Holy fucking fuck...Boyes couldn't suck a dick if it landed in his mouth.

People have solar panels all over the country and the government doesn't claim it's "their" sun. In fact, many people sell the excess energy from their own solar panels back to the power companies.

(NaturalNews) Many of the freedoms we enjoy here in the U.S. are quickly eroding as the nation transforms from the land of the free into the land of the enslaved, but what I'm about to share with you takes the assault on our freedoms to a whole new level. You may not be aware of this, but many Western states, including Utah, Washington and Colorado, have long outlawed individuals from collecting rainwater on their own properties because, according to officials, that rain belongs to someone else.

As bizarre as it sounds, laws restricting property owners from "diverting" water that falls on their own homes and land have been on the books for quite some time in many Western states. Only recently, as droughts and renewed interest in water conservation methods have become more common, have individuals and business owners started butting heads with law enforcement over the practice of collecting rainwater for personal use.

Check out this YouTube video of a news report out of Salt Lake City, Utah, about the issue. It's illegal in Utah to divert rainwater without a valid water right, and Mark Miller of Mark Miller Toyota, found this out the hard way.

After constructing a large rainwater collection system at his new dealership to use for washing new cars, Miller found out that the project was actually an "unlawful diversion of rainwater." Even though it makes logical conservation sense to collect rainwater for this type of use since rain is scarce in Utah, it's still considered a violation of water rights which apparently belong exclusively to Utah's various government bodies.

"Utah's the second driest state in the nation. Our laws probably ought to catch up with that," explained Miller in response to the state's ridiculous rainwater collection ban.

Salt Lake City officials worked out a compromise with Miller and are now permitting him to use "their" rainwater, but the fact that individuals like Miller don't actually own the rainwater that falls on their property is a true indicator of what little freedom we actually have here in the U.S. (Access to the rainwater that falls on your own property seems to be a basic right, wouldn't you agree?)

Outlawing rainwater collection in other states

Utah isn't the only state with rainwater collection bans, either. Colorado and Washington also have rainwater collection restrictions that limit the free use of rainwater, but these restrictions vary among different areas of the states and legislators have passed some laws to help ease the restrictions.

In Colorado, two new laws were recently passed that exempt certain small-scale rainwater collection systems, like the kind people might install on their homes, from collection restrictions.

Prior to the passage of these laws, Douglas County, Colorado, conducted a study on how rainwater collection affects aquifer and groundwater supplies. The study revealed that letting people collect rainwater on their properties actually reduces demand from water facilities and improves conservation.

Personally, I don't think a study was even necessary to come to this obvious conclusion. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that using rainwater instead of tap water is a smart and useful way to conserve this valuable resource, especially in areas like the West where drought is a major concern.

Additionally, the study revealed that only about three percent of Douglas County's precipitation ended up in the streams and rivers that are supposedly being robbed from by rainwater collectors. The other 97 percent either evaporated or seeped into the ground to be used by plants.

This hints at why bureaucrats can't really use the argument that collecting rainwater prevents that water from getting to where it was intended to go. So little of it actually makes it to the final destination that virtually every household could collect many rain barrels worth of rainwater and it would have practically no effect on the amount that ends up in streams and rivers.

It's all about control, really

As long as people remain unaware and uninformed about important issues, the government will continue to chip away at the freedoms we enjoy. The only reason these water restrictions are finally starting to change for the better is because people started to notice and they worked to do something to reverse the law.

Even though these laws restricting water collection have been on the books for more than 100 years in some cases, they're slowly being reversed thanks to efforts by citizens who have decided that enough is enough.

Because if we can't even freely collect the rain that falls all around us, then what, exactly, can we freely do? The rainwater issue highlights a serious overall problem in America today: diminishing freedom and increased government control.

Today, we've basically been reprogrammed to think that we need permission from the government to exercise our inalienable rights, when in fact the government is supposed to derive its power from us. The American Republic was designed so that government would serve the People to protect and uphold freedom and liberty. But increasingly, our own government is restricting people from their rights to engage in commonsense, fundamental actions such as collecting rainwater or buying raw milk from the farmer next door.

Today, we are living under a government that has slowly siphoned off our freedoms, only to occasionally grant us back a few limited ones under the pretense that they're doing us a benevolent favor.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/029286_rainw ... z1n8MZkcy0

Holy fucking fuck...Boyes couldn't suck a dick if it landed in his mouth.

Oh Stu...that analogy to the human body is kinda off. The earth doesn't die from warming or cooling, it's a natural cycle that it goes through and keeps on ticking...until the sun expands and ultimately burns it up in another 4.5 million years. Humans aren't privy to being around that long, we don't deserve to, just as about every other living species hasn't deserved to last as long as the earth.

Really, the only way for humans to extend their stay on earth is to stop reproducing so much. Even green technology will have limits of some sort with a population that continues to increase.

None of this global warming debate centers around human comfort or convenience, it's all about saving the earth. The earth is going to do what it's been doing all along regardless, we're just around for a short spin in the meantime...until the asteroid or nuclear winter.

Jeremy : Water rights have been a political football in the west since the area was initially settled. It's a really big stretch to say that because of that you couldn't put a water wheel on a river that you owned.

Holy fucking fuck...Boyes couldn't suck a dick if it landed in his mouth.

I disagree here. I think it's almost entirely about extending that human spin precisely because the earth will do what it will with or without us.

Holy fucking fuck...Boyes couldn't suck a dick if it landed in his mouth.

Pat, I don't know what your job or lifestyle is, but why is it asinine to question how much effect humans have on global warming? To deny any causation at all might be asinine, but on the other hand the causation might be so insignificant that all the lobbying for green energy sources may be extrememly overblown.

Holy fucking fuck...Boyes couldn't suck a dick if it landed in his mouth.

BagBoy, I in no way (personally) refuse to acknowledge humans' impact on global warming. CO2 emissions are certainly a result of human activity, but there's still a challenge in attaching that factor to the recent overall rise in temperature since the industrial revolution. There's the "mini ice-age" during a several hundred year period leading up to the industrial revolution that jacks up a proper comparison of temperatures. There is the issue of mini temperature waves during each century to deal with, and then figuring out how the earth's overall temperature has actually increased over the larger course of time.

I hardly have my head in the sand trying to ignore the issue. If anything I think I look at a much wider array of factors that (unfortunately for some) cloud the issue and make a clearer answer harder to find. No matter how you look at it though, the answer is certainly not to demonize one political party in one country for not handing over all forms of political or financial support for an array of unproven (as far as financial viability or sometimes actual science) "green" technologies that won't ever have more than a minute effect on the global climate as long as the rest of the world doesn't make the same effort. Especially when the motivations of the other party are dubious when considering the power/money/vote grabbing of effect of lobbying by these green technology corporations. It's warm and fuzzy to think they just want to save the earth, but they're in it for the money just like big oil corps are.

To use the sick person analogy, I'm going to say you're the guy who died of an illness without treatment, because you were too worried about being a hypochondriac and didn't want to pay the doctor bill. I'll agree they don't have a solution, but the big oil lobbyist shouldn't be pushing conservatives to no action at all. Your comment that people will just move elsewhere is laughable. There are very severe implications here, including severe drought and famine. I'm not going to get into this too much, but the bottom line is that we NEED renewable energy anyhow. Gas and oil are limited, and the implications of shortages on the world economy would be unimaginable. Wake up, and realize you're being brainwashed by corporate ideology(much the same way they did with 'frivolous lawsuits'). As far as the greed battle goes, I'll take the side of the guys who are offering a cleaner planet in the end.

Where the hell is Pat Green when ya need him?