line

130) Randis lies [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
Randis you clam responsibility for this bill.
You claim this bill removes any fee for collecting rain water.
You were used as a dup and don't know it.

There is no law or bill restricting anyone from having and using a rain barrel. So why do you want one?
Where is it? This bill does not require anything.
It gives the DOE (Permits the doe) to make a new rule governing rain barrels. The DOE now has the permission (if this is passed) to make any rule they like about rain barrels. As it stands now they do not have this power. Get a grip on yourself.
Where in this bill does it say free????
How does this act protect the health, welfare and
safety of the general public at large? Remember the constitution? Being on the council do you even know what protecting peoples rights means?
I suggest that you straighten out your double talk and rewrite the bill to say this. The State of Washington and its agencies can not interfere with any water usage from water derived on ones own property. Show me how controlling rain barrels has anything to do with world population. You are not an American. You are a collectivist.
All your language and name calling gives you away.
Out of all the 200 plus posts you are the only one supporting it. Does that tell you something?
With all your posts calling people idiots and moron you better look in the mirror to see the real idiotic moron.
There are several people that posted that know exactly what is going on and the rest just know what you propose is immoral. Its un-American. This is typical, communist, socialist, fascist crap.
Do the world a favor and get out of government and take all your commy UN friends with you.
This bill should not be passed.

Reply New Comment

Line

131) Repost: Message from Senator Shin [by randis on January 21, 2005]
Good Day,

There has been tremendous comment on this web site and around the net regarding Senate Bill 5113, my bill to allow individuals to use rain barrels and cisterns without onerous government regulation. The bill remedies a regulatory problem stemming from a 1917 law that requires the state to issue use permits for all waters, including rain water. This issue came to my attention after I learned that some counties were denying building permits for residences that included cisterns due to lack of clarity about the 1917 law. My bill would remove the mandatory permitting process and allow the Department of Ecology to establish general rules for the use of rain barrels and cisterns for beneficial use.

In 1917, during World War I, the Washington State Legislature passed RCW 90.03.010 which reads, in part, “…all waters within the state belong to the public, and any right thereto, or to the use thereof, shall be hereafter acquired only by appropriation for a beneficial use and in the manner provided and not otherwise….” The practical upshot of this law is that all water in Washington, whether in rivers, lakes, the ocean, or the atmosphere is the property of the people and subject to regulation by state government.

For many years, people have collected rainwater for use on their property. This practice, while generally harmless, may be illegal. Senate Bill 5113 is designed to allow clear up the confusion regarding the legal use of rain barrels and cisterns to collect water for beneficial use on one’s own property. Landowners would not need to seek permits on an individual basis. The Department of Ecology has told me that they have no interest or intent to require a water right for rain barrels.

I support the use of cisterns and other of similar water conservation practices, so I drafted this legislation to correct this long-time anomaly in state law.

I hope this clarifies my intent in offering this bill and the effect the bill will actually have.

Sincerely,

Paull Shin
Washington State Senator
21st Legislative District
Reply New Comment

Line

132) Muddy waters [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
Rather than introducing new legislation to muddy up the water in this case the old law you call illegal should be stricken from the books. You should rewrite the other law that states all waters belong to the people of Washington and are therefore regulated by the state. In other words what is your is yours but the state will decide what you can do with it for your benefit. BULL
Reply New Comment

Line

133) Careful what you say. [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2005]
"Rather than introducing new legislation to muddy up the water in this case the old law you call illegal should be stricken from the books."

First, I never said the LAW was illegal. I said the act of collecting rainwater without a permit was illegal. Second, laws are harder to remove than they are to alter. It's called the legislative process. Look it up.

"You should rewrite the other law that states all waters belong to the people of Washington and are therefore regulated by the state."

Would you prefer the rivers, lakes, streams, and basins were instead up for sale? Or are they owned and regulated by nobody, and therefore you can dump used motor oil and garbage into every waterway you see? Are you SURE you want to go that far?

"In other words what is your is yours but the state will decide what you can do with it for your benefit. BULL"

In other words, the state represents the people, and the state decides, via representatives who represent the people, what to do with the waterways of the state. Are you suggesting that you don't like the idea of a representative federalist society with democratic leanings? That sounds MIGHTY close to saying you don't like America.
Reply New Comment

Line

134) Seriously, learn to read. [by randis on January 21, 2005]
Currently, you are required to obtain a permit to collect rainwater. Look at the law. "Permit by rule" means that the state won't ask for permits, but will allow people, as a rule, to do it on their own. And the DOE would do nothing other than set general parameters for rain-collection cisterns. It wouldn't be TAXING cisterns. It wouldn't be SELLING cisterns. It would be doing nothing more than creating guidelines with which manufacturers would have to comply for the safety and well-being of users and the environment. Is that something to which you object?
Reply New Comment

Line

135) Old Horseman [by Anonymous Citizen on January 19, 2005]
I have finaly come to the point in my life that even being retired and disabled I may have to some day take a STAND AGAINST THIS SOCIALIST GROUP RUNNING WILD IN OUR STATE GOV. I already Knew we were in deep trouble a couple years ago but thought that I was on my retirement farm and they couldn't touch me but now I am getting angry and nervous. It is almost as if they were daring us to take up arms to defend our property so they can grab it all after the swat team leaves.
Reply New Comment

Line

136) Hey, old man... [by randis on January 20, 2005]
Why don't you try doing something like reading the bill and the explanations of it that have been provided here? They make clear that currently, if you're collecting water without a state-issued permit, you're BREAKING THE LAW. This bill would make it so you don't have to obtain a permit to collect rainwater. So, you see, it would actually REMOVE restrictions, not INTRODUCE them. You know, being old doesn't equal being wise. You, too, must stop voting. You are polluting the world with the backwash that is your intellect.
Reply New Comment

Line

137) sue the state [by Anonymous Citizen on January 19, 2005]
If the state now owns the rain. Maybe we can sue for damages for the current floods.
Reply New Comment

Line

138) Idiot. [by randis on January 20, 2005]
People have already made this stupid statement. That, and the fact that you've refused to read the explanation of the bill, or the bill itself, show that you're an idiot. Stop voting. We don't need the opinion of the daft and mentally incompetent to interfere with the proper function of government.
Reply New Comment

Line

139) Boot On Your Neck Party [by Anonymous Citizen on January 19, 2005]
It doesn't matter if it's a Republicrat or a Demopublican, they all want to run your lives. The only question is which rights are you willing to give up first? That's the sole difference between them.
Reply New Comment

Line

140) Have you READ the explanations? [by randis on January 20, 2005]
The current law states you MUST obtain a permit to collect rainwater. The bill states that the state will permit you to collect rainwater without obtaining a permit. Seriously, you people are stupider than stupid. Sheep, indeed.
Reply New Comment

Line

141) Sheep indeed [by Anonymous Citizen on January 20, 2005]
I agree that people have misread the intent of the proposed legislation. But this whole issue does seem to have sparked some long lingering resentment which I believe is real and should be understood.
Reply New Comment

Line

142) So you own the rain now [by Anonymous Citizen on January 19, 2005]
This is really great news that you own the rain I am sure that there will be happy to know that they have someone to hold responsible for any flooding or other damage that can be caused due to the rain. My roof is starting to grow moss due to much rain, my gutters are in need of repair due to too much rain, I have problems with soil errosion due to rain. This will be great. Please send me an address where I can send the bills.
Reply New Comment

Line

143) You're too late. [by randis on January 20, 2005]
See, the state is trying to make it so the state DOESN'T own the rain, as it claims to currently do under current state law. So, in effect, you're complaining that the state is saying it doesn't want to regulate rainfall. Do you understand how stupid that makes you sound?
Reply New Comment

Line

144) The Roman Way [by Anonymous Citizen on January 19, 2005]
Back in the day, Rome remedied failure of its own, by DECIMATION: To reduce (i.e. kill publicly) by 1/10 the number of the group concerned as to motivate the remaining 9/10 to improve their behavior,conduct, results,and accomplishing the assigned duty.
Attention senator, congressmen, civil servants of all station: Pull your collective heads out of your backside or be removed!
Reply New Comment

Line

145) You're right. [by randis on January 21, 2005]
I agree. This bill is terrible because it would keep you from being forced to get a permit to collect rainwater on your own property under the authority of a 1917 law. I agree that general rules for cisterns is far more oppressive than forcing people to obtain permits from the state.
Reply New Comment

Line

146) Permit by RULE folks! [by Anonymous Citizen on January 19, 2005]
I am glad the Senator took the time to clarify the bill. If you knee-jerk reation hotheads had actually read what you were reading though you might have noticed the words "The department may permit by rule..." and saved yourselves another trip to the ammo shop.
Reply New Comment

Line

147) Modus Operandi! [by Anonymous Citizen on January 19, 2005]
The Democrat modus Operandi is Dialectic Materialism, the concept of two steps forward (towards a Socialist Utopia) then one step back (to eliminate dissent