To: george76
He is not an innocent, or a victim.
Water rights and the laws involving them are complex, but they have existed for centuries for a reason.
In the Founders' day, a farmer who dammed up a creek to prevent his neighbors herds or crops from being watered would be in a heap of legal trouble.
4 posted on
07/09/2014 2:01:13 PM PDT by
wideawake
To: wideawake
He is not an innocent, or a victim.
Water rights and the laws involving them are complex, but they have existed for centuries for a reason.
How do you know he is not innocent or a victim?
Do you have personal knowledge about this case?
Do you have any experience in this issue?
Are you a rancher or a farmer?
Or are you just here to be a contrarian to issues that are important to conservatives?
25 posted on
07/09/2014 2:21:31 PM PDT by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: wideawake
He’s not damming a creek. He’s doing something that was done for centuries. He’s collecting rain.
The EPA is using his case as a test case to argue that citizens only have right to the water they are given.
27 posted on
07/09/2014 2:23:28 PM PDT by
Jonty30
(What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults)
To: wideawake
He did NOT dam up a creek.
He collected water that fell on his property.
Just because the rain on your roof ends up in the ocean, doesn’t mean your rain gutters are diverting a river.
36 posted on
07/09/2014 2:45:31 PM PDT by
G Larry
(Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
To: wideawake
“Water rights and the laws involving them are complex, but they have existed for centuries for a reason.”
Lawyers and salesmen. What else ya got?
111 posted on
07/10/2014 2:24:19 PM PDT by
CodeToad
(Arm Up! They Are!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson