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.
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.