Monday, June 23, 2008
Is there anything that cannot be regulated and/or taxed?
Ecology doesn’t require homeowners to obtain water right permits to collect and store small amounts of rainwater. The new rule for the first time would define how much rainwater can be collected and used before a permit is required. The rule isn’t intended to regulate storage and release of rainwater when no “beneficial use” will be made of the water.I would think this would set a dangerous precedent with respect to sunshine collection as well.
Under state law, beneficial uses include recreation, irrigation, residential water supplies and power generation.
Washington law identifies rainwater as a water resource of the state.
17 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Jun 23, 01:15:00 PM:
Charlotesvillian, how about turning the point around and addressing this question: is there anything that should be taxed? More specifically, do you think the government should pay for what it takes/does? If so, how much, and from whom should the money come? And how, specifically, would you pay the current debt?
No caca about "ending waste, fraud and abuse" now--you are a human being, not a politician. And if you want to say "tax cuts will pay for themselves," please show how much of a tax cut will generate how much GDP (in order to complete the equation).
If your answer is "end wasteful programs," please specify which, and how much money they could save (abolishing, e.g., West Point or the Center for Disease Control is not likely to balance the budget).
If your answer is "start the printing presses and degrade the value of money," please specify how many extra dollars you would expect to print.
This is open book. Take all the time you want.
By 
Charlottesvillain, at
Mon Jun 23, 01:38:00 PM:
Sir, my position on tax cuts really isn't the question at hand now, is it. If and when I feel compelled to post on such, I will do so (although you'll more likely hear from co-bloggers).
In case my position on the ACTUAL topic needs clarification, I'll draw this line and say that rain that falls on my private property, on which I already pay taxes, is not a "resource" of my local government, and should be free of regulation, taxation, usage fees, etc. The imposition of such I would regard as tyranny.
Is that clear enough for you?
By , at
Mon Jun 23, 02:31:00 PM:
Downstream water rights are a big deal in the west. I live in Colorado and would not be surprised if we didn't have a similar law. While the western edge of Washington State get quite a bit of rain, eastern Washington is what I would call a high semi-desert climate. Enjoy your posts. Thanks for contributing to this blog.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Mon Jun 23, 03:01:00 PM:
Fair enough point. I know water is a touchy issue and I understand the issue of downstream rights on existing water flows. But I don't see how water cachement on my roof can possibly be construed the same way.
Are there any resource lawyers out there who can enlighten us further on this?
By GreenmanTim, at
Mon Jun 23, 03:37:00 PM:
One of the bigger reasons to encourage homeowner retention of rainwater in more developed areas is mentioned in the Department of Ecology announcement to which you linked, CV:
"[The Department of] Ecology is encouraging rainwater collection in urban areas like Puget Sound where it can be used to reduce stormwater runoff and supplement municipal water supplies."
Laudible, given the amount of impervious surface and nonpoint source pollution generated by such runoff. Taxing urban rain barrels probably falls below the threshold they are shooting for and certainly would work against this DOE objective. I agree that downstream water rights and the disparity between eastern and Western Washington probably are at the heart of whatever ambiguity currently exists in Washington Law on this point.
By Purple Avenger, at
Mon Jun 23, 04:04:00 PM:
Taxing urban rain barrels probably falls below the threshold they are shooting for
That depends on whether the threshold is for gallons or cash. Localities are looking for all sorts of new and creative ways to extract cash from people these days.
By , at
Mon Jun 23, 05:56:00 PM:
As a Washington resident, I can tell you that the current government has yet to meet a tax they don't like - their only problem with taxes is in when to implement them and how to spin them in the news.
By , at
Mon Jun 23, 05:57:00 PM:
Look at what they're taxing here in Annapolis.
JLW III
By davod, at
Mon Jun 23, 06:24:00 PM:
Taking a libert with an old military saying (They get a contractor to do it now:
If it cannot be regulated or taxed, paint it.
By , at
Mon Jun 23, 08:20:00 PM:
"Sir, my position on tax cuts really isn't the question at hand now..."
Not if you choose for it not to be. But that is the point: I may misoverestimate, but I believe you TigerHawks seem to be a reasonably housebroken and socialized crowd: you have the skills, the forum, and the audience to set forth a really intelligent conservative agenda. Taking potshots at silly taxes is like dynamiting whales in a barrel--a gross misuse of your skill set. Leave that kind of stuff for the kids in bowties, and shape up.
By , at
Mon Jun 23, 10:24:00 PM:
Fresh water is a natural resource that most people take for granted. Like energy, we expect to have the fresh water we want, when we want it and at a low price. Supplying that fresh water is becoming more problematic for the water companies, which are primarily government owned or controlled.
It makes a lot of sense for the government to pass a law claiming all the rainfall as belonging to the government. At some point in the future, the price of water will be high enough to justify taxing the water that falls on your property – used or unused.
By , at
Mon Jun 23, 10:30:00 PM:
I am not a resource lawyer, however I did take one class on water law last semester. (I realize this is akin to saying I slept at a Holiday Inn Express in terms of qualifying me to make any input.)
Let's go with the 30,000 gallon cistern mentioned in the link as the example for discussion. Discussing a 50 gallon tank is abusrd.
As an initial point, Washington does indeed hold that water is the property of the state and that individuals may make use of the water without taking actual possesion. In other words, water is a usufruct. This is not an uncommon doctrine. The unique nature of water make water regulation a very complicated and confusing body of law. Indeed, the Supreme Court typically refers cases involving water disputes between states back to a special master to avoid having to decide them.
Using the extreme example of a 30,000 gallon cistern, imagine a landowner with no ready access to water. By shaping his land in such a way that the water flowed into the cistern, he would take water rights away from who the state has assigned/granted them to by preventing the runoff from joining a stream or creek or settling into the aquafier. Determining exactly who has been hurt would be a nightmare of hydrological studies.
Without being able to locate who is bearing the cost of the externality, taxes may be the only way to internalize the cost.
That being said, this is ridiculous. Far more expensive then just sucking it up. Another case of the government using a shotgun to kill a fly.
By pst314, at
Mon Jun 23, 11:05:00 PM:
"but I believe you TigerHawks seem to be a reasonably housebroken and socialized crowd...shape up"
Gee, I'm glad we meet with your approval.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Jun 24, 02:02:00 PM:
"It makes a lot of sense for the government to pass a law claiming all the rainfall as belonging to the government."
In a fucking police state. People have no control over that. It's not a transaction. Why not tax them for the air they breathe? The sunlight that falls on their property? Snow and hail? How about lightning strikes? That's electric power, after all.
Do you expect people to be financially ruined because of a rainy season?
Taxing rain. I swear, people get stupider as time goes on.
By , at
Tue Jun 24, 05:54:00 PM:
Dawnfire82,
My understanding of the proposed tax is not to tax rain. It is to tax rain collected instead of allowed to run off. That run off, as it trickles through creeks and porous sub-surfance material to major rivers and aquifers, has likely already been sold.
This is NOT analagous to being taxed for sunlight as sunlight does not flow through your property to someone else's land.
It's admittedly a poor idea but let's not get too moonbat crazy from a stupid idea. We're not Democrats after all.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Jun 24, 11:44:00 PM:
Your clarification is not unappreciated, but I still say it's taxing rainfall.
How dare you utilize a natural resource that falls from the sky for free?
I'm glad I'm leaving this state...
By joated, at
Wed Jun 25, 08:38:00 PM:
Is there a tax on large parking lots that do not collect water in retention basins or dry wells so it may be put into the local aquifer? If such water is merely diverted to storm sewers and dumped into local streams or rivers it will end up in the ocean. Put into the ground it may be reused by wells and or streams many times.
What happens to water from sewage treatment plants? Into runoff (streams and rivers) or into the ground (dry wells and aquifer recharge)?
This is an assinine position even when one considers water law out west.
