The Off-Grid Laws of Every State in America | Hacker News Reader

The Off-Grid Laws of Every State in America

primalsurvivor.net

231 pointsBender178 comments

Dripping with assumptions about what people want from 'off grid living'. I have family members who are totally off-grid, totally disconnected from all physical services (they have internet). I helped setup many of their systems. They do not use anything like a "pit toilet" nor do they "collect rainwater". Off-grid living isn't medieval. It can be just as luxurious as any city. Water comes form wells drilled deep into the ground. Sewage goes to the same septic fields, not pits, that are common in older suburbs across NA. Bathrooms have in-floor heating. Televisions are just as big as anywhere else. The kids play minecraft with their friends while mom and dad stream netflix. Step into a modern off-grid house and you wouldn't see any differences.

A modern solar rig can generate so much energy in summer that my relatives are seriously considering bitcoin mining. Once the batteries are full that power capacity is going to waste. Their electricity cost during such times is literally zero.

Yep, I'm off grid (minus fiber internet), and you wouldn't be able to tell

I can tell during power outages when everyone else's houses go dark.

I came here to say the same thing. In rural Tennessee literally zero people discuss regulations or care. I asked and I was laughed out of the room lol

there’s a 180 year old cabin on the property and in the 90s someone put in some red neck engineering — using just a random set of barrels for a septic system. So somewhere near there is a barrel that’ll collapse one day. No idea where lol.

The point of that story is, regulations aren’t reality in many of these places. They may be there but in reality...

Finally, rules regarding collecting of rain water or lack of green energy incentives should decrease the off-grid ability lol. First, no one can regulate your collection of rain water. Second, lack of initiatives isn’t a law or regulation.

In rural California you'll get a notice that you can't live on your own property if you don't have an approved septic system registered with the county. I know multiple people who have had this happen to them in a couple of counties, and have heard about it in several others. I personally find it kinda lame you can't live in an RV on property you own. The septic system approval process involves soil sampling and engineering based on dwelling size (I can't remember if its area or number of bedrooms) in the counties I'm familiar with.

California needs to lighten up on regulations.

I like California. I have lived here my entire life, but the regulations/fees/fines are outrageous.

I looked into buying some property years ago near Bolinas. I asked the Realator why it was so cheap. She said you can't build-- can't even set up a tent. You can't even take a nap on the land. He, "So what's it good for?". Her, "Maybe leech lines?".

Want to build your cabin, or home.

In my town, of San anselmo, the town council decides pretty much every aspect of your build down to window placement (Homeowner might see Karen naked if that window isn't higher. They even ok your roof type, wether you use stucco, or shiplap, and even the Petunias in your front yard.

Neusom is trying, but ADU's are being used by rich people to gain more house footage.

And there's a part of me that wants all building stopped until we figure out this water problem.

If there's another major earthquake it'll take the Bay Area seventy years to get the permits to rebuild half of what was already standing.

Don't be silly.

A lot of it is no longer legal to build and will never be rebuilt.

That's the other half.

Maybe they don't rebuild the sprawling car-centric infrastructure they currently have.

But without highway overpasses where will all the homeless and drug addicts go?

Don't be silly. In California the homeless do not live under highways. They live anywhere they damn feel including your front yard

Don't you dare complain about it and when they shit on your path just call up the local poop patrol who will come out in 2-4 weeks to clean that up

You're getting downvoted for telling the uncomfortable truth.

I am used to it. The ability to see the world though an objective non-emotional lens is a skill many do not have unfortunately, that is after all how government retains power by way of emotional manipulation of the population mainly through fear or jealousy

Definitely happens in SF - the behavior of homeless there is rather shocking to outsiders.

But there are parts of California where you don't see that. I live in a conservative county and the worst I see is illegal panhandling next to freeway exits.

That's where some people are apparently going wrong. Some people have already figured out that you don't actually need a septic system, and it's completely legal. Just poop on the ground and call a phone number already set up explicitly for the purpose of having them come clean it up for you, at taxpayer expense. Just say you're homeless in that camper on your own land and you won't be required to put in a septic.

It’s agriculture that is causing the water problem, and desalination is cheap for residential purposes.

But sometimes fiercely resisted. I don’t know if the desalination plant will happen near Monterey.

What are the public arguments against desalination? Are there any interests at risk?

If not done properly it can kill sea life.

Lot of liberals think about development the same way conservatives think about government. AKA starve the beast. Conservatives by trying to cut taxes. Liberals block things that they think enable development.

Two questions: 1. What is the power source? 2. Where does the extra salty brine go after desalination?

These aren't big questions for small operations but become important for larger plants.

I mean, these questions have simple and quick answers. 1) The California Grid. and 2) The nearby ocean.

The briny water can be made as close in salt content to seawater as you want, it just increases costs slightly.

I think what you're saying is that environmental review takes years. But I don't think delays really help the environment. They just slow progress.

Water is fungible. It doesn't make sense to give water for almost free to farmers to grow grass for cows, then turn around and burn energy to desalinate drinking water.

Instead, we should take the desalination plant money, buy out the farms, shut them down and take their water for drinking. Far more environmentally friendly and a lot cheaper too.

I actually agree with this in principle, but isn't California a huge source of food for much of the west coast? Where will the food be grown then?

Pretty much anywhere else with sunlight, soil and water?

In states with a more reasonable water usage?

Yes and no. There are crops which make sense to grow in California due to the climate, which we shouldn't grow elsewhere. Alfalfa isn't one of them. We export alfalfa to other countries, essentially exporting our water. Cow feed can be better grown elsewhere (and cows can be better raised elsewhere)

Another problem crop in California is rice. We simply shouldn't grow rice in this state. Most rice is grown in the southern US where water is plentiful. We could stop growing rice without significant impact. More water is used in California growing rice than all of Los Angeles residential use put together.

We could cut these crops significantly without appreciable impact to our food supply, using a fraction of our existing conservation budgets, and not have to worry about residential conservation for decades or longer.

There's a pretty good intro to the economic breakdown here: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/11/california-water-you-d...

California is the #1 agriculture state in the US by dollar amount (most is dairy, almonds, and grapes/wine).

If it’s so valuable, then it seems they’d be fine to pay the same amount for water as municipal utilities do.

In the SF bay area, I know there is a desalination plant in Newark. They gave tours of it once a year.

I find it amazing that these regulations exist but apartments aren't even required to have AC. I remember spending many a summer in the Bay trying to survive by putting ice cubes in front of my desk fan in the day, under my pillow at night, etc. It was especially bad on days where fires meant that opening the window was bad for health.

When I first arrived, I was shocked to realize that AC was considered a luxury feature in the Bay. I've lived in dwellings in developing countries better capable of managing summer heat than most Bay Area apartments.

You probably shouldn’t move to Seattle. Quite a bit hotter summertime, and quite a lot of rentals explicitly prohibit AC window units.

True about the AC. But Seattle is slightly cooler year-round, right?

Probably depends where in the Bay Area you're talking about. The microclimates vary a lot. SF or the Santa Cruz mountains is one thing. The middle of Silicon Valley is something else.

I compared average temperatures with a few SV cities and the Seattle average is indeed lower than some. I compared recent years and it’s the opposite. Our all-time record this year (112-116 depending on where measurements were taken) certainly threw some of the averages off. But Seattle summers have been increasingly hot for the better part of a decade and I don’t expect that to trend the opposite way.

In new york a bunch of people use those portable rolling type units that sit inside and vent out the window with a big flexible accordion style tube. Always an option if a window banger isn't and much easier/safer to install/uninstall.

Many houses in San Jose don't have air conditioning.

> I've lived in dwellings in developing countries better capable of managing summer heat than most Bay Area apartments.

Developing recently has its advantages. They’ll install reversible AC mini-split systems primarily for cheaper heating than gas/oil/LP, but with the side-benefit of AC.

Then again, a lot of Western Europe (hello France!) won’t use AC because “air conditioning makes you sick”. I’ve even seen it unused in a car during a heatwave for this reason, and it wasn’t an economic issue.

I see what you mean, but these are countries I visited 10-15 years ago, so not recent by any means.

Here in the UK we don’t generally use A/C not because of health concerns but because there’s only about three or four weeks of the year we’d actually need it so in practice fans and complaining heavily during those three or four weeks does just fine. Our climate is generally damp, grey, and mild; the summers don’t get very hot and the winters don’t get very cold.

This might change with climate change though, I suspect in the future we’ll need better cooling and better heating if the jet stream gets interfered with. We’ll also need better drainage but there’s no shortage of scummy housing developers putting their underbuilt and overpriced shoeboxes on flood plains.

Even mildly uncomfortable heat can effectively waste 10% or more of the time you spend in it. And that number rises pretty fast as the heat increases.

So even if you remove discomfort from the equation, it doesn't take many tens to hundreds of hours of heat to justify a £100 air conditioner that costs £0.05 an hour to run.

We’re finishing the gut renovating a house in the south eastern US were you definitely need both heat and air conditioning over the course of the year.

We tore out our central hvac system, all the equipment, all the ducting and replaced it with mini splits.

They are sooooooo much better. More effective, more flexible, and cheaper. Heating bill cut by 2/3. They let us heat and cool each room independently. No dust,smells, or heat gets moved between rooms. They even have a dehumidify setting.

It is moronic that something similar is not standard practice in homes.

What's your fresh air system? My current home (in a mountain state) has problems with CO2 buildup with its central air system, so I'm curious what people with minisplits do to handle CO2.

Good question...a couple nested systems. Noting that the house was designed to be 'a passive house' (air quotes) in the early 1980s so it has some quirks.

1) we have a large stove so needed a makeup air fan anyways to match the hood. I worked with them to design the makeup system so it is quiet and pressurizes the second floor 'landing' and is larger than necessary...rather than just immediately pumping air into the exhaust.

2) We also have high ceilings because of the shape of the house (it...should help?)

3) the high ceilings also have remote openable skylights (originally they had hand openable crank skylights) that are already really affected at releasing any heat buildup

4) an excess of windows and two multi-panel sliding doors which, because we are only heating and cooling rooms when they are occupied, can be kept open more frequently. All of them are under deep overhangs and 75% of them are south facing so they are great at managing solar heat gain and we can open them often.

I'm curious how it will work and we have some backup plans. We're putting CO2 monitors in the bedrooms and the kitchen when we move back in and if needed a bunch of the systems can be connected to home automation rules if needed. Even the exhaust fans for all the bathrooms are on the home automation system already.

We lived in the house for about a year before rennovating it with 2 mini splits retrofitted (long story). It's 1900 square feet and we both worked from home. At night, we heated the bedroom, during the day we heated the office. During winter the sun heated the rest of the house. Our total power bill was around $70 a month.

Any airtight home will require a heat exchanger to provide the necessary ventilation. The source of heat or cooling doesn't matter. (Wood stoves and furnaces require make-up air, which should be supplied directly, not by infiltration.)

For example:

https://www.venmar.ca/air-exchanger.html

AC is generally optional especially in non-urban New England as well. It's probably pretty standard in new houses. But, in general, people in older homes, will put it in as part of a broader renovation, just stick in a window unit or two in the summer, or just make do with fans and it being overly hot for a few weeks a year.

>I find it amazing that these regulations exist but apartments aren't even required to have AC.

If anything, regulations should discourage having AC -- to reduce the energy consumption...

I rarely experience more than a few hot days a year on the peninsula, even these days. I can’t imagine having AC.

I also have a house in the sierras there the summer temps are unbearable. But where I’ve lived in the bay (SF, Palo Alto) I don’t see the point.

The SF apartments I lived in for a few years would have been unlivable without A/C -- indoor temps would exceed 80F often. Not sure if it's because multi-story buildings don't get shade from trees, or something else.

Ah, 80 degrees seems like a normal living temperature to me and I would not make any effort to reduce that. But even in PA the temp doesn’t get even that high for long.

I lived in SF for 20 years and never once used AC. Heating, on the other hand, I used every winter. But temperature is very subjective.

This may be too blasphemous for some people but Democrats appease lobbyists and donors by adding regulations to law and Republicans appease lobbyists and donors by cutting regulations from law.

Independents, moderates and third parties strike a balance between regulation and deregulation depending on their platform and beliefs.

California usually only elects Democrats. So California has a ton of regulations.

I suspect “can’t even put up a tent” was an exaggeration (but can’t live there indefinitely). But laws like that are why houses don’t collapse in earthquakes, landslides are uncommon, sewage systems are adequate for load and don’t kill people, etc.

I am surprised that a public town can make aesthetic choices, though set of potential roof material can reasonably be regulated to prevent spread of fire. I agree that is absurd.

A lot of regulation (speed limits, electrical outlets every six feet, fireproof and firefighter safe roofing, automobile pollution level…) are ways to think of things ahead of time that you are unlikely to remember to think of properly for yourself. There are dumb or egregious ones (municipal aesthetic codes) but most are for externalities (bread is safe to eat and your home isn’t a firetrap, which would threaten not just me but possibly you too).

Residential water use is a small percentage of California’s water consumption. Growing rice and cotton in a desert with free water is the problem.

I personally find it kinda lame you can't live in an RV on property you own.

You do ask how long it would take for someone to open a trailer park on their property if the sewage regulation didn't exist. Texas has an issue with colonias, it's easy to see why California wouldn't like to see rural shantytowns developed.

I believe the final form of any septic tank is collapse. You just say its the soakaway and brush it off as a feature not a bug!

You aren't saying the same thing. sandworm101 was saying "off-grid living can be luxurious"; you're saying "people ignore regulations."

>The point of that story is, regulations aren’t reality in many of these places. They may be there but in reality...

All it takes is a nosy neighbor to report you (which might even be newcomers to the community), and you'll be surprised how soon they can be a reality.

>First, no one can regulate your collection of rain water.

Again, you'd be surprised.

> All it takes is a nosy neighbor to report you (which might even be newcomers to the community), and you'll be surprised how soon they can be a reality.

Or perhaps not, depending on the politics of your Sheriff. In many rural counties where these laws aren't reality it's not because the government doesn't know, it's because it doesn't enforce.

(Of course this same thing happens in cities - just with different laws.)

>it's because it doesn't enforce.

If there's a lawsuit or formal complaint, they're forced to enforce...

No, that generally just means they're forced to take action (ie. investigate to confirm the suit or complaint). For the most part these are municipal laws handled by local law enforcement - the more rural you get the more likely it's just Dave that you've known your whole life that investigates and finds nothing problematic.

>All it takes is a nosy neighbor to report you

In most of these places you can't be that nosy neighbor too long before increasingly large dead animals show up on your doorstep.

This isn't some nice suburb of SF DC or Boston. Most people frown upon inviting government to show up.

>First, no one can regulate your collection of rain water.

"Oregon Man Sentenced to 30 Days in Jail — for Collecting Rainwater on His Property"

https://regproject.org/news/oregon-man-sentenced-30-days-jai...

>...there were complaints about the three “reservoirs” – ponds – on his more than 170 acres of land.

>According to Oregon water laws, all water is publicly owned. Therefore, anyone who wants to store any type of water on their property must first obtain a permit from state water managers.

>Dripping with assumptions

why the random negativity? Would you prefer they had kept the information they researched to themselves?

I would prefer they provide information relevant to modern off-grid living. What is required to drill a well? Are there rules regarding potable water storage tanks? How difficult is it to get a septic field permit? Are their rules about running your own diesel generator? How much diesel fuel and/or propane can you store on a site? Are there rules regarding large batteries? Must such batteries live in an out building?

I read far to many articles like this that conflate "off grid" with "primitive" living. It gives the false impression that people on off-grid properties somehow must sacrifice modern amenities and play dice with basic sanitation and health codes. They don't. Off grid properties are just as clean and healthy as any modern suburb.

It’s an article on a website called “primitive survivor” and its aimed at its audience.

Do start a help website called “big budget off grid” or something ;)

I would be surprised if anywhere in the US didn't allow at least 1000 gallon propane tanks. At least, any somewhat rural location that would be sensible to take all the way off grid.

I am guessing there are about a thousand different answers to those questions depending upon where you live in the US, to say nothing about the rigor of the enforcement.

> totally disconnected from all physical services

Do they have mail or courier services?

No. Not to the house. They have to go into town to get their mail/amazon deliveries, which is not an unusual situation in rural areas.

Heck, I have to do that and I live in a small town on the main road only a mile from the post office!

I would guess this article doesn’t cover wells and septic systems because they’re so common in rural and semi-rural areas. I doubt any states don’t allow them at all, and this only discusses state laws.

How deep are the water wells?

I was told that the deeper the well, the more expensive everything gets, from the pumps to the filtration systems.

My well is 200’ deep and I get great water with just a carbon+ozone chemical-free treatment system and a basic water softener. The bags of salt are only like $6 and I use maybe 2 per month.

Wells are 100% determined by local conditions. In the pacific northwest you will hit water very quickly and find lots of it. Arsenic and other contaminants are an issue, but if you follow the health codes most people find perfectly good water strait out of the ground without treatment or even filtration. Whether your water is hard or soft depends on the nature of the rock your are drilling though. Most off grid houses these days opt for large holding tanks and a relatively small pump. There are some great well pumps specifically designed to run directly off of solar. No batteries or inverters required.

I can recommend these pumps. I know of a couple that have been running for 10+ years off of solar without any issues.

https://product-selection.grundfos.com/ca/products/sqflex

Find the local authority and get the water tested properly. And it doesn't hurt to "shock" your system with a bucket of bleach every few months.

Could you explain this bleach process? Are you saying people add bleach to the well?

Yes. I have personally done exactly that. When a well is first drilled it can have contamination from the drilling equipment. A few liters of chlorine bleach poured down the well kills everything. Holding tanks can also benefit from the occasional bleaching. You run the taps for a few hours and the diluted bleach passes through the system sanitizing everything along the way. It isn't really dangerous but you probably want to hold off on doing dark laundry during the process.

You also want to drop a hose from an outside tap down the top of the well casing after pouring the bleach down to really circulate it through the whole casing. High concentration bleach is also better than household. Then once you’ve opened all your taps and gotten bleachy water out of each, close the taps and leave it in the lines for as long as you can. Days if possible

You add it to your storage tank (assuming you have one). Also done if you collect rainwater.

TBF, when I check out the overall blog, it is called "primal survivor", seems to cater primarily to the crowd that gets excited about digging one's own pit toilet with a portable shovel, and does happen to have a list of regulations relevant to that kind of off-the-grid living...

Forgive my ignorance but... If you have all those things and your kids spend all day playing Minecraft, are you really off grid? I thought the whole point of being off grid was to be more basic? If you live the same life as an on-grid people, why bother being off the grid?

To be off the grid - to be self-sufficient for electricity, water, etc. Depending on how remote you are, it might be the cheapest option.

You can like that idea without wanting to 'return to nature'. People can like independence without buying in to any of the rest of your ideas...

Try building a new house outside of a city. Look at how much it costs to run wires/pipes even a few hundred meters. Poles will cost to 10k each and you will be on the hook to maintain them. That it IF the local service has capacity for you. You might be asked to upgrade an entire service line. Today, for the same money, you can get a massive off-grid solar rig and never have to pay an electric bill.

Why are you presenting rainwater and compost toilets as negative / mediaval solutions? It's like criticizing a bicyle, They are perfect efficient solutions. If you eat organic food, your excrement is more or less fertilizer, no need to spend resources and energy treating them

Isn't using human excrement as fertilizer a big no for food safety?

Yes.

Proper decomposition and enough time renders the material safe for application to food crops (typically 1-2 years and applied to Perennial crops as "side dressing").

That said, you must separate humanure from safer waste which may be applied as crop dressing in as little as 18 days using hot composting methods.

For more details checkout my YouTube channel:

https://youtube.com/c/RussellBallestrini

An easy compost toilet is a bucket to poo into and woodchips or sawdust which is high carbon and soaks up smells and liquids, is layered after each use, emptied into a dedicated pile oftened tarped to control moisture.

It's been a while since I've read the Humanure Handbook and I've not practiced many of the techniques in it but it does cover this topic in great detail: https://humanurehandbook.com/

I believe it is possible you just have to be really careful with how it's treated, especially around vegetables etc.

There's also a natural blackwater treatment system, briefly mentioned in this really great video from one of my favourite Permaculture teachers (EDIT: it's at 46:45), which also happens to be a great introduction to Permaculture if you're interested: https://vimeo.com/95060300

Yes. The human digestive system adds bacteria you don't want in your fertilizer.

What if you just use the plants grown using human waster for fertilizer as animal feed and then eat those animals rather than eating the plants directly?

Does that make it safe or make it worse?

Pigs at least are susceptible to some of the same harmful digestive tract bacteria that we are.

What bacteria are especially bad and found only in human excrement?

If properly handled/processed, it's ok. One consideration is what people are consuming to create it. For example, some medications are found in excrement. I don't know which, if any, can be taken up by plants. So this along with any other chemicals people flush would make me leary of using sewage from a sewer plant, but residential level systems have a lot more control over those inputs.

That's why all sorts of taboos exist in societies where it was common. Ask an older Chinese guy what is worse, eating fresh lettuce or smoking? Sure, smoking might kill, but raw vegetables will kill you quicker.

Flushing toilets with rainwater is one thing, outhouses and drinking rainwater another. We have health codes for a reason. We modern people have no memory of what cholera is like. It and all its nasty friends are out there waiting for us to make a mistake.

You don't get cholera from drinking rainwater, unless it's contaminated by something terrestrial.

What is t he problem specifically with drinking rainwater?

Sure, I don't want to drink rainwater that fell on my asphalt shingle roof. I also don't really want to drink the rain water the ultimately ends up in the river I live near to and which the city sewers empty into (including upstream cities) but that's what they do. Sure that water is treated before it arrives through pipes into people's houses.

I'd take properly collected and treated rainwater directly from my own property any day over that.

It's great when it comes strait from the clouds. What did it land on? How was it stored? How did it get from one to the other?

Rainwater isn't pure water. It will contain dust and pollen. The system it lands on (ie a roof) will also have other things land on it (birds/insects etc). So by the time it gets to the storage tank the "pure" rainwater might contain a wide variety other stuff. Drinking it without treatment isn't always a great idea.

I never said it was pure and I never said I'd drink it "pure" and even gave a specifically bad example (the asphalt shingle roof runoff) and mentioned proper treatment and catchment.

This is not the kind of system you'd probably find doable on a small city lot and yes I guess people would be tempted to just drink their asphalt shingle roof runoff - until they see the water. But the context presumably is acreage type off-grid living. The landscape can also help. Dunno if you saw a recent-ish article here on HN on some South American farmers directing rain water such that it flows slowly through various layers on slopes until it reaches the bottom even having it re-emerge as natural springs in some places. Won't work if you live on the prairies, sure. Could work in other locations.

Drinking rainwater is easy and healthy. Yes it's best to filter it and let the sediment fall out and treat it with UV (all of which is reasonably inexpensive, and necessary to remove the dirt and bird poop that was sitting on your roof) but it's quite soft and free of chlorine and fluoride. It's essentially distilled water. For the benefit of your teeth you should use a fluoride toothpaste, but other than that there's nothing unhealthy about drinking rainwater.

I would argue that having internet access is not "off-grid"

I would say it is the most important grid. Or least replaceable.

Hopefully Starlink and similar help.

Water/sewage is fairly straightforward anywhere you can drill a well. And there are various options for electric and heat.

But if you can't get wired broadband, your options today are either satellite (expensive, laggy) or microcell (expensive, not available everywhere)--neither of which allow you to "just use" streaming and other data-intensive services a lot of people increasingly see as necessary.

And outside of a short-term vacation home, it's not unreasonable to think that at least minimal (e.g. no video streaming Internet) is something of a requirement for most people.

> Their electricity cost during such times is literally zero

Not very surprising considering you earlier claimed they were off-grid.

I think they mean there is not even an opportunity cost once batteries are full.

Zero on the extra capacity after the batteries are full. That is power that would otherwise never be used/stored.

>The kids play minecraft with their friends while mom and dad stream netflix. Step into a modern off-grid house and you wouldn't see any differences.

Well, if part of being off-grid pressuposes the existance of a huge global and domestic grid to fund, manufacture, transport, and sell you things like internet service, routers, Netflix shows, computer games, televisions, laptops, all kinds of electric and digital appliances, solar cells, batteries, and so on, trucks, factories and cargo ships to transport them, mines extracting resources to make them, the associated with the above waste disposal, even cities and businesses built around all these to support the people making those and their families (plus your own work, paid in regular currency to afford the aforementioned), I'm not sure how "off-grid" it really is...

This "off grid" sure is not some Walden style affair. It just means "I buy and setup "renewable energy" units for my family's exclusive energy production and storage and have a self-owned shit disposal method, otherwise you couldn't tell mine from any other house in the area".

yes we're talking about living in today's world but... off the grid.

no one said "historical reenactment"

This is definitely not "off the grid", except for very narrow definitions of the grid.

Perhaps "somewhat eco friendly" would be a better designation, or "light on corporate resources" (with the exception of Internet and GP's longish list).

Isn’t the “grid” literally the electricity grid? But the phrase also can connote going completely out of contact, so it’s ambiguous.

Off "the grid" is more than off the utility grid. It implies a rejection of the globalized supply chain, and a return to subsistence consumption. If you can't make it, you don't have it. This also includes non-existence in the financial system, and the minimization of data footprint.

It's just off the electric and waste disposal grid (and sometimes not even that).

Not "off the grid" in a fuller self-sufficient sustainable way.

And there are many people who do live in today's world "off the grid" in a fuller sense of the term - far more than the description of "off the grid" living here. People living in rural villages, island dwellings, and so on, in Europe, for example, can be far more off the grid than above (self-sustainable, that is, growing most of their own food, doing with less, hardly owning a TV or a smartphone, and so on), even if they still have a power line.

This includes not just old rural families and such, but also young people in a "back to the village" movement that's been going on.

I've come to believe that 'off grid' is about the establishment and maintenance of just enough infrastructure to allow the participant(s) to sustain the fantasy that they can replicate and maintain what they perceive as normative reality without reliance on any external factors. It is to maintain the notion that one can be independent of the broader society but still withdraw from that society any material advantages made available. In would seem to me a more benign outgrowth of basic human social patterns: specialized warrior-centered tribes who maintain themselves by raiding more agrarian tribes (particularly I think of the situation with the bandits in The Magnificent Seven as a more contemporary example.)

It seems like a fair summary of laws, not ‘dripping with assumptions’. And rainwater harvesting—something I’ve spent years doing and researching—is the most common ‘off grid’ practice. There’s a continuum of ‘off grid’ out there—most folks aren’t 100% disconnected from shared services.

> Water comes from wells drilled deep into the ground. Sewage goes to the same septic fields […] A modern solar rig can generate so much energy

Wait, this compendium of laws seems to cover all those things. Wells are ground-water, and there are many states with laws about how much ground-water you’re allowed to use.

A septic field is part of a small grid, and has to be organized, zoned, and agreed to, and use by neighbors.

And the article mentions off-grid solar is basically legal almost everywhere.

What’s wrong with also including the laws about pit-toilets and rainwater collection in an article about off-grid laws?

Quite a variety of rules, laws and regulations. I'm fairly sure there are errors in this list but the effort to compile it must have been significant. Kudos.

Its so strange to think of rainwater collection as illegal. That is utterly dystopian. But there it is across multiple areas.

Rules against solar? Wow! That's backwards and just screams stupid. On the flip side, I fully get regulation for any connection to the grid as with some kind of permit for the house wiring in general. House wiring should be up to some agreed upon code so its not made of sticky tape and extension cords.

I can sorta kinda dream up a reason for solar rules to exist. Not good ones, mind.

But can anyone take Devil’s advocate here and explain why a state might want to limit or prohibit rainwater collection? I’m struggling.

Surely it can’t just be financially motivated, right?

If a lot of it in diverted it might disrupt the ecosystem of ponds and streams that existed.

Collecting rainwater disturbs the flow of water to downstream users.

This is the real answer. In some cases that water is already owned by someone downstream.

Here is the scenario: you are the first settler in an area. You settle by a stream and use the water for irrigation or whatever. Then someone settles upstream from you and diverts the water for another use. In many places you have property rights to the flow of that stream based on prior usage.

> that water is already owned

Yup. If you allow people to "own" rainwater that hasn't even fallen yet, you are going to need some batshit regulations. So don't do that then.

Water rights have long been an issue in the mountain west, and are highly coveted. They go back to the settling of areas, and directly influence property values. Even well-depth is regulated for newer properties so as to prevent them from usurping water in use by existing residents.

I can see replenishment of the water tables being a concern, if everyone (or a good percentage, at least) started doing so. Add to that concerns about disrupting existing ecosystems, and I could see at least a partway compelling case that could be made. In fairness, there are likely to be at least an equal number of counter arguments that could be levied as well, but such is the nature of governance.

Are there any reported cases of water tables dropping because of residential water use? I always see agricultural and out-of-home use blamed (e.g. large lawns/gardens). I mean, any draw has impact, but I imagine water tables being so full of water when you hit them that you 100L/day draw for showers/cooking/washing/flushing has insignificant impact in any non-urban area.

>can see replenishment of the water tables being a concern, if everyone (or a good percentage, at least) started doing so.

Used to live in a village with a well (acquifer) and pumping station but in the city I live in now, and all the surrounding towns, all the water supply comes from rainwater (via a reservoir and treatment plant) ... like, where else you going to get it from?

Well, desalination notwithstanding, pretty much all water people use comes from rainfall/snowfall. It's just a matter of what combination of aquifers, man-made reservoirs, lakes, rivers, etc. are used to manage the water supply.

You collect a couple of gallons of rainwater, no problem. Everyone upstream catches rainwater? After all it's unregulated, a tank or a pond, no difference. Now cities downstream have no water.

I suppose you could argue from a health perspective, you don’t want half arsed systems that lead to people getting cholera.

> why a state might want to limit or prohibit rainwater collection

It seems nuts to me - a bit like regulating the breathing of air, or restricting the right to look at the sky.

I can only suppose that these regulations protect the revenue of water companies. I can't think of any socially-useful reason for restricting rainwater harvesting, when the rain is falling on private property.

Harvesting all the rain that falls on a floodplain is another matter; that would amount to appropriating an entire river, which in some parts of the world would cause an "international incident".

> Its so strange to think of rainwater collection as illegal

If you take a few gallons, it's fine. If you and 10,000 other people take a few gallons, that a problem. So we need to regulate it a little.

Why is it a problem? Honest question. In the mediterranean basin it was a necessity to collect rain water and store it in a big underground cistern. Most people don’t do it now a days, but old houses still have the system in place.

If you use it, you keep the first rain waters of the season diverted to allow for roof cleaning, then you set the pipes to store the water during all the winter.

You also have to keep some control of water quality. The traditional method is throwing a lime stone in to the cistern to kill the patogens.

The western US has a different concept of water rights because there’s literally not enough water for everyone to do what they want with it. All the water that falls is already accounted for, possibly by someone way downstream of you. Even if you don’t live near a river, that water is draining to somewhere and spoken for. If everyone collects it then whoever has the claim to that water is being denied their property rights, most of which were allocated on the basic concept of “finders keepers” a couple hundred years ago during the settling of the American west.

The challenge is that people invest their money and lives (building businesses) on the fact that they have these water rights so it’s hard to change without creating high emotions on both sides (“water is a human right” vs the primacy of property rights)

If you and 10,000 other people take a few gallons, then in total you match the annual water use of a single household.

> Its so strange to think of rainwater collection as illegal. That is utterly dystopian.

The laws around water rights are surprisingly complex and have a long history.

In practice, no one is going to care or pursue a homeowner for collecting rainwater on their property for personal use. It’s one of those situations where the laws were written with other scenarios in mind (protecting water rights holders) but there hasn’t been a clarification or carve out for personal use exemptions because it’s not really an issue that comes up frequently or maybe at all.

Until about 15 years ago Colorado was extremely serious about fining people caught collecting rainwater. Like somebody with a bucket of petunias watered from their rain gutter. It was ridiculous.

> Its so strange to think of rainwater collection as illegal. That is utterly dystopian. But there it is across multiple areas.

Which states? The only one I saw was Nevada, which is a desert. In a place with not enough water to spare, bogarting it can cause serious problems for other residents.

Florida, for one

> Rainwater harvesting is legal and encouraged in Florida. Many municipalities even offer incentives and rebates for rainwater harvesting.

The giant caveat that needs to be recognized:

> The laws about going off-grid are usually determined by local government and not the state, and they vary drastically.

You can be in one county where off grid, septic or open privy, and rain catchments are the norm, and in the next county in the same State they are all highly restricted or outright prohibited.

Have to check with the county or equivalent, if you have any off grid plans. Going by State level laws only, can be very expensive mistake.

Have to check for each property. A property can be part of a utility district for any of power, water, or sewage.

Me and my brother are both engineers and we tinker with off-grid existence on our vineyard. Some things we had to implement:

- Electricity: Modern solar tech is suprisingly powerful. We have a tiny 1.6kw system with 3kw batteries plus a Chinese inverter which works amazingly. While it is small, it only cost about $2k altogether, including fittings. We installed it ourselves for the miniscule cost of risking our lives on a roof that's ~30 feet high :)).

- Water: Next problem was water. We already had a 42m deep well, we just bought new pumps and some tech which controls water flow, so when you open the taps and pressure decreases, the pump starts. Works beautifully. Overall cost is a few hundred dollars for parts + installation, which we also paid a few hundred dollars for (we don't always have time to do things ourselves).

- Heated water: once you have water you quickly realize 10C is not always pleasant to shower in. So for $150 we bought a water heater that heats water by 25+ C as it flows through. It works with a gas cannister since our small electric system is not powerful enough to heat water.

- Sewage: we currently only have a compost toilet (ie. a hole dug into ground with a shed around it). We are moments away from having a proper English toilet and a septic tank (? another hole dug into the ground, but this time connecting the toilet inside the house to the pit with pipes)

- Heating, cooking: we have massive masonry heaters and stoves all over the property. I think we heat the house in around -10 C for $3-$5 worths of wood per day.

All in all modern solar enables off grid houses at a scale we could not imagine even a decade ago imho. 10/10 would do it again.

An thoughts on incinerating toilets? They’re like $4k, but that’s cheaper than septic usually and no plumbing. Can run off LP or electricity. A big appeal is that you don’t have to worry about temperatures since they’re waterless. And you can take it with you if you move.

> Heated water: once you have water you quickly realize 10C is not always pleasant to shower in. So for $150 we bought a water heater that heats water by 25+ C as it flows through. It works with a gas cannister since our small electric system is not powerful enough to heat water.

I’ve had good success with an ~40L pot of water on the wood-stove/gas-stove (or sous vide cooler if you have the energy budget) and an immersible battery pump with shower head:

https://m.aliexpress.com/item/1005003145415630.html

Works well for dishes too.

Since we don’t have running water in winter, these are great on top of a large bottle to fill a cup or wash hands hands-free:

https://m.aliexpress.com/item/1005003145230040.html

> An thoughts on incinerating toilets?

I haven't researched them because I found the price a bit ridiculous. Where I live sewage is not regulated at all so $4k sounds like an overkill. If it's mobile and durable and you like the idea, heck why not?

> I’ve had good success with an ~40L pot of water on the wood-stove/gas-stove

That's a pretty cool one. We went against wood because it's messy (it's enough hassle the heat the house with it) and a gas one is basically the water heater we have in a less compact version I guess.

> We already had a 42m deep well, we just bought new pumps and some tech which controls water flow, so when you open the taps and pressure decreases, the pump starts.

Are the pumps you use designed for that kind of use?

What I was told by my well company was that it is not good for the pump to run for a short time. One of the purposes of the well tank is to provide a buffer so that whenever the pump turns on it can run for a longer time filling the tank instead of just running for that cup of water you just filled.

It's a cheapish pump similar to this https://www.mmcwebshop.com/products/b5b179a61e4/353720000001....

Not too concerned about durability yet (way too happy with the fact of having water!), but time will tell. The previous pump we used was the same and it handled about a decade or two of abuse and sandy wells (though not in a short lived fashion as you say).

The buffer tank is a good solution but we were actually advised by professionals to go with this slightly more compact and cheaper option. I suspect you are right though.

The New York blurb seems hilariously off the mark. Well water and septic systems are pretty much the norm around here, and it's solidly suburban to semi-rural. Yeah, NY is strict relative to many states, but it makes it sound like you need some super special variance to have off-grid water and sewage.

Also plenty of people up north have rather lax opinions about code enforcement. Been to many off-grid residences where code enforcement is a quick glance and a tire kick.

In New York it very much depends on the county in question. The state allows local government quite a lot of authority.

In New York the majority of land use regulations are at the town/city level rather than county or state.

Another thing that isn't mentioned here is the hassle they can put you through if you have kids. For example, before they discharge you with a newborn they will ask you if you have electricity and some similar questions. If you answer no, they call child protection and have them investigate.

Interesting. I don’t think we got those questions for either of our kids. We do live in an urban area though.

I recall some questions about food security and heat security though.

The only thing they (east and west coast hospital, last 5 years) asked is if we have a car seat. And for the mom to do a depression screening.

So you're required to have a car?

The standard process--can't speak to having a newborn--but it you've been under sedation is that someone will pick you up in a car from the hospital. Now, if you're at an urban hospital and happen to live just down the street might someone walking to the hospital to pick you up be OK? Maybe. Can't speak to what the rules literally say.

ADDED: An of course someone picking you up may rent or borrow a car, take a taxi, or otherwise arrange for transportation.

Where I live, there are taxis.

So in that case, you would put the carseat in the taxi.

You both make a fair point! :-) It hadn't crossed my mind that you still need a car-seat, even if you ride a taxi.

So: how are you supposed to move children around, if you don't own or can't drive a car? You can't be expected to carry a car-seat around with you, as well as having kids in tow.

I had a car when I was raising kids; I've never confronted this problem.

Your previous comment asked incredulously whether its mandatory to have a car when you have a baby, since the poster before you commented on mandatory car seat.

Now your current comment about taxis may enable you to put the whole puzzle together :)

PA asks these questions, the car seat stuff, and makes you sign a paper saying you watched a shaken baby video.

If they're worried about shaken babies, then they seriously need to fix the potholes we're so infamous for.

I've lived 'off-grid' in Canada (Near Wilno Ontario and Near Nelson BC) and thankfully it never occurred to me that there may be laws about _that_.

Being fully off-grid is one thing, but I’d rather be self-sustaining. Like being connected to the grid but have enough solar and batteries to not need it most days, or at least could survive a few days without it. Connected to modern septic system and not have to pay high costs of sewers monthly. And connected to municipal water, but have a rainwater collection barrel just in case.

How on Earth using solar power on your own property be illegal or taxable in the first place?

Interactive map makes it easy to get to the section for a specific state. It even worked on my cheap, dysfunctional phone.

In rural Washington State, "off the grid" is often just one step above being homeless. I've seen some pretty bad looking shacks and yes, there are people living there. I don't think to ask them where their poo goes, but suffice it to say it's primitive. Somebody doing it The Right Way is bound to have it easy.

So much for the land of the free! :-)

We get the rules on off-grid solar for 50 states; but no mention of wind.

Almost every photo I've ever seen of a US farm (homestead, rural dwelling, what have you) shows a windmill in the yard. I think these windmills are really for pumping water from wells, not for power generation; but why is it assumed that going off-grid implies solar power?

The short answer is that photovoltaics and associated storage have gotten much better (cheaper/efficient) over the past decade or two whereas a personal windmill probably doesn't look a whole lot different than it did 50 years ago.

There were small ("micro") wind turbines being talked up for a time but the economics didn't make nearly as much sense as their backers promised. I've also seen small turbines used for cabins where there's fast water and not a huge amount of sun. But, for the most part, solar's going to make the most sense for personal power generation for most people on an ongoing basis. (Generators can still be the most economical approach just to cover outages.)

One thing I love about the US is that there is always someone that does this kind of work for you. In Canada it seems to be way harder to know what we can do and where. Laws are posted online but they're so unclear for a layman like myself that I can't understand anything.

Pretty high overview, but good overall. I built an off grid home this last year and it's pretty great.

So in the land of the free you can’t use solar from your own roof because that would be communism.

Cool now let's all get together and buy some land and make some kind of hacker collective.

Great! Then we can spend six months arguing about the color of the bike shed while the crops die.

Going to space, don't care.

Even if you did get into space, unless there was a massive leap in propulsion tech, you'd probably have to be self sufficient doing mundane tasks. You'd have to farm and put up space-bike sheds, and then, yes, paint them.

You are so correct.

> then, yes, paint them

I vote for not painting them.

Tangent, but I like reading about utopias, and Wikipedia, as usual, have been a goldmine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_utopian_commu...

That does sound like a cool idea, though can you imagine what a nightmare organising it would be? We’re an opinionated bunch as it is, organising would be like herding cats.

I have 11 flat acres outside of Asheville I'm going to put up for sale next year.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com