Skip to comments.Oregon criminalizes permaculture; claims state ownership over all rainwater
Posted on 08/01/2012 5:54:54 AM PDT by dontreadthis
Jackson County, Oregon says it owns YOUR rainwater, and the county has sentenced a man to 30 days in jail and fined him over $1500, for the supposed "crime" of collecting rainwater on his own property.
The man's name is Gary Harrington, and he owns over 170 acres of land in Jackson County. On that land, he has three ponds, and those ponds collect rainwater that falls on his land. Common sense would say Gary has every right to have ponds with water on his 170 acres of land, but common sense has been all but abandoned in the state of Oregon.
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalnews.com ...
First they came for my rain barrel, then my cloth line, then my sawdust toilet,and finally they came for me.
Power hungry control Freaks!
Do I recall correctly, that he was also diverting river water to his ponds?
The truth about this issue was posted here earlier in the week. This guy was diverting the river into the ponds, not just rainwater.
This country is becoming worse than the USSR.
“Do I recall correctly, that he was also diverting river water to his ponds?”
I understand that they were trying to make the claim that as soon as the water hit the ground it was part of a tributary and then subject to their regs.
Government is not by its nature on the side of the people, and the bigger it gets, the more it opposes individual freedom.
This is far bigger than Oregon. Both Colorado and Utah have similar restrictions, although Colorado decided to permit some rain barrels in 2009. I’m sure there are numerous other states that have water rights laws that are convoluted for political advantage. Water is life, money and votes. Politicians know that they can slip this kind of legislation under the radar and insure some power over their opponents.
Yes— we have hordes of bureaucrats progressively regulating every last aspect of commerce and behavior.
Eventually we’ll be told how many children we can have and how many sheets of toilet paper we can use each month.
“It’s all for the good of the collective, comrade!”
If I lived in Oregon, I bottle up some piss and send it to every member of the legislature (politburo).
F-nggovernment at it again. Time to throw all these econazis out. Government owns rainwater, give me a break. Since they claimed ownership of the air there is no stopping them.
As I read it (and no doubt my info is incomplete) but the OR govt’s position is that every little transient rivulet in every little gully or topogrphic wrinkle that comes from a downpour or snowmelt is a “tributary”.
Where there is ample rainfall, there's a different system used to regulate "diversion" of water.
If the State owns the rainwater then the State darn well better keep it off of my property! Their rain water has ruined my hay crops, flooded my basement, muddied my fields and barnyard, eroded my soil and drowned out my pastures.
Yes, I own water rights from the river, but since the State owns the rainwater, I demand that they keep their dang water in the river where it belongs - and I will put it on my fields (according to my permit rights) when I want it there!
Seems like the State could be sued for trespass - just like I can be sued if my cows get out and destroy my neighbors’ crops.
And if he let the ponds dry up, the Feds would be after him for destroying Wet Lands.
The eastern wet zone states use Riparian and the interior western dry zone states use Prior Appropriation.
Those states that straddle the wet dry lines use a dual doctrine of riparian and prior appropriation.
The 98th meridian is the eastern wet/dry line so those state that straddle use the dual doctrine and include TX, OK, KS, etc.
The western wet dry line is the Cascades/Sierra Nevada so CA, WA , and OR use the dual doctrine.
This article is mis-info. The state doesn't own the water although a state can own water rights. The state administers the water rights.
The guy in this article is taking someone else's prior appropriation water right and it is the state's job to prevent him. So, under the use it or lose it clause, if this guy successfully uses the water, that would prevent the actual owner(s) from using the water they would lose the water right.
They were told by just everybody who also controls an arid or semi-arid region that their practice would turn the Aral Sea into a desert and change the climate for a thousand miles around.
Well, today the Aral Sea is a desert and so is much previously useful grazing land.
Read all about it. This guy was doing what the Soviets did that killed the Aral Sea!
I think the State was accusing him of diverting water from his property from flowing into the creek, not that he was diverting water running across his property that came from a source upstream of his property.