Do you think that if water property rights were stringently protected water pollution laws wouldn't be needed?

[otis]

Of course, but how will that serve the central bankers who want to control the water and eliminate private property rights for American citizens?

[thom]

Water rights have to do with HOW MUCH water one can take from rivers and streams.

There is nothing in the water law that dictates water quality, an upstream individual only has to make sure they are not "corrupting" the water to the extent it "cannot be used"... which is a very loose definition of "water quality." Proving causation.... and proving damages..... would be up to every farmer and water user downstream. How many can afford a multi-year lawsuit??

On top of that.... only Western states allocate water...... Eastern states treat water as a "common nuisance" and riparian land owners can take as much as they want.

A solution that is only viable in 15 or so states..... is not a solution for the nation. Common law FAILED to do what you suggest..... which is why the Clean Water Act exists in the first place.

[shipley]

Very true.
I live in a city, Christchurch New Zealand and our local government, (known as Councils in NZ), have very strict rules and regulations and monitoring systems in place for our water. Christchurch water is so pure that we don't have to have any chemicals in the water. We are the only city in New Zealand with natural pure water that comes out of our taps. Coca Cola has a water bottling factory in our City and they are expanding it.

[charlot22]

No. Some pollution is natural.

[lathrop]

no whats to stop me from dumping something in my part of the river to flow downstream to you