Most Recent Comments
1) Re: 2009 House Bill 1179 (using groundwater to water a lawn) [by watchingwaves on January 27, 2009]Thanks for the clarification. I agree, if this was the intent of the bill, I would rather see clear language on what uses are exempt, which ones are not, and where does one cross the limit.
Reply
Actually, the bill would eliminate the permit exemption to use ANY quantity of water for a lawn as it explicitly eliminates lawn watering as an exempt use. All lawn watering would then require a water right permit. Even more ridiculous, striking the exemption as it is written will not allow existing permit well owners to water their current lawns. Therefore, the bill effectively criminalizes the watering of existing lawns by existing permit exempt wells, not just future wells.
I suppose you could argue that "domestic use" would include some lawn watering. However, if the law explicitly eliminates lawn watering as an exempted use, its then hard to argue it is an assumed domestic use that was intended by this new law to still be permissible. And there is nothing I have seen that indicates the reason behind the bill is to stop people from watering up to 5,000 gpd on their lawn. Since there is no lower limit proposed for lawn watering, it seems clear the intent is to eliminate the exemption to use any non-permitted water on a lawn altogether.
The joke is that none of this is enforceable anyway. Its a waste of time and credibility on Mr Upthegrove's part. This bill will die and deserves to.
And I think lawn watering is a waste of water. However, unenforceable and patently silly Nanny State tactics should not be used to reduce water being used on lawns.
WAG
Reply
Doesn't the bill have more to do with whether or not you use more than 5,000 gallons of water per day to water your lawn? Maybe I am mis-reading it.
Reply
View Full Conversation