Good Old Neon Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I live on a small lake that eventually flows into a golf course. Last year the golf course had a shit fit because we were having the lake treated for weeds, like we've done every year since 1975. They actually threatened to arrest the guys who were servicing the lake! They said we couldnt treat our lake any more because they use a portion of that water that flows through the course to water their grass and greens. After I stopped laughing (I'm the president of the lake association), I basically told them to go fuck themselves sideways. If they need water, drill a well like I and everybody in my subdivision had to do. We eventually got things worked out, mainly because the chemicals used become inert fairly quickly and the place they draw water from, according to EPA guidelines, was too far enough away from my lake to be worried about. I still get pissed off thinking about it. Ironic considering golf courses should be very last in line where access to dwindling water supplies is an issue, right behind water bongs, Super Soakers and Slip Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 That's the way it works, though. You have legal accountability to those downstream from you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NightOfJoy Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 No way bro, it's an America obligation to green up all of our ugly boring deserts with beautiful golf courses! I mean, c'mon, get with the program. That's the way it works, though. You have legal accountability to those downstream from you. I wonder what the Army Corp of Engineers would think about the golf course using water like that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted March 19, 2009 Author Share Posted March 19, 2009 That's the way it works, though. You have legal accountability to those downstream from you.As far as it relates to putting chemicals and other contaminants into the water, sure. That accountability should not extend to a fucking rain barrel. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Yes, I was referring to NightofJoy's post. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NightOfJoy Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 As far as it relates to putting chemicals and other contaminants into the water, sure. That accountability should not extend to a fucking rain barrel. Just as an FYI, the chemicals used are strictly regulated. The EPA doesnt mess around with this stuff. You should see the instructions, its insanely detailed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 I live on a small lake that eventually flows into a golf course. Last year the golf course had a shit fit because we were having the lake treated for weeds, like we've done every year since 1975. They actually threatened to arrest the guys who were servicing the lake! They said we couldnt treat our lake any more because they use a portion of that water that flows through the course to water their grass and greens. After I stopped laughing (I'm the president of the lake association), I basically told them to go fuck themselves sideways. If they need water, drill a well like I and everybody in my subdivision had to do. We eventually got things worked out, mainly because the chemicals used become inert fairly quickly and the place they draw water from, according to EPA guidelines, was too far enough away from my lake to be worried about. I still get pissed off thinking about it. Goddamn golf course -- trying to protect their property! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted March 19, 2009 Author Share Posted March 19, 2009 Just as an FYI, the chemicals used are strictly regulated. The EPA doesnt mess around with this stuff. You should see the instructions, its insanely detailed.So you guys are following the regulations, meaning that the golf course guys didn't know what the hell they were talking about. Not that their concern wasn't legitimate ... they just needed to do a little research before going off on you. Goddamn golf course -- trying to protect their property! Not that their concern wasn't legitimate ... they just needed to do a little research before going off on you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Yeah, you put that up right at the same time I did. Obvious overreaction, but if everything got worked out in the end, what difference does it make? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NightOfJoy Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Goddamn golf course -- trying to protect their property! So I should've allowed my lake (which is an asset to the folks that live on it) to go to shit? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moss Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Which one of y Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 So I should've allowed my lake (which is an asset to the folks that live on it) to go to shit? All I'm saying is that the people at the golf course got wind of treatments to the lake upstream and reacted like anyone would have reacted. Then they overreacted with the threat of arrests. I'm sure you were calm and patient when dealing with them, though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NightOfJoy Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Indeed, I'm very diplomatic. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jenbobblehead Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Yes, but ... it doesn't really sound to me like the water stakeholders' claims are backed by science/reality. These people are defending their claims based on longstanding laws, but if this 97% figure is true (or even if it's significantly lower but still a respectable number), I don't see any real validity to those claims or laws, and I think the right of the individual property owner to use the rain that falls on his/her land should trump the right of any water-rights claimant. It's not as if the property owners are harvesting every drop that falls on their land -- they're filling rain barrels with a small percentage of the total rainfall. Do you really want some asshole from downstream to be able to tell you that you can't do that? Is anyone who owns a swimming pool in Colorado violating the law every time it rains into the pool? I am going to guess that that 97% (which sounds like complete bullshit to me) is all about retention basins and stormwater management off large building roofs, parking decks and parking lots. Impervious surface. It cannot possibly be about people using rain barrels. Please. My grandfather said "blame the right guy" and the right guy is gonna be the megamart developer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 The 97% figure was being used by people who oppose the law, the point being that if 97% of rainfall doesn't make it back to the streams and rivers, it's ridiculous to prevent people from collecting rain because it was never going to make it to the holders of the water rights anyway. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
owl Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 The movie Flow is worth a rent. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1149583/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.