The two faces of rainwater
July 22nd, 2008 by cdunaganAs we have talked about many times, too much rainwater falling on roads, roofs and other hard surfaces increases surface flows. The extra water has the potential of picking up pollutants and carrying them into sensitive streams and waterways. Higher stream flows also can damage salmon habitat.
Consequently, water-quality experts often encourage the use of rain barrels and cisterns (city of Bremerton). Governments pass tougher stormwater rules to increase the temporary storage of rainwater (Ecology’s Web page).
But what if we collected all the rainwater over a large area and diverted it for other uses? Then there would be no surface flows; stream flows would decline; and fish habitat would be lost. Water would not drain into the ground, so people’s wells would dry up. Established water rights would be useless.
So far, we have more rain than we can reasonably use, and the risk of affecting water rights is small. But the Washington Department of Ecology is thinking ahead to a day when water may be in short supply. The agency is proposing a new rule that will allow the collection of water for rain barrels and small cisterns but require a permit for collecting large amounts of water.
The reason the rule is needed now, according to Ecology’s Preproposal Statement of Inquiry (PDF 88 kb, is that people are confused about how much water they can take without obtaining a water right, which discourages good stromwater management:
This lack of clarity has created a public perception that even tiny amounts of rainwater harvesting and use is subject to the water code and/or permit process. Starting in 2003 and every year thereafter, the legislature has attempted to c1arify this legal ambiguity. All such efforts have failed. Stormwater management is a major problem, particularly in urban settings. The legal ambiguity concerning rainwater harvesting is hindering efforts to utilize rainwater harvesting as a stormwater management tool. If Ecology does not move forward with the rule, the crippling uncertainty will remain.
Ecology is taking suggestions about the amount of water that can be collected without a permit. The rule would authorize the agency to expedite processing of applications when a permit is needed. Some governments, including the city of Seattle, have obtained regionwide permits to allow people to collect rainwater. Those kinds of permits would not be affected by the rule.
For additional information, check out the Department of Ecology news release. Reporter Jennifer Langston did a nice job of putting a human face on the issue in yesterday’s Seattle PI.
Tags: rainwater, Stormwater
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:27 am
Seems to me private property rainfall collected from the rooftop and stored should be the property owners business and not require a permit…but have not considered fish habitat nor wells that might be affected. If any.
Sharon O’Hara
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Rain barrels are great for plants that are sensitive to chlorine added to drinking water piped to our homes. Rain barrels have a very small impact on the storm water problem.
If new homes were built with roofs of enamel steel or fiberglass tiles that feed four 1,000 gallon plastic tanks, having the low flush toilets and whole house water filter, they would not need to be connected to the local water well system. They would have an impact on storm water run off until all four tanks are filled. If the new homes also had a septic waste drain field, most of the water would go into the ground to feed streams and aqua firs. This type of house does require a quarter acre or more of land and developers are placing new houses (with sewer system) into smaller building lots. They are thinking about green money not a green world.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:20 am
“…If the new homes also had a septic waste drain field, most of the water would go into the ground to feed streams and aqua firs. This type of house does require a quarter acre or more of land and developers are placing new houses (with sewer system) into smaller building lots….”
How would clustering the homes work for a greener world? The builder could add x acres of green open space to accommodate the septics.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
It is terrific that there is a place to have this discussion.
The water table isn’t something to be messed with. Pave everything and see what happens to human life, aquatic life, the lives that require the existence of aquatic life, the streams, lakes, wells, and other important connections of which I’m too tired to think.
Several years ago I met with an expert (no, not a pol) in Olympia about salmon and our environment. What I learned was shocking and humbling. We are, all of us, reliant on this water. It truly is a chain. If more than a few people don’t start getting this, we’re in more than serious trouble.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
JJD wrote a great earlier comment on growing pecan trees in a place foreign to them and where they must be irrigated from the (Rio Grande?)
Why do we allow crops in unsuitable places and take needed water from our rivers to water them?
He also mentioned vast cattle lots being watered from the Rio Grande and the resulting residue going into the groundwater and flowing back into the Rio. That is a lot of urine.
Sharon O’Hara
July 25th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
The surface water right issue is a detriment to rainwater harvesting. I would hope that DOE would allow any amount off a roof to be collected for stormwater mitigation, so long as it is returned to the environment at a later time based on an approved water budget. DOE does not require a surface water right for the volumes collected in stormwater vaults or detention ponds (all with delayed release) – Why should they require a surface water right for the stored stormwater when it is release back into the environment? It would reduce the volume of runoff that damages streams during the rainy season and all the water to be released in drier times, helping stream flows when they need it.