Raw GDP, even per capita, has jack all to do with standard of living because (it even says on that page) "GDP is not an indicator of personal income".
If that's the tack you want to take, at least have the intelligence to use GDP that's been adjusted for purchasing power parity, ie differences in cost of living, giving a closer approximation to the point you're trying to make (Seriously, this is like 101 level knowledge): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Of course...oddly enough...once you look at PPP, the countries you disdain so much look to be doing a whole lot better than you tried to present it initially. Though even that isn't a complete picture because even the GDPPPP still leaves out the other benefits (ie welfare) afforded to citizens living in those other countries. Yes, I mean the welfare. Once those are quantified, they rank even higher.
So no, its not as simple as your little braindead statement that "The further to the Left, the worse off the country." Moron.
oh good, so you've completed your initiation into the McCarthy club so that now simply failing to deny or denounce is the same as an admission of membership.
I used to think your clownishness knew at least some bounds. seems I was wrong.
your choices regulated of topic also seem interesting....and ill-informed as usual. healthcare hasn't been regulated to death. it did it to itself. the same goes for internet service, which oddly enough is more robust in countries that DID regulate it in the public's interest creating the competition you crave so desperately.
at this point you're no more intelligent nor insightful than a windup toy: say the magic word and you spout the same predictable BS.
"government also sets prices and controls supply."
That is not a facet of socialism. That is a "managed market" or "managed economy", and it occurs independently of whether socialism or capitalism is in play. as opposed to "free market", which is likewise independent of the ownership of the means of production. you can have a capitalist economy with managed markets, and a socialist economy with a free market.
no one supports an inheritance tax on dependent children. but what you said is effectively the same as supporting an inheritance tax as it is commonly understood to be.
that is because Adam Smith supported the basic concepts of fair competition* and level playing fields, things which inherited wealth undermine. inherited wealth is a distortion in the market, bestowing on an actor opportunity they didn't gain through the market. and as such Adam Smith was not a fan.
(i'd use the word meritocracy, except meritocracy is not the word to use, unless you define the source of merit carefully; for ex, he didn't believe in merit from assumed position or inherited wealth)
He may have believed such situations as competition and level playing fields should arise naturally through mutual agreement and restraint, but reality has shown they do not, as all it takes is one self-interested person to poison the pot. In point of fact, Adam Smith's views on capitalism and markets based around fair competition dovetail nicely with government rules meant to accomplish and foster such, as what is government but an abstracted form of mutual agreement (at least in in its ideal form), albeit one able to enforce those ideal level competitive fields under force of law ?
(the fact that government itself can be subverted doesn't negate its role; rather it forces upon the users another layer of vigilance, that of maintaining control over their government from those who would subvert it)
oddly enough, Marx was just fine with the free market. in fact, your mistake is the quite common one of confusing capitalism with free market. they are in fact not the same thing, and free markets exist (or don't) independently of whether or not capitalism or socialism is involved.
Not at all. Conservatives simply don't believe in infantilizing women by pretending they simply have no way to avoid pregnancy
because conservatives are such noted supporters of contraception...
as for paying their own way...what do you suggest for poor women? sterilization? actually no need to ask, because yes, conservatives have said that, past and present.
few more things: -the baby isn't a baby until its born. until then it's a fetus, and part of the woman's body -yes, infant mortality rates are higher in the US than most other OECD countries, especially the ones with national healthcare -other countries, again the ones with national healthcare systems, show little difference between rich and poor infant mortality rates. in the US however, there is a big difference, with the poor ones being much more like to die in infancy.
Actually I posit the opposite is true. That there ARE more small-government democrats than small-government republicans.
But the key difference between a small government republican and a small government democrat, is that where the democrat simply wants enough government to do the jobs given it and acknowledges that government has legitimacy to do those jobs and that the list may grow since government is a reflection of society..the republican simply wants no government at all, and denies that government has any legitimacy whatsoever.
No democrats actually want to instate totalitarian or authoritarian government with 100% control over everything. More of us think like Bill Maher and are closer to left-libertarianism (aka real libertarianism, not the RW abomination that worships Ayn Rand and co-opted the name), than they are to Lenin, regardless of what conservatives like to tell us we think. --
As to the 2nd half and naming it a "child's view of freedom"...the word for that is projection, because forcing one person to endure slavery in the name of another's freedom (specifically another that isn't actually a person, a separate entity, and will not be until born) is not a grown up view of freedom. Nor is forcing a child to be born, but refusing to help or enable that childs freedom following birth. Rather like allowing discrimination against a group in order to accommodate the religious freedom practices of another group.
The grown up view of freedom is that if your outward freedom of action should not affect the intrinsic or inward freedom of another. IE, my right to not be punched in the nose trumps your right to punch me in the nose.
As for the bathroom, no freedom is being threatened here, other than your prudish 17th century mindset that makes you scared of peoples naughty bits.
Anything beyond the centrist moderate wing of the Republican party is a pack of frothing-at-the-mouth reactionaries that hate just about everything about the modern world.
Yes, but you just described more than 80% of the party, a majority who would, if they could, kick out that tiny moderate wing as RINO's.
you display a marked lack of agricultural knowledge.
first off, you reveal your stupidity by even using the phrase SJW in this context.
secondly, you want logic? OK, try this: in a higher CO2 environment many staple crops produce less of that crop, a less nutritious crop, or get decimated by parasites.
thirdly, consider we aren't getting that additional CO2 for free. there are other affects associated with it, most importantly higher temperatures, which have a much larger affect on plant growth, and ultimately viability, than CO2 levels. maybe there will be a few years of higher growth...but what happens when its too hot for them to grow? or they don't get the needed number of days of cold or cool weather?
-this is not a negative feedback mechanism -CO2 isn't the only factor needed. Increasing the fuel in the engine without also increasing air, or volume of the reaction chamber, doesn't make for more speed. -plants that make use of the increased CO2 will use more H20, more nitrogen, more phosphorous, etc, things the local environment may not be able to provide, or that it may become depleted of due to consuming it faster than it can be replenished. ie, good crop this year, but bad soil and no crop next year. -plants that make use of the increased CO2 often show other behavior differences too, such as additional compounds within the plant. depending on plant and compound created, the effects can range from making plants more or less toxic (even turning benign plants harmful, harmful plants benign), to making them more or less susceptible to parasites. As the experiment that raised crops in a greenhouse with more CO2 found, when they moved it outdoors, the increased parasite problem is especially true of many staple crops: Soybeans are particularly negatively affected, but also occurs with corn, tomatoes, potatoes, and sorghum. -that increased CO2 also leads to higher temperatures, and plants are FAR more affected by temperature than by CO2 levels. its not nearly as simple as "higher temps = longer growing season". some crops die if it gets too cold, others wont fruit without enough cool or cold days in a year. too warm and they wilt on the vine or ripen too fast to be harvested and consumed.
in short, no youre not insightful, and you really don't know what youre talking about.
i recommend a hydrology course if you really want to pursue this further; it was a big part of my civil engineering studies. trying to compress over 2 years of course material to simple posts is not an easy task.
they dont add to the sewer that much, as most of the rainfall will end up in runoff anyway. my simple example simply illustrated a concept. impervious ground cover simply blocks the ground absorption without really adding that much to streams/rivers. ground absorption, even in dry desert soil, is a very slow, very small flow rate. most of the rainfall is still going to runoff.
also if catchment is the norm, now you've got a commodity, and commercial enterprises, that typically use a lot of water, are going to catch it too. either for themselves, or for profit (in a typical city industrial use can run between 30-50% of water usage).
i know you think it's only a little bit of water, but its not, and collectively it has a large impact, again because of the engineered systems designed around out of date water rights/laws, and it strains those systems.
youre thinking in individual terms. you have to think in collective terms. and in terms of inertia.
i know you think you've solved this age old problem in a day in your ivory tower, but trust me, they've been at this for some time. starting over from scratch to make the most logical system sounds easy, but its not.
changing 200 year old laws concerning water rights is difficult. as is changing existing infrastructure.
the two currently work together and around each other, and the chances of redoing the whole system instead of adding more layers of patches on top is slim to none.
im not advocating for it, but i am trying to get you to understand why it is how it is , but you dont seem to get it.
this post perfectly encapsulates how people don't understand risk, and suck at planning for it.
the danger from global warming may be far off, but it's not something we can wait to fix. by the time the actual danger point arrives, it will have been decades, even centuries, too late to do anything.
you cannot ignore a problem just because it is distant. the concerns you mention aren't species killing concerns.
and to correct it requires action now. the idea that we have to focus on one thing, or can only focus on one or a few things, is ignorance.
yes its hard to keep all those balls in the air at once. but inaction will create an even harder scenario with less likelihood of escape.
where do you think the water in the river comes from? or what happens to it when an entire metro area begins collecting rainwater?
and its not just private citizens. consider parking lots, warehouses, factories....all of these are large, impervious (to rain water, compared with open ground) structures.
there is water flow of water when it soaks into ground. some goes to the water table, but a portion also (slowly) can flow laterally and seeps out into streams and eventually rivers (all depends on local ground strata). the flow rate can be in the decades and even centuries, but that just means that the water you see seeping now first soaked in several years ago.
but with all these structures on top of the ground that block ground soak, the amount of flow through the ground is reduced too. theoretically it is offset cause now the water runoff due to the impervious structure, though to consider whether that reduction actuall is offset by the overground runoff flow would depend on local conditions. but if everyone catches their rain, then now you've impacted both the through ground seepage, and the overground runoff.
don't misunderstand me, I think it is a fairly green thing to do (though there are considerations of whether its more efficient and greener to have everyone purify their own caught water, or collectively in the mucipal water system; scales of economy you know), and have designed a system to make my own home self-sufficient (not built; just academic exercise).
But right now the municipal water distribution systems, as well as the water management and rights systems, aren't all setup to handle that. they are engineered systems that make certain assumptions on flow rate and availability and so on.
So, effectively, yes, catching rain in a barrel IS diverting a river.
no it doesn't mean that. and you have to understand just how arid and dry the western states are.
the ban is against rain water collection systems, ie, the down spouts of your roof flowing into collecting tanks, instead of onto the ground or out into the street. the western states of the US are very arid, and don't get much rain fall. most of the major population centers are therefore located on or near sources of water. and there is a lot of irrigation that channels a portion of that water out to farmers/ranchers.
the Denver metro is a good example. Eastern Oregon communities. Reno is the one im most familiar with (having lived there), with nearly all water sourcing from the Truckee river flowing out of Tahoe. It's not a big river, flows through the middle of the city (what used to be the middle), but the water system pipes it several miles north to valleys north of town, as well as the new community growth on the south side which nearly 20 miles from the river.
think about the typical American home. its roughly 1600 sq ft, on a 3000-6000 sq ft lot.
IE, it's a large chunk of the area. the rain shadow of the home will cover over half the lot, easily. so if every home collected rainwater instead of letting it flow into the streams and rivers, the flow of the natural water body would be cut in half (napkin mathing; there's also mtn snow melt etc; exact numbers not important to make the point), which reduces the water available to everyone downstream.
right now most municipal water systems are fairly efficient, returning roughly as much water to the source flow as they took out (the inlet is upstream, the outlet for sewage that's been treated/cleaned is downstream), reducing the impact on downstream neighbors. many localities also maintain reservoirs in the public interest to ensure availability in dry times.
there is also the system of water rights, that vastly needs updating, but allocates water to communities and farmers/ranchers. California's system is especially bad, as it over allocates available water, and always has.
and I didn't even mention the effect it can have wildlife if the water isn't flowing (public reservoirs usually take that into account, and keep enough flowing so they don't die off).
California and Nevada and eastern Oregon are dependent on their reservoirs. they don't get much in the way of regular rainfall. California gets a snowpack, that helps it. Colorado's snowpack flows largely to the Gulf of Mexico through a couple of rivers that exit the south border of the state. Farmers and ranchers on the east side don't get the benefit of that water, and so are almost entirely dependent on rainfall and local stream/river flow, which is the biggest reason for the rain collection rules in that state.
then you've apparently never lived in an arid western state. the western half of the US has very limited water resources. they get little precipitation, and it flows into a limited number of streams and rivers.
if everyone in a densely populated locality like Denver metro captured all the rainwater they could off their property, the reduction to water flow in the streams and rivers would be quite large, impacting people living downstream, as well as the natural wildlife dependent on that water.
Slashdot Mirror
not flamebait
JFC you are delusional.
Raw GDP, even per capita, has jack all to do with standard of living because (it even says on that page) "GDP is not an indicator of personal income".
If that's the tack you want to take, at least have the intelligence to use GDP that's been adjusted for purchasing power parity, ie differences in cost of living, giving a closer approximation to the point you're trying to make (Seriously, this is like 101 level knowledge): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Of course...oddly enough...once you look at PPP, the countries you disdain so much look to be doing a whole lot better than you tried to present it initially. Though even that isn't a complete picture because even the GDPPPP still leaves out the other benefits (ie welfare) afforded to citizens living in those other countries. Yes, I mean the welfare. Once those are quantified, they rank even higher.
So no, its not as simple as your little braindead statement that "The further to the Left, the worse off the country."
Moron.
oh good, so you've completed your initiation into the McCarthy club so that now simply failing to deny or denounce is the same as an admission of membership.
I used to think your clownishness knew at least some bounds.
seems I was wrong.
your choices regulated of topic also seem interesting....and ill-informed as usual.
healthcare hasn't been regulated to death. it did it to itself.
the same goes for internet service, which oddly enough is more robust in countries that DID regulate it in the public's interest creating the competition you crave so desperately.
at this point you're no more intelligent nor insightful than a windup toy:
say the magic word and you spout the same predictable BS.
"government also sets prices and controls supply."
That is not a facet of socialism.
That is a "managed market" or "managed economy", and it occurs independently of whether socialism or capitalism is in play.
as opposed to "free market", which is likewise independent of the ownership of the means of production.
you can have a capitalist economy with managed markets, and a socialist economy with a free market.
no one supports an inheritance tax on dependent children.
but what you said is effectively the same as supporting an inheritance tax as it is commonly understood to be.
that is because Adam Smith supported the basic concepts of fair competition* and level playing fields, things which inherited wealth undermine. inherited wealth is a distortion in the market, bestowing on an actor opportunity they didn't gain through the market. and as such Adam Smith was not a fan.
(i'd use the word meritocracy, except meritocracy is not the word to use, unless you define the source of merit carefully; for ex, he didn't believe in merit from assumed position or inherited wealth)
He may have believed such situations as competition and level playing fields should arise naturally through mutual agreement and restraint, but reality has shown they do not, as all it takes is one self-interested person to poison the pot. In point of fact, Adam Smith's views on capitalism and markets based around fair competition dovetail nicely with government rules meant to accomplish and foster such, as what is government but an abstracted form of mutual agreement (at least in in its ideal form), albeit one able to enforce those ideal level competitive fields under force of law ?
(the fact that government itself can be subverted doesn't negate its role; rather it forces upon the users another layer of vigilance, that of maintaining control over their government from those who would subvert it)
oddly enough, Marx was just fine with the free market.
in fact, your mistake is the quite common one of confusing capitalism with free market.
they are in fact not the same thing, and free markets exist (or don't) independently of whether or not capitalism or socialism is involved.
98%.
The number of women in the US who use birth control.
So, yes.
Not at all. Conservatives simply don't believe in infantilizing women by pretending they simply have no way to avoid pregnancy
because conservatives are such noted supporters of contraception...
as for paying their own way...what do you suggest for poor women? sterilization?
actually no need to ask, because yes, conservatives have said that, past and present.
few more things:
-the baby isn't a baby until its born. until then it's a fetus, and part of the woman's body
-yes, infant mortality rates are higher in the US than most other OECD countries, especially the ones with national healthcare
-other countries, again the ones with national healthcare systems, show little difference between rich and poor infant mortality rates. in the US however, there is a big difference, with the poor ones being much more like to die in infancy.
basically, you're just full of BS.
Actually I posit the opposite is true. That there ARE more small-government democrats than small-government republicans.
But the key difference between a small government republican and a small government democrat, is that where the democrat simply wants enough government to do the jobs given it and acknowledges that government has legitimacy to do those jobs and that the list may grow since government is a reflection of society..the republican simply wants no government at all, and denies that government has any legitimacy whatsoever.
No democrats actually want to instate totalitarian or authoritarian government with 100% control over everything.
More of us think like Bill Maher and are closer to left-libertarianism (aka real libertarianism, not the RW abomination that worships Ayn Rand and co-opted the name), than they are to Lenin, regardless of what conservatives like to tell us we think.
--
As to the 2nd half and naming it a "child's view of freedom"...the word for that is projection, because forcing one person to endure slavery in the name of another's freedom (specifically another that isn't actually a person, a separate entity, and will not be until born) is not a grown up view of freedom. Nor is forcing a child to be born, but refusing to help or enable that childs freedom following birth. Rather like allowing discrimination against a group in order to accommodate the religious freedom practices of another group.
The grown up view of freedom is that if your outward freedom of action should not affect the intrinsic or inward freedom of another.
IE, my right to not be punched in the nose trumps your right to punch me in the nose.
As for the bathroom, no freedom is being threatened here, other than your prudish 17th century mindset that makes you scared of peoples naughty bits.
Anything beyond the centrist moderate wing of the Republican party is a pack of frothing-at-the-mouth reactionaries that hate just about everything about the modern world.
Yes, but you just described more than 80% of the party, a majority who would, if they could, kick out that tiny moderate wing as RINO's.
you display a marked lack of agricultural knowledge.
first off, you reveal your stupidity by even using the phrase SJW in this context.
secondly, you want logic? OK, try this: in a higher CO2 environment many staple crops produce less of that crop, a less nutritious crop, or get decimated by parasites.
thirdly, consider we aren't getting that additional CO2 for free. there are other affects associated with it, most importantly higher temperatures, which have a much larger affect on plant growth, and ultimately viability, than CO2 levels. maybe there will be a few years of higher growth...but what happens when its too hot for them to grow? or they don't get the needed number of days of cold or cool weather?
Largely irrelevant as an aquarium is a closed and temperature controlled environment.
trees getting more CO2 and warmer temperatures grow better and thus resist insects better also.
Not even close to true.
Many plants, including many staple crops, actually become MORE susceptible to parasites with increased CO2, not less.
-this is not a negative feedback mechanism
-CO2 isn't the only factor needed. Increasing the fuel in the engine without also increasing air, or volume of the reaction chamber, doesn't make for more speed.
-plants that make use of the increased CO2 will use more H20, more nitrogen, more phosphorous, etc, things the local environment may not be able to provide, or that it may become depleted of due to consuming it faster than it can be replenished. ie, good crop this year, but bad soil and no crop next year.
-plants that make use of the increased CO2 often show other behavior differences too, such as additional compounds within the plant. depending on plant and compound created, the effects can range from making plants more or less toxic (even turning benign plants harmful, harmful plants benign), to making them more or less susceptible to parasites. As the experiment that raised crops in a greenhouse with more CO2 found, when they moved it outdoors, the increased parasite problem is especially true of many staple crops: Soybeans are particularly negatively affected, but also occurs with corn, tomatoes, potatoes, and sorghum.
-that increased CO2 also leads to higher temperatures, and plants are FAR more affected by temperature than by CO2 levels. its not nearly as simple as "higher temps = longer growing season". some crops die if it gets too cold, others wont fruit without enough cool or cold days in a year. too warm and they wilt on the vine or ripen too fast to be harvested and consumed.
in short, no youre not insightful, and you really don't know what youre talking about.
i recommend a hydrology course if you really want to pursue this further; it was a big part of my civil engineering studies.
trying to compress over 2 years of course material to simple posts is not an easy task.
they dont add to the sewer that much, as most of the rainfall will end up in runoff anyway.
my simple example simply illustrated a concept.
impervious ground cover simply blocks the ground absorption without really adding that much to streams/rivers.
ground absorption, even in dry desert soil, is a very slow, very small flow rate. most of the rainfall is still going to runoff.
also if catchment is the norm, now you've got a commodity, and commercial enterprises, that typically use a lot of water, are going to catch it too. either for themselves, or for profit (in a typical city industrial use can run between 30-50% of water usage).
i know you think it's only a little bit of water, but its not, and collectively it has a large impact, again because of the engineered systems designed around out of date water rights/laws, and it strains those systems.
youre thinking in individual terms.
you have to think in collective terms.
and in terms of inertia.
i know you think you've solved this age old problem in a day in your ivory tower, but trust me, they've been at this for some time.
starting over from scratch to make the most logical system sounds easy, but its not.
changing 200 year old laws concerning water rights is difficult.
as is changing existing infrastructure.
the two currently work together and around each other, and the chances of redoing the whole system instead of adding more layers of patches on top is slim to none.
im not advocating for it, but i am trying to get you to understand why it is how it is , but you dont seem to get it.
cause 8 hours isn't long enough to undo the mods of the shills....
this post perfectly encapsulates how people don't understand risk, and suck at planning for it.
the danger from global warming may be far off, but it's not something we can wait to fix.
by the time the actual danger point arrives, it will have been decades, even centuries, too late to do anything.
you cannot ignore a problem just because it is distant.
the concerns you mention aren't species killing concerns.
and to correct it requires action now.
the idea that we have to focus on one thing, or can only focus on one or a few things, is ignorance.
yes its hard to keep all those balls in the air at once.
but inaction will create an even harder scenario with less likelihood of escape.
oh FFS, not this BS again.
engineers also have to deal with both managers and customers.
if that isn't a recipe, I don't know what is.
the answer to the complexity/simplicity question is that the computer in question exists in a higher dimension.
where do you think the water in the river comes from?
or what happens to it when an entire metro area begins collecting rainwater?
and its not just private citizens.
consider parking lots, warehouses, factories....all of these are large, impervious (to rain water, compared with open ground) structures.
there is water flow of water when it soaks into ground. some goes to the water table, but a portion also (slowly) can flow laterally and seeps out into streams and eventually rivers (all depends on local ground strata). the flow rate can be in the decades and even centuries, but that just means that the water you see seeping now first soaked in several years ago.
but with all these structures on top of the ground that block ground soak, the amount of flow through the ground is reduced too. theoretically it is offset cause now the water runoff due to the impervious structure, though to consider whether that reduction actuall is offset by the overground runoff flow would depend on local conditions. but if everyone catches their rain, then now you've impacted both the through ground seepage, and the overground runoff.
don't misunderstand me, I think it is a fairly green thing to do (though there are considerations of whether its more efficient and greener to have everyone purify their own caught water, or collectively in the mucipal water system; scales of economy you know), and have designed a system to make my own home self-sufficient (not built; just academic exercise).
But right now the municipal water distribution systems, as well as the water management and rights systems, aren't all setup to handle that. they are engineered systems that make certain assumptions on flow rate and availability and so on.
So, effectively, yes, catching rain in a barrel IS diverting a river.
no it doesn't mean that.
and you have to understand just how arid and dry the western states are.
the ban is against rain water collection systems, ie, the down spouts of your roof flowing into collecting tanks, instead of onto the ground or out into the street.
the western states of the US are very arid, and don't get much rain fall.
most of the major population centers are therefore located on or near sources of water.
and there is a lot of irrigation that channels a portion of that water out to farmers/ranchers.
the Denver metro is a good example. Eastern Oregon communities. Reno is the one im most familiar with (having lived there), with nearly all water sourcing from the Truckee river flowing out of Tahoe. It's not a big river, flows through the middle of the city (what used to be the middle), but the water system pipes it several miles north to valleys north of town, as well as the new community growth on the south side which nearly 20 miles from the river.
think about the typical American home. its roughly 1600 sq ft, on a 3000-6000 sq ft lot.
IE, it's a large chunk of the area. the rain shadow of the home will cover over half the lot, easily.
so if every home collected rainwater instead of letting it flow into the streams and rivers, the flow of the natural water body would be cut in half (napkin mathing; there's also mtn snow melt etc; exact numbers not important to make the point), which reduces the water available to everyone downstream.
right now most municipal water systems are fairly efficient, returning roughly as much water to the source flow as they took out (the inlet is upstream, the outlet for sewage that's been treated/cleaned is downstream), reducing the impact on downstream neighbors. many localities also maintain reservoirs in the public interest to ensure availability in dry times.
there is also the system of water rights, that vastly needs updating, but allocates water to communities and farmers/ranchers. California's system is especially bad, as it over allocates available water, and always has.
and I didn't even mention the effect it can have wildlife if the water isn't flowing (public reservoirs usually take that into account, and keep enough flowing so they don't die off).
California and Nevada and eastern Oregon are dependent on their reservoirs. they don't get much in the way of regular rainfall. California gets a snowpack, that helps it. Colorado's snowpack flows largely to the Gulf of Mexico through a couple of rivers that exit the south border of the state. Farmers and ranchers on the east side don't get the benefit of that water, and so are almost entirely dependent on rainfall and local stream/river flow, which is the biggest reason for the rain collection rules in that state.
then you've apparently never lived in an arid western state.
the western half of the US has very limited water resources.
they get little precipitation, and it flows into a limited number of streams and rivers.
if everyone in a densely populated locality like Denver metro captured all the rainwater they could off their property, the reduction to water flow in the streams and rivers would be quite large, impacting people living downstream, as well as the natural wildlife dependent on that water.
continued reading of Mi's posts will show you that he isn't interested in facts.