As a general note it is easy to get stamped to wrong conclusions on just about any topic. Not saying that is the case here. But some “conservatives” get caught up in the same fallacy as leftists in not knowing all the facts. -—Just speaking as a hydrologist and hydraulic engineer.
i just took the opportunity of that specific Oregon case to make a sweeping generalization!
I suspect many of our city-dwelling and east of the Mississippi FR friends are unaware of the seriousness of water rights issues in the west.
We just spent over $25,000 to obtain water rights for a pond on our property which is not over 70’ in diameter, and has been there for over 30 years.
When you get West of the 100 degree line you move into elevations mostly higher than 3000 feet and where the annual precipitation is just a fraction of what it is to the East.
Obviously water rights laws are going to vary with the circumstances, but unless you bother to study the situation and find out what these laws are about and how utterly ancient they are, you will invariably make erroneous conclusions.
Basically, where it rains a lot you can divert water at will. Where it doesn't rain very much, the fellow using that water (which may be downstream) has a priority over your new use so you'll probably need a permit of some kind, or maybe you'll have to buy out his water rights.
Some states started business without private claimants. Others had occupants when the US took over. That leads to sometimes almost inexplicable rules. Oregon was already part of Spanish North America and subject to Spanish traditional water rights laws once the inlet to the Inside Passage up there at the Alaskan border was discovered.
Once the US and UK made their settlement, Oregon continued to follow the traditional water rights laws imposed by Spanish ownership. And even though it rains a lot West of the mountains, it does not rain much at all East of that area. Most of Oregon is truly semi-arid.
This guy knew better.