[Timpanagos1]

This is not a federal matter.

Furthermore, it is not unusual for a government agency or authority to own the rainwater in a watershed.

Here in Texas, people are billed or fined for drawing water from lakes that their property ajoins.

The land belongs to you, the water does not.

[Lorianne]

This is true, it’s Oregon.
I think in Portland it is illegal to collect rainwater from your roof into rain barrels. So you have to use expensive treated city water for landscape irrigation. Not that you need that much for irrigation but the summers can be dry.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Here’s the problem I have with that.

Apparently in Oregon you owned the water on your land until the day this bill passed in 1925.

Unless land owners at that time were compensated (which I highly doubt) this would constitute an illegal taking.

Even in Eminent Domain cases the government is required to cough up fair market value. They can’t just pass a bill and say “all you stuff belong us”.

[precisionshootist]

"it is not unusual for a government agency or authority to own the rainwater in a watershed."

And there is the problem. This needs to become highly UNUSUAL. like so unusual there are no known examples.

Under what authority does the government own rainwater? Do they also own the wind and the sunlight?

These people need to tell the government to go F%ck themselves.

[achilles2000]

“The land belongs to you, the water does not.”

Says who? Some effin’ out-of-control government? The government doesn’t create the rain nor does it in any legitimate way own it. Your comment reflects the mentality of a serf.

[sergeantdave]

“Furthermore, it is not unusual for a government agency or authority to own the rainwater in a watershed. Here in Texas, people are billed or fined for drawing water from lakes that their property ajoins.”

Texas will eventually get swatted down for its theft of common law water rights, as was the EPA and and Army Corps of Engineers by the SCOTUS. Property owners have reasonable water drawing rights. That’s well established in English common law.

[blu]

This is a state issue, not a federal one (although the Supreme Court did a fine job of clearing up a riparian issue in 1950.

Here in Michigan, we have “riparian” rights, which means that whomever owns the land adjacent to the water controls that bit of water. Out west, they use the “appropriation” rights, which means that the first person to use the water in a good way gets to control it. Wouldn’t it suck to live on a river and not be able to use the water to water your livestock? Yep, you have to put down a well for that.

Seems like a very easy thing to do is rewrite the law. Sure, there will be a fight with the corporate water holders....but this issue has been a pain in the keister for so long...you’d think a few people could start a grassroots movement and make the law one that allows people to use the water that God sends their way.

[Mr. Douglas]

Right. One of the reasons I left the Seattle area was things like needing a permit to save the rain water off your roof. On my 32 acres in KY I can save all the rain water I want. I can dig a pond to gather it, dam up the two streams on my property if I so choose, etc.

At the end of the4 day, it all just flows through anyway.

An added bonus where I live, and somewhat related, is that I don’t need a building permit to build a home - or anything else. I’ve already put up a couple of small ones and am still working on getting the 36x36 garage up.

I can also hunt game on my property without a hunting license.

Freedom is so awesome out here!

[Svartalfiar]

Here in Texas, people are billed or fined for drawing water from lakes that their property ajoins.

Yes, but there's a huge difference between drawing water from a public lake (especially in a state that has major droughts where lakes can be 20 feet below normal - statewide we were at maybe 50% of total capacity a couple years ago), and having a pond entirely on your own property.