The State's claim is too broad and ambiguous. They need to specify the particular stream or river watershed which is being violated. If Harrington's property is not part of a specific watershed then he is not in violation of the idiotic law.
My guess is that he has the wrong lawyer or is representing himself.
The law is faulty in so many ways.
A landowner who builds a small pond to irrigate crops, etc., for instance, would have to get a permit or he would be in the same boat.
So issuing a permit to one and denying a permit to another .....
Bringing in a landscaaper and terracing one’s property to reduce runoff would run into the same legal problems unless not enforced.
One can think of 100 examples.
In many states, mine included, one must create holding ponds to prevent runoff when one grades, paves or in anyway changes the natural runoff pattern.
I thought Oregon had a very wet climate and that there was no problem with lack of water.
Does not make much sense, but then neither do most libs and Oregon is noted for nut case libs.
Watersheds areas big as the regulators say they are. In parts of WA state, it is illegal to place cistern or water barrel on your property without the approval of the State dept of wildlife. They say that if the water is allowed to run freely, it might run off of your property and then it wouldn’t be yours any more.