Regarding the issue of 'rainbarrel'
water catchment. The
completely

stupid requirement of obtaining a water right to catch roof water

needs be addressed. Were we able to utilize this resource, one could

build anywhere in Jefferson C. without a WELL !
Just more 'smart

growth' baloney /   ken shock

=========================================

My note to WRIA 16 facilitator :

Hi Susan et al,

I would like to revisit the issue of rainwater catchment. Given the

benefits of roof water catchment delineated in my prior note to you (

attached ), I feel the Planning Unit should expand item #20 to

include a recommendation that the State remove any 'water right' or

other requirements that impede this domestic use.

We have an opportunity here to create a mechanism whereby all storm

roof runoff is contained and introduced to the aquifer via drainfield

recycle. This would conform to DOE's stormwater
management

recommendations, as presented to this planning unit.

Respectfully....ken shock

www.brinnonprosperity.org

# 20 - The Planning Unit recommends that the State allow catchments

of rainwater in rainbarrels, and expedite water right
applications

for rainwater catchments.

==========previous note===========

Hi Susan

As I recall Stuart did not have roof water catchment for domestic use

on his list of 11 stormwater control measures.
Catchment of roof

water was, however, cited in the DOE Stormwater
presentation two

meetings ago ( the one you missed ), and this was
followed up by

discussion wherein Phil stated that DOE has lobbied the Legislature

recently, favoring the practice of collection. As you know this topic

came up again last meeting and I would like you to consider including

the following points in favor of catchment either in the minutes or

in your reference system for future discussion.

1.  Many areas of the US and the World utilize catchment water as the

primary domestic water  source.

2.  The quality of the caught water usually surpasses well water.

3.  Catchment systems enforce conservation as a result of their

nature.

4.  Catchment systems are usually less expensive than well systems.

5.  The 100 foot well radius for drainfiend
setback is eliminated

resultion in more usable space.

6.  Impervious roof area storm runoff is practically eliminated.

7.  Groundwater resources are conserved.

8.  Moderate climate in Western Washington allows tanks to be placed

outside without insulation.

9.  Lack of minerals in the water allows less soap and/or detergent

to be used.

10.Less electricity used due to no well pump and no
well pump

replacement cost.

I had mentioned at the pervious meeting that the
former Jefferson

County Helth Dept. head Larry Fay, had told me two
years ago that DOE

wanted to stop rainwater collection. I was pleased that Phil stated

that this was not true, rather that DOE supports the
practice.

I suspect that certain 'Smart Growth' advocates would oppose issuance

of building permits based on collection systems as they would then be

unable to 'control' growth through water rationing. If this
is the

reason that the Legislature is resisting facilitation of this water

source for homes, it flys in the face of
sustainability for all the

reasons above.

I hope WRIA 16 will make a strong recommendation in favor of domestic

water catchment systems. They are good for our streams and estuaries

and they are affordable.

Thanks

ken shock

www.brinnonprosperity.org

Please visit our blog at http://wria17.blogspot.com/
for

articles and more information about the WRIA process.

SPONSORED LINKS

Olympic
peninsula

Ecology

Computer
science

Science
education

Ecology
auto wrecking

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit
your group "wria17"
on the web.

To
unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

[email-masked]

Your
use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.