But did she get the proper permit to capture snow runoff?
Posted on 07/27/2012 10:01:30 AM PDT by rawhide
– A rural Oregon man was sentenced Wednesday to 30 days in jail and over $1,500 in fines because he had three reservoirs on his property to collect and use rainwater.
Gary Harrington of Eagle Point, Ore., says he plans to appeal his conviction in Jackson County (Ore.) Circuit Court on nine misdemeanor charges under a 1925 law for having what state water managers called “three illegal reservoirs” on his property – and for filling the reservoirs with rainwater and snow runoff.
“The government is bullying,” Harrington told CNSNews.com in an interview Thursday.
“They’ve just gotten to be big bullies and if you just lay over and die and give up, that just makes them bigger bullies. So, we as Americans, we need to stand on our constitutional rights, on our rights as citizens and hang tough. This is a good country, we’ll prevail,” he said.
The court has given Harrington two weeks to report to the Jackson County Jail to begin serving his sentence.
...Tom Paul, administrator of the Oregon Water Resources Department, claims that Harrington has been violating the state’s water use law by diverting water from streams running into the Big Butte River.
“The law that he is actually violating is not the 1925 provision, but it’s Oregon law that says all of the water in the state of Oregon is public water and if you want to use that water, either to divert it or to store it, you have to acquire a water right from the state of Oregon before doing that activity,” Paul told CNSNews.com.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
But the land is now a “wetland” and should be protected right?
/johnny
Ping of interest.
bflr
Unbelievable.
I used to think things like this are crazy, but many people (myselfincluded) don’t understand the complexities of water “rights” and legislation. Capturing or diverting water is a HUGE issue out west.
Any diversion or use of water must respect the water rights law ~ and that is a huge part of the country BTW!
Diverting river/stream water maybe...
Rain water? That’s preposterous IMO.
Whatever this guy collects and uses, reduces his usage or impact on the municipal water supply. That should actually increase the municipal supply and be a benefit to the community.
The city doesn’t own the rain. If rain falls on his property, he owns it pure and simple.
I would mention the words ‘harassment’, ‘class action’, ‘tens of millions’ and ‘punitive damages’. I don’t like operating this way, but the city certainly doesn’t mind using the courts to their advantage. Respond in kind, only more so.
If they can pass a law that says all water belongs to the state I guess they can pass a law that says all of your money and your life and your children belong to the state too.
Then again, they have effectively done all of that anyways
This happened in the land of the free and the home of the brave! Idiocy knows no bounds. Who owns the water that falls out of the sky on your land?
Here are a few things that need to be considered.
Rain water that falls on your property is mostly absorbed by the ground or evaporates. If you get enough rain that water flows off your property, the water will fill whatever reservoirs you have in short order. Water collects quickly.
The concept Oregon is using here would also mean that if you have a pond, you are in violation of their law. You couldn’t allow a pond to exist on your property. If you had live-stock, you would have to purchase any water you needed for their consumption.
If the pond is allowed, then the same concept should be the grounds for you collecting other water for your own use.
If the city still plays hardball, then you should take them to court and have them pay you for the cubic feet of rain that falls on your property. They charge you for water. This means they are getting the water for free off your property (and of course many other people’s property) and selling it back to you. That isn’t equitable.
If the state owns rain water, then it also owns the clouds and water vapor.
This is not a slippery slope, it is straight tyranny.
Sure, maybe relieve pressure on the municipal supply, but that doesn’t mean a thing to the farmers, ranchers and municipalities downstream.
Just because he’s using less water locally doesn’t mean that the water he’s not using is placed back into the streams or aquafers. For the most part, that’s water that’s not going downstream. Multiply that by 10,000, 100,000 or even a million as you move upstream. It has an effect, ESPECIALLY during a drought. People used to KILL eachother over this stuff.
And be SURE that water rights is some of the oldest and most litigated law in the US. If you can think of it, it’s already been litigated and decided long ago. Going to trial over this is a 99.99999% loser for the homeowner with the barrels.
“The law that he is actually violating is not the 1925 provision, but it’s Oregon law that says all of the water in the state of Oregon is public water and if you want to use that water, either to divert it or to store it, you have to acquire a water right from the state of Oregon before doing that activity,” Paul told CNSNews.com.
For me this is the money quote, it’s all about money and control.
When I bought my homestead here in Kentucky, I made darn sure that I owned all of the “rights”, Water, Mineral and Timber. In this part of the country I am amazed at how much of the land has had the timber rights sold off. And that means that you DO NOT own any trees on your property.
Trees collect and then evaporate so much rainwater that lab instruments can detect changes to the local climate. Plant a tree, go to jail! We now live in an obey or pay police state. We have too many government hirelings looking to rob our paychecks for their laychecks.
This has been the case since before recorded history. Oregon is, for the most part, a semi-arid region. If you have a problem with this tell it to God. See if he sympathizes.
The idea in Oregon and WA is that the Indian tribes have the right to ALL the water, not just all the water that they need. What they aim to do is charge the private well owners for the water and limit the amount of water that the private well owners can use. Collecting rain water interferes with the limiting of water use.
The claim is that the rain water that falls on your property might run off your property and then wouldn’t be yours any longer.
There is a case headed to the Supreme Court over the Indian rights to ALL the water. They took it to court in WA State and lost and lost again on appeal, despite the support of the radical environmentalists. The Greens actually abandoned the tribes on this one, after they realized the political fall-out that would result, but they assisted the tribes in the early court case, doing the research and providing legal advice.
My thoughts exactly. This country is pale shadow of what it used to be.
Pretty good addition to the list of OVER-REGULATED ACTIVITIES!!
Although, it IS Oregon, why would you need to “store water”.
Chamber of Commerce used to have a signs:
In Oregon, we don’t irrigate our lawns, we drain them.
732 people drowned in Oregon last year....by falling off of their bicycle...
As other posters have noted this has been litigated gazillions of times. The guy who put in ponds doesn't have a chance of winning. Just isn't going to happen.
In Kentucky things are different.
BTW, except for land with considerable mineral wealth when you get into the areas governed by Western water rights law land isn't worth anything without a water right.
That's one of the reasons you find Western cities and towns having 6 to 12 lane roadways all over the place. The land was cheap.
If you move to one of those states make sure you buy a place to live with water rights or rights to access from a municipal provider. Else you'll waste your money.
There's nothing new in this. Way to deal with it is to change the plans or move the mirrors to the right spot.
NOTE: The reason for a performance audit is to detect a preponderance of deviations from the plans. Those mirrors in that position might well not be affixed properly to the wall ~ but we don't know.
The coastal zone has rain, but it’s really not up to typical Ohio Valley standards. Most of the state is arid or semi-arid. Even has alkaline lakes.
The eastern 2/3rds of both Oregon and Washington, are desert/brushlands. The Cascades (and Olympics in Washington) scrape most of the rainwater out of the clouds as they pass from west to east.
The State of Oregon: “I Drink Your Milkshake.”
We are becoming a People of the Government, by the Government and for the Government. If we do not ‘fundamentally change’ our course of government in November, we will forever be doomed.
Whatever happened to basic common sense? Government at all levels is populated by knaves and fools.
The falling rain belongs to God, once it hits the ground it belongs to whoever has prior water rights. The state is only a referee. You cannot usurp someone's water rights simply by moving in upstream or higher on the watershed. That water still belongs to someone else.
The law was designed to protect ranchers in eastern Colorado who found that their water was being diverted as people moved to the base of the mountains. To protect those rights they can confiscate rain barrels, breach catchments, plug wells, overturn buckets in someone's yard, even check your toilet to see if someone else's water is being used to flush. If someone has a prior claim they OWN that water.
That is the Colorado model and most western states' water laws are based on it. They are moving closer to it as competition for water increases.
If you want their water, buy it.
Grew up in Kennewick, WA.....so, I understand the desert...
But, I wasn’t about to pass up the punchlines!
Years ago, when my company was doing contract work, an ACoE (Army Corps of Engineers) major told me that THEY owned all water rights in continental US; EPA official told me same thing 6mos later, that EPA owned all water/mineral rights in US.
WTF?
The paperwork/permits/fees/contracts/inspections are voluminous and daunting, and caused me to get out of that type of contract work.
Then, USDOT and Dept of AG got into it with permits/fees/contracts/inspections on equipment etc, and I pulled the corp plug last year, after 22yrs. Screw it.
Unless you have lived out West this may seem silly. Water rights on a property can go back to claims from the early 1800's out west. You can own the property but not own rights to the water running through your property.
Flow is carefully monitored on streams out west. If there is a dispute over a neighbor taking too much of your stream water upstream a Water Rights Judge is called in to settle the matter. It usually involves him coming out to the property in question and reviewing the claims made by both parties and making a decision. In true western fashion court is usually held outdoor by the stream in question so that the actual stream flows can be measured.
Out west, it is no water, no crops, no livelihood. Water is very serious out west.
If this guy was just collecting rain in barrels then the state is being silly. If he is diverting streams which are filled with rainwater or snow-melt runoff then that is entirely different. His neighbors down stream that need to water their crops have probably reported him to the state.
Regards, Mr. Sol
The essence of this case is: was his pond water entirely what fell on his land, or did he actually divert a stream that ran into the property from outside?
Here is a tid bit from western Washington where the democrats in charge are taking control of water. This is a mainstay of the international socialists who follow the rule that controlling water is controlling people. The takeaway line in this article is: " The rule would largely do away with the permit exemptions that now allow those who drill a well within the region to enjoy the resulting water at no cost."
sfl
No. Water which falls on or runs under property is subject to first use or prior use claims. It is a property right which attaches to the property which can establish prior use in a timeline.
Most of the wells around Sedona, down through Cottonwood, Clarkdale, Lake Montezuma, Camp Verde, anywhere along the Verde Vally all the way to Phoenix are taking water which legally belongs to Salt River Project. SRP, if they wanted to be pissy, could shut them down or charge for the water and it may come to that at some future date. Right now SRP has bigger fish to fry but they are well aware of the depletion rate in the watershed.
“We now live in an obey or pay police state. We have too many government hirelings looking to rob our paychecks for their paychecks.”
So why don’t we stand up to them? Why don’t we tar and feather them and send them back where they came from? When will we meet them at the Old North Bridge and tell them that they will go no further?
After all, wasn’t this country built on the notion of standing up to tyranny?
“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.” - The Declaration of Independence
I'm open to methods but since our distant ancestor's days in Africa the best method has been to move away. An option might be to build new land in the shallow Atlantic and create a new government with the original U.S. Constitution without the later amendments. Create a new crypto-currency and run a zero house percentage zero tax internet lottery so people the world over could buy some hope. The new island would have rich lottery winners moving in every week. A prime industry would be medical care, poaching the best doctors fleeing Obamacare. We'd need an airport capable of landing 737s an hours flight from Florida, and for shipping out leftists. We'd need fast internet and excellent FedEx service to bring in Amazon purchases. We don't need much to be happy, just less government, less lawyers, less regulation, less taxes, less left-side-of-the-bell-curve neighbors.
I call BS. The water inside my body is not public water. Hence, one must DEFINE where that "public water," IOW the public CLAIM on the water begins. If it is on his roof, it is still his responsibility. If it is on his land he didn't have to use a well. If it is from rain that fell on his land, ditto. If on the other hand the water came ONTO his property from outside in a seasonal stream, the government has a case. The distinction is all about HOW he acquired the water on his land.
Thank you Eva. That was informative. I wasn’t aware of that dynamic.
As for all the water rights going to native Americans, that’s absurd.
I want native Americans treated with respect. That’s it.
There’s a movement in this nation to go back hundreds of years to make up for things that took place back then, using as skewed a version of history as can be come up with.
This is a big movement by the United Nations. You could have seen Canada buying into this during the Olympic Winter games that took place there about five years ago.
To make it crystal clear, I do like the idea of old native American customs being remembered and heralded. When it reaches the level that our modern systems are denigrated as a result, I’m not buying in.
Thank you again Eva.
I’m in total agreement Reeses.
Thanks LibWhacker. I agree. And it’s getting worse by the day...
Mr. Harrington you might beat this is you can afford to hire a really good environmental lawyer.
Look up his speech on the House floor. He got one of the VERY rare standing ovations!
The movement to return the rural lands and all the natural resources to the “rightful owners” is part of the social justice meme. Social justice is the religion of the New World Order. It involves the redistribution of the world’s wealth to those who done nothing to earn it, including the American Indians.
You would be amazed at how far along the left is in completing this effort. The new transportation bill which was just signed by the House, includes money for the GATEWAYS, which are the ports, terminals and hubs that connect the multi-modal transportation corridor through the rural lands. These multi-modal transportation corridors are intended to move people and cargo through rural areas, while limiting human incursion into the rural areas.
The Gateway Coal Terminal is NW WA is part of this system.
Hey don’t try to interrupt arguments based on feelings with arithmetic and common sense. What are you some kind of right wing extremist?
Carry_Okie, my thinking runs along the same lines as yours. As long as this guy captures the rain on the way down, it’s his IMO. That’s not all either.
I do think water flowing onto your property can be debated. If that water happens to flow in a natural collection basin, I still believe it should be yours. If you were to take measures to expand that collection basin significantly, I think other parties should have some voice under certain circumstances. For instance, if previous overflow had traditionally supplied others with water downstream, they have a reasoned vested interest. I do not think water that falls on and collects on your property should be debatable. There couldn’t be a private pond or small lake in the nation if that weren’t true.
I worked up some numbers explaining what the full impact of individual capture systems would look like. You can use this link if you’re interested.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2911470/posts?page=42#42
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.