Rainwater, In France, a more than dissuasive legislation

[Bibiphoque]

Hello,
Received by email:
http://www.univers-nature.com/inf/inf_a ... gi?id=3355

Something to discourage everyone!
@+

[m_you49]

Hello,
Received by email:
http://www.univers-nature.com/inf/inf_a ... gi?id=3355

What discourage everyone!

Totally agree. Distributors and communities that have to balance their sanitation budget (which is not obvious in small rural communities) are preserved by the tax on water consumed. If rainwater is considered consumed, it adds to the volume supplied by the distributor and is therefore subject to taxes. (There are no small profits)
Communities have equipped themselves to water their green spaces in summer with recycled water. Others have created reserves at the outlet of treatment plants for large-volume irrigators.
There is more than filling the holes and planting Indian hemp!
Where is the philosophy of water recovery and savings achieved. We are also told that if we recover we no longer send into the wild and that lowers the level of the aquifers. Bullshit is just a phase shift. What are in comparison the collective rainwater recovery networks that go directly to the rivers if only a huge flooding machine.
It will call into question the programs of small communes which make efforts with constructions which recover and which sends the overflow towards absorbent wells (according to the nature of the soil) so as to replenish the aquifers.
Some also provide stock and internal distribution (pump, connections, pipes, valve, meters, non-return, etc.)
As for labeling, it is well known that French is a big disgusting person who confuses his bowl of toilets with a drinker.
And what about phyto-purification, prohibited individually and authorized in semi-collective. We arrive at the following aberration: a family of 6 people (that is to say six equivalent inhabitants) cannot have a filtration of its waste water by reeds, but two neighbors can, even if that represents only 2 equivalent inhabitants. Ubu still has a bright future
Long live the Grennelle!
@ +
Mil'd

[Bibiphoque]

Hello,
Exactly, on my side, I tried not to pay any more purification tax on the water I used for watering at home, which represented about 40 M³ / year, nothing to do, I was replied that it was at the entrance that the tax was counted.
@+

[Rulian]

This text is obviously too full of stupid details for frankly inciting. However, I retain two interesting ideas:

- The first is that it is now becoming clearly legal (even if complicated) to use rainwater for toilets. It is the most important domestic use and where the use of drinking water is the most scandalous. It is a (small) progress.

- The second is the introduction of a separate metering principle for the water consumed and the water discharged into the wastewater system. I find it important to eventually separate the two billings because the purification is absolutely mandatory even without drinking water, and therefore it has a cost. So normal to pay (less if you buy potable water, of course).

For the rest of the text, it is clear that if they wanted to dissuade, they would do no better!

[Bibiphoque]

... I find it important to eventually separate the two billings because the purification is absolutely mandatory even without drinking water!

Hello,
No agreement for irrigation water, it does not pass through the treatment plants.
@+

[clasou]

Hello,
To check, but someone told me that it was possible to ask the water company. The mounting of a double meter
so that the irrigation water does not support the drinking water tax.
But it is true that at that time the idea of ​​recovering water was not as popular.
a + claude

[Rulian]

Hello,
No agreement for irrigation water, it does not pass through the treatment plants.
@+

I agree.

But if you water your lawn with rainwater, you have nothing to declare / pay, right? That's how I understood the text. By cons it seems normal to pay for drinking water purchased to water ...

Tell me if I'm wrong.