It is currently Tue May 17, 2022 11:23 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 
 Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states of US 
Author Message
GT Truther
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:32 pm
Posts: 144
Location: Melbourne, Australia
 Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states of US
Gidday folks....

I came across this interesting article for my friends in the US.
Australia's government is currently trying to introduce a tax on air. (Carbon tax).
It's really getting quite ridiculous. :headbang

http://www.naturalnews.com/029286_rainwater_collection_water.html

Ciao ! Trex.

_________________
'Til here, No further...


Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:51 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:54 am
Posts: 4952
Location: Canada
Post Re: Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states of US
You have got to be kidding me :shakehead :scared :awe

Can anyone in the US confirm this for us???

Thanks for the link Trex :clap

_________________
Image Please Obey the Golden Rules viewtopic.php?f=31&t=3563&p=40912#p40912


Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:59 pm
Profile WWW
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:54 am
Posts: 4952
Location: Canada
Post Re: Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states of US
I am going to be buying two of these shortly

http://rainbarrel.ca/yardpickup/

_________________
Image Please Obey the Golden Rules viewtopic.php?f=31&t=3563&p=40912#p40912


Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:11 pm
Profile WWW
GT Truther
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:31 pm
Posts: 2800
Location: Fennell bay N.S.W. (AUS)
Post Re: Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states of US
L2L wrote:
I am going to be buying two of these shortly

http://rainbarrel.ca/yardpickup/


They will make it so you need both a LICENSE AND A PERMIT to collect rainwater in the U.S. +CANADA and a LICENSE PLUS PERMIT TO BREATHE THE AIR IN AUSTRALIA.

FACE MASKS ANYONE?

Image

_________________
I am a HIGHLY STRUNG PRIMA DONNA (atari)


Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:36 pm
Profile YIM
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:21 am
Posts: 2775
Post Re: Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states of US
L2L wrote:
You have got to be kidding me :shakehead :scared :awe

Can anyone in the US confirm this for us???

Thanks for the link Trex :clap


Gosh yes, L, there has been talk of this for years, going back 3 years ago or more!

Here's just one brief excerpt:

Is Rainwater Collecting Really Illegal in Some States?

Fri, Jan 2, 2009

by Jane Palmer on 10/10/08 at 9:59 am

Rain. Just because it falls on your roof doesn’t mean it’s yours. At least not in Colorado or Utah.

In these states, citizens or businesses that attempt to collect or store rainwater are in fact breaking the law. The overriding rule here is that of prior appropriation i.e. in order to have any rights to water you have to gain a state water right.

http://www.rainwatercollecting.com/blog ... me-states/

Anyway, if it is in Natural News, you can count that as a reliable source. He editorializes, but always links his news stories to sources.

_________________
"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything." ~ Albert Einstein


Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:37 pm
Profile YIM
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:54 am
Posts: 4952
Location: Canada
Post Re: Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states of US
That is absolutely INSANE....

What in the world would be the motive behind this other than total and complete control of the people

_________________
Image Please Obey the Golden Rules viewtopic.php?f=31&t=3563&p=40912#p40912


Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:14 am
Profile WWW
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:59 am
Posts: 6532
Location: Friendswood, TX
Post Re: Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states of US
Yup, the Western States in the US have long had arcane water rights laws.

Ever read Centennial by James Michener?

Here is a bit from the Utah Division of Water Rights web site:

Quote:
Is the practice of harvesting rainwater legal in Utah?

Rainwater harvesting is now legal in the state of Utah, starting May 11 2010. Senate Bill 32 was approved in the 2010 session that provides for the collection and use of precipitation without obtaining a water right after registering on the Division of Water Rights web page (waterrights.utah.gov). There is no charge for registration.

Storage is limited to one underground 2500 gallon container or two above ground 100 gallon containers. Collection and use are limited to the same parcel of land owned or leased by the rainwater collector.

To read SB 32 in its entirety click here.

To register to harvest rainwater click here.


http://www.waterrights.utah.gov/wrinfo/faq.asp

Rainwater Collection Now Legal for Some Colorado Residents
Tue, Mar 31, 2009
Rainwater News, Uncategorized
by Terry Jessup

Colorado lawmakers have passed a bill that loosens a 19th century ban on people who want to collect rainwater.

snip

That’s because Colorado law dating back to the 19th century said every drop of rain must flow unimpeded into surrounding creeks and streams, that it was the property of farmers and ranchers and anyone else who had purchased the rights to those waterways.

“You’ve got to be kidding. You’re breaking the law if you put a rain barrel in to capture rain?” said Rep. Marsha Looper, R-Calhan.

That was the reaction of Looper’s constituents, prompting her and Romer to get the 120-year-old law changed. They did it by presenting a study that showed 97 percent of rainwater never makes it to streams because it evaporates.

The bill that has passed says residents can now collect it with certain restrictions.

“You can capture enough rain or snow to be able to put in a garden, to be able to irrigate up to an acre of land, to be able to possibly put out a small fire,” Looper said.

Residents still can’t harvest rain without a permit from the state engineer’s office, and the permits are targeted for those who live in rural areas, not people living the suburbs.

If you’re tied to some type of commercial water system, or municipal water system, you may not be able to put a rain barrel in,” Looper said.

Read more here: http://www.rainwatercollecting.com/blog/2009/03/rainwater-collection-now-legal-for-some-colorado-residents/

_________________
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR


Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:11 am
Profile
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:21 am
Posts: 2775
Post Re: Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states of US
Just for the fun of it - I have a pool. What do I do if it rains and I live where it is illegal to collect rainwater? Do I have to cover the pool when it rains? My pool holds about 7500 gal. of water. I would be way above the legal limit for collecting rainwater, even where the law has been changed. Now if you would say, of course you're not collecting rainwater - it's a swimming pool.... that makes the whole law invalid or just plain idiotic (which of course it is). Despite the cost, I have insisted on keeping my above ground pool, even when my son encouraged me to tear it down and make a lawn, or a garden. Why? So I could take a dip on a hot day? NO! so I have a source of water if the city water supply is unavailable for whatever reason (I could list quite a few, too). And I'll take all the rain the Good Lord chooses to drop in my rain barrel .. err .. pool.

_________________
"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything." ~ Albert Einstein


Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:51 am
Profile YIM
GT Truther
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:32 pm
Posts: 144
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Post Re: Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states of US
You make a good point rutsuyasun.

Those who can afford pools would probably have a loophole, as they are often part of the elite.

Australian water has been privatised for a while now. Executives earn up to $1 million per year.
But, the severe drought in Victoria saw a local man in the west delivering truckloads of water to his neighbors & neighboring towns for free. (Charity). He got it from a bore, that had been in his family since the 1850's. They totally owned the land and could prove an unbroken continuing association.

Despite all this he was successfully prosecuted by the State Water Board and had to cease his activities and allow the surrounding area to go dry. I think the excuse was that he was lowering the water table. This is absolute bullshit, as the southern aquifer stretches from South Australia to the east coast of Victoria & it "filters in" seawater all the time. (This is also the reason why Victorias $42 billion dollar de-salinisation plant is such a white elephant. Apart from the fact that it has been raining for nearly a year now & our dams are all full, the Government simply doesn't want people to know they can tap into the unlimited supply of the underground aquifer. (They say it will cost $42 billion to cancel the project).

Nothing but fascist totalitarian control. I'm just thankful that our government is not as good at it, as the English, or US governments. Although they're pretty bloody good at telling people what they want to hear & then being completely bloody evil, make an excuse, and then do the very things they promised not to do when they were elected.

Carbon-tax on owning a dog & paying for the air it breathes is estimated to be around $10-15 per year.

I wonder if I could be prosecuted for manufacturing oxygen through solar powered hydrolysis ?

Trex.

_________________
'Til here, No further...


Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:37 pm
Profile
GT Truther
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:31 pm
Posts: 2800
Location: Fennell bay N.S.W. (AUS)
Post Re: Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states of US
Trex wrote:
I wonder if I could be prosecuted for manufacturing oxygen through solar powered hydrolysis ?
Trex.


Trex,

They will make that ILLEGAL too. TPTB are PIGS that I would NEVER give my pearls too.

_________________
I am a HIGHLY STRUNG PRIMA DONNA (atari)


Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:50 pm
Profile YIM
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:54 am
Posts: 4952
Location: Canada
Post Re: Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states of US
Trex Ausie sounds much like Canada, they try and pull the BS the US and Britts get away with and we the public tell them to pound salt only to find out three years later they found, or more likely RAMMED through some piece of legislationto that let's them get away what they wanted in the first place :roll :crazy :headbang

ALL GOVERNMENT IS A PONZI SCHEME PERIOD.

The sooner the Sheeple wake up and realize that the better IMHO

I say its time for the people to take down the PTB, and I mean ACROSS the board TOP to BOTTOM.

If anyone has a better idea than ANOYMOUS I am all ears...

_________________
Image Please Obey the Golden Rules viewtopic.php?f=31&t=3563&p=40912#p40912


Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:02 pm
Profile WWW
GT Truther
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:32 pm
Posts: 144
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Post Re: Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states of US
Yep L2L,

The Aussies & the Canadians have a lot in common. Firstly the Westminster system of government, which dates back to the Magna Carta, is exactly the same in both countries, & thus, so is the legal system.
(If your slave management aint broke, then there's no reason to fix it.)

I believe Canada print their own money, (we have a US-type Federal Reserve), but Canada was shafted about 40 years ago when credit-cards took hold. (from Paul Hellyer).

Your right, though. As far as legislation goes. They tell people what people want to hear, because that's what people like.
People are always happier when they hear something they like. It has nothing to do with what governments actually do.
I was shocked to see the 7 news today actually featured a clip of the President of the Czeck Republic telling the world that the carbon trading scheme was a product of elite bankers who wanted to make money out of the global warming they already knew was going to happen.

Every 10 years the entire human race produce as much carbon as the Mt St Helens eruption. It is a pittance.

The "Liberal" party, (basicly corporate Royalists, whose nearest American equivalent would be the Republicans), were the first ones to propose a Carbon Tax on air. They were ousted from power then, and now they are against it, in the tradition of the mockery of being a supposed opposition.
The "Labour" party (traditionally like the US Democrats), have now brought it in...

This is the most modern proof that they are both working for a globalists agenda, but there are many others.

What happened with the water was at a state level, but this is also the Westminster system. Whilst having the pretext of democratic government for the people, the reality is that political parties are corporate sponsored & that is who they answer to for their existence. They are nothing if they don't protect their own existence. Democracy is just another word for Fascism.
People don't count for shit. If you admit your a citizen, then you admit to being a corporate product.
Never sign anything that has your surname in CAPITOL LETTERS ! That is the second you. The dead one. The corporate you.

fr33kshow. I wouldn't spray my pearls on their dead carcass's. Good on ya mate!

Trex.

_________________
'Til here, No further...


Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:26 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:59 am
Posts: 6532
Location: Friendswood, TX
Post Re: Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states of US
Quote:
Carbon-tax on owning a dog & paying for the air it breathes is estimated to be around $10-15 per year.


:awe

Are you serious? I have two doxies!!! :rant

_________________
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR


Wed Jul 27, 2011 7:11 am
Profile
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:21 am
Posts: 2775
Post Re: Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states of US
Nestle CEO seeks to control the world's water supply

Gun control may be a hot topic, but what about water control? Recent comments from Nestle CEO Peter Brabeck imply that the world's water will soon come under the control of corporations like his. Brabeck makes the astonishing claim that water is not a human right, but should be managed by business people and governing bodies. He wants water controlled, privatized, and delegated in a way that sustains the planet. View the astonishing interview here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iGj4GpAbTM

Water control hitting the United States
All of this means that Brabeck's future plans include monitoring and controlling the amount of water people use. One day, cities and towns may be forced by international law to limit each household to a set amount of water. People may have to obtain permits to dig wells or pay fines for collecting rainwater. Laws like these are already in motion in the United States. Learn more here: http://www.naturalnews.com/029286_rainw ... water.html

Nestle's CEO thinks all water should have a price
In the interview, Brabeck touts that his company is the largest foodstuff corporation in the world with over $65 billion in profit each year. He proudly claims that millions of people are dependent on him and his company.

Con. http://www.naturalnews.com/040026_Nestl ... ation.html

_________________
"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything." ~ Albert Einstein


Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:12 am
Profile YIM
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:59 am
Posts: 6532
Location: Friendswood, TX
Post Re: Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states of US
Water Challenge - a blog by Peter Brabeck-Letmathe

Water is a human right – but not a free good

04 October 2012 - by Peter Brabeck-Letmathe Tags: water, human rights, municipal water, is water free?, drinking water, free water, water demand

UN Resolution 64/292, 28 July 2010 states:

“The General Assembly

1. Recognizes the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights;

2. Calls upon States and international organizations to provide financial resources, capacity-building and technology transfer, through international assistance and cooperation, in particular to developing countries, in order to scale up efforts to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all.”

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/64/292

Some years ago there was a rather heated debate about whether water should be considered a human right. On the one hand, some might have found the discussion rather bizarre: the right to life is an essential part in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art 3.); since there is no life without water, the access to water for survival is logical part of it. And with Article 24 expressing the right to a standard of living adequate for human health, it is clear that this is about safe water. With this thinking in mind, Nestlé formally (in its business principles) and I personally, in numerous public speeches, have long been strong supporters of water as a human right for many years before the 2010 resolution.

On the other hand, however, some at that time might have found the interpretation of a human right to water rather undifferentiated and radical. This rather extreme interpretation considered any withdrawal a human right and water as a free good. This interpretation is much less widespread today, but if accepted by more people, it could potentially have had serious consequences. The people defending this very extensive view were quite vocal, at times even aggressive. Whoever wanted to set a focus and add some more clarity here – and I was among those – was attacked.

Resolution 64/292 sets this record straight and provides the necessary clarification about the nature of the right and the responsibilities involved. First, it talks about water that is safe and clean for drinking, and about basic hygiene. The World Health Organization estimates the need for drinking, cooking and basic hygiene in emergency situations at 15 litres per person and per day. WHO also mentions a number of out-of-home water requirements, in hospitals, mosques for ceremonial purposes, schools etc. Ultimately, basic needs are estimated by different sources at 25-50 litres per capita and per day. Assuming 25 litres, this would be a global volume of 1.5% of water withdrawals for human use. In other words, the problem here is not shortage of water, but something one might consider bad management.

Second, the United Nations General Assembly in its resolution of 28 July, 2010, leaves no doubt: responsibility is clearly with the state. And actually, more than 97% of municipal water in developing and emerging economies is distributed by publicly owned and publicly managed entities. Most of the remaining 3% are run in public private partnerships: http://www.ppiaf.org/sites/ppiaf.org/files/FINAL-PPPsforUrbanWaterUtilities-PhMarin.pdf. The only notable exception is Chile, which I will come back to.

Rather than concentrating on a legalistic understanding, however, let me illustrate with some practical examples of what seems to work and what may be problematic with respect to water as a human right.

Water as a free good

I mentioned this as an extreme case, and it is still much too often a reality. In the Indian Punjab, for instance, everybody pumps up water from the underground aquifer – mostly to irrigate the fields. There are no limits; electricity for the pumps is provided for free by the government. As a result, water tables are falling by up to one metre per year (National Geophysical Research Institute): http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20091109/main6.htm. Everybody, particularly the farmers withdrawing most of this water, knows that they are destroying their livelihood. But with water as a free good, even if an individual decides to reduce the amount withdrawn by pumping, this individual knows that the neighbours and neighbouring villages will pump up anyway. Water as a free good leads directly to what is known as the ‘tragedy of the commons’; exploited by all, protected by none. For good reasons, it is not part of resolution 64/292.

Untargeted subsidies are counterproductive

Many municipalities are avoiding full cost recovery, both in terms of the capital cost of investment, and often also running costs, which are not covered by the tariffs charged to those who have tap water at home. They do it as a measure of social support to the poor, but actually they only make the water for the more prosperous less expensive. The poor pay the price. The municipal schemes lack resources for proper maintenance and for expansion to those arriving from rural areas. Ultimately, as the chart shows, the poor pay a much higher price for water to street vendors.

Not everybody can afford to pay a tariff for water that covers all costs. So the subsidies for tap water address a real issue, although with the wrong instruments. There are better ways! Let me mention just two examples.

In 2000, the South African government introduced the Free Basic Water policy. Every household who cannot afford to pay will get up to 6,000 litres of water per month at no cost (based on a 25 litres per person per day for an assumed average family of eight): http://www.acwr.co.za/pdf_files/02.pdf

Chile, the main exception where municipal water is distributed by independent private firms, where all costs are fully recovered through water tariffs, introduced the Solidario system in 2002. As part of it, authorities set a percentage of a household’s water bill that can be subsided: not less than 25% or more than 75% of consumption, up to a total consumption of 20 m3 per month. In 2010, 702,000 households received such a subsidy.

A lot remains to be done

About 800 million people in the world still lack access to safe drinking water – the discussion about the human right to water has to continue, not in largely abstract, legal terms but rather as debate about its practical, and in that respect also political, implementation.

This blog is only one among many sites looking into this important topic – but with your comments we may add a few new ideas. I welcome your thoughts.

http://www.water-challenge.com/post/2012/10/04/Water-is-a-human-right-%E2%80%93-but-not-a-free-good.aspx#.UXVlDLWTjsc

He actually writes a blog (or has it written for him):

http://www.water-challenge.com/default.aspx#.UXVll7WTjsd

_________________
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR


Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:34 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:59 am
Posts: 6532
Location: Friendswood, TX
Post Re: Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states of US
Water Challenge - a blog by Peter Brabeck-Letmathe

Water is a human right – but not a free good

04 October 2012 - by Peter Brabeck-Letmathe Tags: water, human rights, municipal water, is water free?, drinking water, free water, water demand

UN Resolution 64/292, 28 July 2010 states:

“The General Assembly

1. Recognizes the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights;

2. Calls upon States and international organizations to provide financial resources, capacity-building and technology transfer, through international assistance and cooperation, in particular to developing countries, in order to scale up efforts to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all.”

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/64/292

Some years ago there was a rather heated debate about whether water should be considered a human right. On the one hand, some might have found the discussion rather bizarre: the right to life is an essential part in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art 3.); since there is no life without water, the access to water for survival is logical part of it. And with Article 24 expressing the right to a standard of living adequate for human health, it is clear that this is about safe water. With this thinking in mind, Nestlé formally (in its business principles) and I personally, in numerous public speeches, have long been strong supporters of water as a human right for many years before the 2010 resolution.

On the other hand, however, some at that time might have found the interpretation of a human right to water rather undifferentiated and radical. This rather extreme interpretation considered any withdrawal a human right and water as a free good. This interpretation is much less widespread today, but if accepted by more people, it could potentially have had serious consequences. The people defending this very extensive view were quite vocal, at times even aggressive. Whoever wanted to set a focus and add some more clarity here – and I was among those – was attacked.

Resolution 64/292 sets this record straight and provides the necessary clarification about the nature of the right and the responsibilities involved. First, it talks about water that is safe and clean for drinking, and about basic hygiene. The World Health Organization estimates the need for drinking, cooking and basic hygiene in emergency situations at 15 litres per person and per day. WHO also mentions a number of out-of-home water requirements, in hospitals, mosques for ceremonial purposes, schools etc. Ultimately, basic needs are estimated by different sources at 25-50 litres per capita and per day. Assuming 25 litres, this would be a global volume of 1.5% of water withdrawals for human use. In other words, the problem here is not shortage of water, but something one might consider bad management.

Second, the United Nations General Assembly in its resolution of 28 July, 2010, leaves no doubt: responsibility is clearly with the state. And actually, more than 97% of municipal water in developing and emerging economies is distributed by publicly owned and publicly managed entities. Most of the remaining 3% are run in public private partnerships: http://www.ppiaf.org/sites/ppiaf.org/files/FINAL-PPPsforUrbanWaterUtilities-PhMarin.pdf. The only notable exception is Chile, which I will come back to.

Rather than concentrating on a legalistic understanding, however, let me illustrate with some practical examples of what seems to work and what may be problematic with respect to water as a human right.

Water as a free good

I mentioned this as an extreme case, and it is still much too often a reality. In the Indian Punjab, for instance, everybody pumps up water from the underground aquifer – mostly to irrigate the fields. There are no limits; electricity for the pumps is provided for free by the government. As a result, water tables are falling by up to one metre per year (National Geophysical Research Institute): http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20091109/main6.htm. Everybody, particularly the farmers withdrawing most of this water, knows that they are destroying their livelihood. But with water as a free good, even if an individual decides to reduce the amount withdrawn by pumping, this individual knows that the neighbours and neighbouring villages will pump up anyway. Water as a free good leads directly to what is known as the ‘tragedy of the commons’; exploited by all, protected by none. For good reasons, it is not part of resolution 64/292.

Untargeted subsidies are counterproductive

Many municipalities are avoiding full cost recovery, both in terms of the capital cost of investment, and often also running costs, which are not covered by the tariffs charged to those who have tap water at home. They do it as a measure of social support to the poor, but actually they only make the water for the more prosperous less expensive. The poor pay the price. The municipal schemes lack resources for proper maintenance and for expansion to those arriving from rural areas. Ultimately, as the chart shows, the poor pay a much higher price for water to street vendors.

Not everybody can afford to pay a tariff for water that covers all costs. So the subsidies for tap water address a real issue, although with the wrong instruments. There are better ways! Let me mention just two examples.

In 2000, the South African government introduced the Free Basic Water policy. Every household who cannot afford to pay will get up to 6,000 litres of water per month at no cost (based on a 25 litres per person per day for an assumed average family of eight): http://www.acwr.co.za/pdf_files/02.pdf

Chile, the main exception where municipal water is distributed by independent private firms, where all costs are fully recovered through water tariffs, introduced the Solidario system in 2002. As part of it, authorities set a percentage of a household’s water bill that can be subsided: not less than 25% or more than 75% of consumption, up to a total consumption of 20 m3 per month. In 2010, 702,000 households received such a subsidy.

A lot remains to be done

About 800 million people in the world still lack access to safe drinking water – the discussion about the human right to water has to continue, not in largely abstract, legal terms but rather as debate about its practical, and in that respect also political, implementation.

This blog is only one among many sites looking into this important topic – but with your comments we may add a few new ideas. I welcome your thoughts.

http://www.water-challenge.com/post/2012/10/04/Water-is-a-human-right-%E2%80%93-but-not-a-free-good.aspx#.UXVlDLWTjsc

He actually writes a blog (or has it written for him):

http://www.water-challenge.com/default.aspx#.UXVll7WTjsd

_________________
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR


Mon Apr 22, 2013 9:43 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.