Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Oregon Man Sentenced to 30 Days in Jail -- for Collecting Rainwater on His Property
cnsnews.com ^ | 7-26-12 | Kendra Alleyne

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: nannystate; oregon; rain; rainwater; resources; zoning
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

1 posted on 07/27/2012 10:01:39 AM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rawhide

But the land is now a “wetland” and should be protected right?


2 posted on 07/27/2012 10:04:07 AM PDT by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
I just watered the garden with stored rain-water. State can sod off.

/johnny

3 posted on 07/27/2012 10:04:15 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
Oregon-ized crime strikes again. Oregon is a blue police state. It will go for Obama all the way.
4 posted on 07/27/2012 10:06:26 AM PDT by Armaggedon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

Ping of interest.


5 posted on 07/27/2012 10:08:18 AM PDT by 383rr (Those who choose security over liberty deserve neither; GUN CONTROL= SLAVERY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

bflr


6 posted on 07/27/2012 10:10:30 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

Unbelievable.


7 posted on 07/27/2012 10:12:15 AM PDT by FES0844
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

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.


8 posted on 07/27/2012 10:13:34 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FES0844
Rawhide, this is how it is West of 100 Degrees W in this country.

Any diversion or use of water must respect the water rights law ~ and that is a huge part of the country BTW!

9 posted on 07/27/2012 10:21:06 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE

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.


10 posted on 07/27/2012 10:24:12 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Remove all Democrats from the Republican party, and we won't have much Left, just a lot of Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

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


11 posted on 07/27/2012 10:24:39 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

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?


12 posted on 07/27/2012 10:29:34 AM PDT by Citizen Tom Paine (An old sailor sends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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.


13 posted on 07/27/2012 10:34:58 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Remove all Democrats from the Republican party, and we won't have much Left, just a lot of Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

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.


14 posted on 07/27/2012 10:36:45 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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.


15 posted on 07/27/2012 10:36:45 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

“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.


16 posted on 07/27/2012 10:37:17 AM PDT by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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.


17 posted on 07/27/2012 10:39:28 AM PDT by Reeses (Sustainable energy? Let's first have sustainable government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Water rights in areas with plentiful rainfall are quite different than water rights in arid or semi-arid regions.

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.

18 posted on 07/27/2012 10:44:24 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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.


19 posted on 07/27/2012 10:44:30 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

My thoughts exactly. This country is pale shadow of what it used to be.


20 posted on 07/27/2012 10:44:58 AM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
I just heard a congressman, on Rush Limbaugh, who was brought to a renovated baseball field that the government wouldn’t give a certificate of occupancy because the mirrors in the bathrooms were a quarter inch too low.
Get the government out of the way.
21 posted on 07/27/2012 10:46:42 AM PDT by lucky american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

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...


22 posted on 07/27/2012 10:49:16 AM PDT by G Larry (I'm under no obligation to be a passive victim!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man
It rains in Kentucky with enough frequency that the old English common law standards for water rights apply. This is in the far West where it doesn't rain enough for those standards.

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.

23 posted on 07/27/2012 10:50:31 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: lucky american
FHA/VA inspections checked out all sorts of things like that ~ it's not that the mirrors are too low but they were placed other than provided for on the plan.

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.

24 posted on 07/27/2012 10:54:37 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

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.


25 posted on 07/27/2012 10:56:17 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

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.


26 posted on 07/27/2012 10:58:08 AM PDT by j_tull (Massachusetts once lead the American Revolution. Under Mitt Romney, it lead the demise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

The State of Oregon: “I Drink Your Milkshake.”


27 posted on 07/27/2012 10:59:35 AM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

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.


28 posted on 07/27/2012 11:00:10 AM PDT by Dapper 26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

Whatever happened to basic common sense? Government at all levels is populated by knaves and fools.


29 posted on 07/27/2012 11:07:40 AM PDT by beethovenfan (If Islam is the solution, the "problem" must be freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rawhide


But did she get the proper permit to capture snow runoff?
30 posted on 07/27/2012 11:09:26 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana ("I love to hear you talk talk talk, but I hate what I hear you say."-Del Shannon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Tom Paine
Who owns the water that falls out of the sky on your land?

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.

31 posted on 07/27/2012 11:11:12 AM PDT by MARTIAL MONK (I'm waiting for the POP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; j_tull

Grew up in Kennewick, WA.....so, I understand the desert...

But, I wasn’t about to pass up the punchlines!


32 posted on 07/27/2012 11:19:32 AM PDT by G Larry (I'm under no obligation to be a passive victim!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

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.


33 posted on 07/27/2012 11:41:24 AM PDT by carriage_hill (All libs and most dems think that life is just a sponge bath, with a happy ending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE; rawhide
I used to think things like this are crazy, but many people (myself included) don’t understand the complexities of water “rights” and legislation. Capturing or diverting water is a HUGE issue out west.

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

34 posted on 07/27/2012 11:42:16 AM PDT by Solar Wind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE

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?


35 posted on 07/27/2012 11:49:07 AM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 383rr; TEXOKIE; ELVISNIXON.com; SunkenCiv; E. Pluribus Unum; CharlyFord; cripplecreek; ...
What we are seeing is the upgraded advancement of U.N. Agenda 21 that has gained momentum under Obama's administration. I follow news links all over the country and the incremental destruction of our rights under the boot heels of environmental activists is something people are starting to become aware of. I hope the awakening is swift.

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."

36 posted on 07/27/2012 12:05:12 PM PDT by Baynative (A man's admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for others)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

sfl


37 posted on 07/27/2012 12:09:17 PM PDT by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlazingArizona
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?

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.

38 posted on 07/27/2012 12:26:22 PM PDT by MARTIAL MONK (I'm waiting for the POP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Reeses

“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


39 posted on 07/27/2012 12:27:07 PM PDT by MeganC (The Cinemark theatre in Aurora, CO is a 'Gun Free Zone'. Spread the word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MeganC
So why don’t we stand up to them?

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.

40 posted on 07/27/2012 1:25:47 PM PDT by Reeses (Sustainable energy? Let's first have sustainable government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: rawhide; DoughtyOne
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

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.

41 posted on 07/27/2012 1:45:01 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The Slave Party Switcheroo: Economic crisis! Zero's eligibility Trumped!! Hillary 2012!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE
Sure, maybe relieve pressure on the municipal supply, but that doesn’t mean a thing to the farmers, ranchers and municipalities downstream.  In reality, what you are saying is that the local municipal water concern would then have a number of great customers for the excess water they would not otherwise have had, if this guy didn't collect rain-water.  I'd have to agree.

As for the poor farmers, ranchers, and municipalities down stream, what you've said here verges on the absurd.  I'm not sure where this thinking rooted from, since you certainly aren't the only one who harbors it, but it's an absurd premise.  I'll explain why just ahead.


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 aquifers.  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.

Portland: 550,000
Eugene: 155,000
Salem: 155,000
Gresham: 101,000
Hillsboro: 89,000
Beaverton: 86,000
Bend: 81,000
Medford: 77,000
Springfield: 58,000
Corvallis: 55,000


LINK

Which of these cities do you think has one million people capturing water?  Which region do you think has one million peole capturing water?  It's simply not in most people's make-up, to build a water capturing system.

3,871,859:  LINK  That's the total population of Oregon, and they don't all live on the same flood plane.  That number includes children and elderly people.  You can probably eliminate one third of that number based on an age demographic.  (too young/too old)  That leaves roughly 2.5 million people in the whole state of an age group that would possibly collect water if they wanted to.  Of those 2.5 million people left, it's likely a major portion of them are cohabiting.  They have a spouse and kids.  Some of them live in a apartment.  They either don't have the land to capture water, or they might possibly set up a communal water capture system for the two to five member family.  In reality, there may be around 1.25 million possible water collectors in the state (give or take 250k).  I don't know what percentage of the populace would even bother to set up a water collection system and use it, but I'd peg that number at between 1 in 20 to 1 in 50 people.  In the whole state we're realistically talking about between 25,000 and 62,500 people who might conceivably bother to capture water.  Of those people, many of them will set up one or two barrels to capture water.  Some diehards will set up between five and ten.  Even at this point, this is clearly not a threat to the down-stream water supply.

Once again, even if what you are saying wasn't askew at all, there would be a massive amount of excess water at the municipal level, that could be sold or allowed to flow to the people who needed it downstream.  You're killing your own argument here.

Do you have any idea how many cubic feet of water fall on a property if an inch of rain falls?  Do you have any concept of how few people participate, and how little of the total rain that does fall is captured by them?


I don't personally know one person that captures water.  Further, I don't know of even one person in my community who does.  It takes a certain type of individual to take on the task in any meaningful way. Most people aren't going to bother doing it. So let's look at the impact one person can have if they are so vile (evidently by your standard from what you have intimated) as to capture water that falls on their own property.

On a 40' x 75' city plot of property, a one inch rainfall will deliver 3,000 cubic feet of water  This 3,000 cubic feet of water converts at the rate of 7.48 gallons of water per cubic foot, to 22,440 gallons of water.  Frankly I've never heard of anyone capture more than ten barrels full of water on their city property.  And most endeavors along these lines generally capture half that amount or less.  Even at the ten barrel collection rate, the person capturing water would only collect 500 gallons.  (if we're talking 50 gallon barrels/containers)  This would represent 2.22816 % of the total rain that fell.  22,440 gallons would have fallen.  21,940 gallons would have gone their natural course.  500 gallons would not have.  If more than one inch falls, this percentage goes down precipitously.  If three inches falls, the person would not capture more.  His capture rate would drop to 0.74272%.  If he's only one of twenty who do this, the total capture rate would drop to 0.03714%.  If he's one in fifty who do it, the capture rate drops further to 0.01485%.  Yep, that means that 99.9861% of the rain would follow it's natural course.  Oh the humanities...

The idea this is going to cause anyone down stream to be negatively impacted to the extreme is utter nonsense.  Even at these minuscule capture rate percentages over all, they are offset by water savings at the municipal level too.  This drops the overall water impact down to the point that it would be absurd to even address it.  No that's not true.  It was already too minscule to address it even before this last concept was presented.  And this still isn't taking into account ALL the mitigating factors.  You're probably a great person, but your argument is silly.

Let's look at a larger property.  In this example we'll look at a property that is 640 acres in size.  I'm going to jump to an absurd capture rate so you'll see how little it actually impacts the water supply.  At one inch of rain, if the farmer captures 1 million gallons of water, he will have captured 0.47955% of the water that fell.   207,530,432 gallons of rain would run it's natural course.  All farmers are not going to capture this amount of water.  As I said it's an absurd level of capture to begin with.  So even if up to 1 in 5 farms captured this much, only 0.09195% of the water would have been captured.  1 million gallons would have been captured, and 1,041,652,160 gallons would have flowed freely.  Yep, 99.91% of the water would continue to flow uninterrupted.  Yes, you read that right.  Over one billion gallons would have flowed freely.  And that's compared to the paltry 1 million that was captured.

And then there are other premises that haven't been touched on.  Cities actually cover a very small portion of the earth's surface.  Larger plots or farms cover more of it.  And the largest majority, a massive expanse is uninhabited where no water at all is collected.

Keep in mind each of these capture rate examples provided above are being run under the premise every container or capture devise was completely empty when it started to rain.  In fact, they could be 50, 75, 95, or even 100% full due to prior rainfalls.

If the concerns you addressed down stream can't get by on 99.98 plus percent of the rain that falls upstream when the containers were empty, and the 99.9999% when they are not, then to hell with them.


People used to KILL each other over this stuff.  People kill each other for nothing at all.  Don't base your plans on that, other than self-protection.

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.
  Bull shit.  River and lake water diversion has been litigated for a long time.  Individual property rights, and the minuscule water that is captured on that property, is ripe for being addressed, if the idiots that make up the rules are following the same logic patterns you are.

If it falls on your property, you own it.  The city, county, state, and federal government does not!

The last I heard, God is not on the government payroll.

I live in Southern California, and I think it's absurd the amount of water we move down here from Northern California.

We should do more to capture water here.  We should also be desalinating ocean water for our own consumption.  Yes it would cost more, but it would not be the total supply for water.  We could cut down considerably on the amount we get from Northern California, and carry more of our own weight by paying a fractionally higher price for water, considering only a relatively small percentage of it would come from desalinization.  If we got our ass in gear, and cut our consumption from up north by even 10%, it would amount to a hell of a lot of water reverted to their own use, and only 10% of our water would be impacted by desalinization.  And even less than that, if we devised measures to capture more water here.

Putting a guy in jail for perhaps affecting the total rain water supply from the 20 to 50 homes around him by 0.02%?  Really?  I'm not buying it.  It's evidence of pure abuse by government pencil pushers, and those who are willing to act against their fellow citizens on command.

42 posted on 07/27/2012 2:02:22 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Remove all Democrats from the Republican party, and we won't have much Left, just a lot of Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Eva

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.


43 posted on 07/27/2012 2:09:39 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Remove all Democrats from the Republican party, and we won't have much Left, just a lot of Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Reeses

I’m in total agreement Reeses.


44 posted on 07/27/2012 2:10:32 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Remove all Democrats from the Republican party, and we won't have much Left, just a lot of Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Thanks LibWhacker. I agree. And it’s getting worse by the day...


45 posted on 07/27/2012 2:12:03 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Remove all Democrats from the Republican party, and we won't have much Left, just a lot of Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

Mr. Harrington you might beat this is you can afford to hire a really good environmental lawyer.


46 posted on 07/27/2012 2:12:18 PM PDT by upchuck ("Definition of 'racist:' someone that is winning an argument with a liberal." ~ Peter Brimelow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lucky american
I just heard a congressman, on Rush Limbaugh, who was brought to a renovated baseball field that the government wouldn’t give a certificate of occupancy because the mirrors in the bathrooms were a quarter inch too low.

Look up his speech on the House floor. He got one of the VERY rare standing ovations!

47 posted on 07/27/2012 2:15:05 PM PDT by houeto (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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.


48 posted on 07/27/2012 2:19:13 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Hey don’t try to interrupt arguments based on feelings with arithmetic and common sense. What are you some kind of right wing extremist?


49 posted on 07/27/2012 2:25:12 PM PDT by Repeat Offender (While the wicked stand confounded, call me with Thy Saints surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

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


50 posted on 07/27/2012 2:28:04 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Remove all Democrats from the Republican party, and we won't have much Left, just a lot of Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson