6 ms·

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2016a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/E38A8DB3F0B7739887257F240063F8A2?Open&file=1005_signed.pdf http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clic

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2016a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/E38A8DB3F0B7739887257F240063F8A2?Open&file=1005_signed.pdf http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2016a/csl.nsf/fsbillco... Nothing about wells or rural areas, just 1-4 family units max and 110 gallons https://source.colostate.edu/extension-offers-fact-sheet-on-how-to-harvest-rainwater-under-new-colorado-rules/ https://source.colostate.edu/extension-offers-fact-sheet-on-... Previously they were only "technically" illegal because as written, you had to prove they injured the water rights of others.

monocasa 7y ago
> Nothing about wells or rural areas, just 1-4 family units max and 110 gallons The part you're looking for is the part about the state engineer. I'm not sure if it's all settled, but the goal there is to ban it in places where they can make an argument that the grey water in the rain barrels and the rest of the water infrastructure might mix. That means that rural areas off of water infrastructure are the only safe ones long term. > Previously they were only "technically" illegal because as written, you had to prove they injured the water rights of others. There was case law that any collection infringed on the water rights of others, because otherwise the water would flow into aquifers and what not if you only had a third grade knowledge of the water cycle. You didn't have to find the specific person that was harmed. My MIL in rural JeffCo got in a zoning fight with county gov, and that was one of the things they successfully hit her with. It was enforced, my own family got hit with it.
- thatcat 7y ago
  How can you prove that it doesn't evaporate?
  - monocasa 7y ago
    That's not how the burden of proof worked. It was established case law that any collected rainwater without clear water rights was infringing. It's like if you went into fight a speeding ticket by questioning quality of the radar gun. I mean, in an ideal world you should be allowed to, but it's not going to fly. Our common law style system has this overarching goal of internal consistency, and there's been tons of cases where the radar (or maybe some relative of the radar, but close enough as far as the court is concerned) has been legally found in the past to be trustworthy. It's also in the Court's best interest to have this line of reasoning because it saves the court from having to rehash the same arguments saving the court immeasurable amount of time. About the only way you can get out of that situation is new legislation. The courts here had gotten into a similar state where it wasn't really willing to hear new evidence on the matter, and needed legislation to patchfix. Something something checks and balances.

monocasa 7y ago

> Nothing about wells or rural areas, just 1-4 family units max and 110 gallons The part you're looking for is the part about the state engineer. I'm not sure if it's all settled, but the goal there is to ban it in places where they can make an argument that the grey water in the rain barrels and the rest of the water infrastructure might mix. That means that rural areas off of water infrastructure are the only safe ones long term. > Previously they were only "technically" illegal because as written, you had to prove they injured the water rights of others. There was case law that any collection infringed on the water rights of others, because otherwise the water would flow into aquifers and what not if you only had a third grade knowledge of the water cycle. You didn't have to find the specific person that was harmed. My MIL in rural JeffCo got in a zoning fight with county gov, and that was one of the things they successfully hit her with. It was enforced, my own family got hit with it.

thatcat 7y ago
How can you prove that it doesn't evaporate?
- monocasa 7y ago
  That's not how the burden of proof worked. It was established case law that any collected rainwater without clear water rights was infringing. It's like if you went into fight a speeding ticket by questioning quality of the radar gun. I mean, in an ideal world you should be allowed to, but it's not going to fly. Our common law style system has this overarching goal of internal consistency, and there's been tons of cases where the radar (or maybe some relative of the radar, but close enough as far as the court is concerned) has been legally found in the past to be trustworthy. It's also in the Court's best interest to have this line of reasoning because it saves the court from having to rehash the same arguments saving the court immeasurable amount of time. About the only way you can get out of that situation is new legislation. The courts here had gotten into a similar state where it wasn't really willing to hear new evidence on the matter, and needed legislation to patchfix. Something something checks and balances.