Man arrested for collecting rainwater on his own property

[eagl]

Gotta love stories like this. I'm sure the 30 days in jail will teach him a good lesson though. If you want water, even that which naturally falls or flows onto your own property, you must first grovel before the city government.

FYI, according to the article the city actually granted him the permits.  It was the state that revoked them, forcing the city to take action against him.

[icepac]

Most new builds in certain florida counties are required to dig a retention pond.

[Delirium]

Collecting rain water in a hole on your property and stopping 'the flow of all water off the mountain' are so far apart in magnitude and potential effect, the line you're drawing is more like a really thick rectangle. The whole concept of private property might as well be tossed out if you're going to allow this level of oversight on such a vast territory.

No, the comparison is the same... what would happen if the same individual owned 170 acres of mountain territory, which included water ways that supported local rivers?

Besides, you should know that private property isn't private at all. The government can increase taxes prohibitively, prevent making use of the such property (ie structures), and can even seize property to give to public or private developers. Any land you own is because local government permits it and only until they find better use for it.

[Mickthestick]

No, the comparison is the same... what would happen if the same individual owned 170 acres of mountain territory, which included water ways that supported local rivers?

You're oversimplifying it to the point of absurdity - which is exactly the problem with this situation.

If the individual in question diverted the water flow from an entire mountain, then the magnitude of the potential effects of his actions would be in a totally different ball-park from what he actually did. The fact that both actions violate the same law doesn't make them the same, moreover, the fact that the law doesn't distinguish the two makes the law a poorly written one.

Violating the speed limit by 5 mph and by 105 mph is also, in some ways, similar. However, legislators were smart enough to make those two acts different in the eyes of the law. I do not see why they do not do the same here.

[guncrasher]

I am not sure where that guy lives but seriously does it rain so much that it fills the reservoirs he built with just rain?  or is he collecting runoff water from somewhere and diverting it to his reservoirs?  I am pretty sure he surveyed his land and notice that when it rains the water follows this "rain stream" (not sure what the proper name is ) and he built a reservoir at the end to collect runoff water as opposite to just building a hole in the ground anywhere and let it fill up with rain water.

semp

[zack1234]

lol

Its water companies stocks and shares they are protecting lol

You can have what you want but you can't have what you need

[grizz441]

you cant be serious.....have to get "Permits" to collect rain water.....thats absurd.

this is a perfect example of...........ehhhh never mind

Did you read the article?  It was more than collecting rainwater.

I'm not saying who is right but I am saying that I can see the City's point of view.  There have to be restrictions in how much water you can use or retain on your land.  And not only that, but if you are storing appreciable amounts of water it could actually affect the water table in the area, which could affect your neighbor's welling.  

Not that I'm a hydrologic engineer, but it's certainly more complicated than "My land my water!"

[Mickthestick]

Not that I'm a hydrologic engineer, but it's certainly more complicated than "My land my water!"

Actually, it seems to be exactly that simple, only the beneficiary of that broad-stroked law is the city... As the article reads: "The law established that the city of Medford would hold the rights to all the sources of water in the Big Butte Creek watershed and tributaries."

The city holds the rights to "all sources of water", including rain and runoff. It is legally theirs to give or keep. Unless the journalist dumbed it down substantially, the most intuitive interpretation of this paraphrasing is that the city government will fine or imprison you for any water taken without their permission, even if it is on your land.

Fine, I'll accept that over-broad nonsense as justified (because unless the majority of his 170 acres is a big hole in the ground there is no way he's affecting the local water-table in any substantial manner), so did this guy, too, because he paid for the permits.... Which means that the time and resources which went into creating those reservoirs was done so under oversight and the protection of the law. In order to stop a reservoir from being a reservoir, you have to fill it back in, which, surprise surprise, requires more time and money.

When the state withdrew the permits, in effect pulling the city out of the deal they made with him, did they also provide him with compensation for his trouble and loss? Did they offer to do the work for him? I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess they didn't.

Unless there are facts the writer left out, namely, things like a financial settlement for the burden the state/city put on this guy, they are in the wrong.

[grizz441]

Actually, it seems to be exactly that simple, only the beneficiary of that broad-stroked law is the city... As the article reads: "The law established that the city of Medford would hold the rights to all the sources of water in the Big Butte Creek watershed and tributaries."

The city holds the rights to "all sources of water", including rain and runoff. It is legally theirs to give or keep. Unless the journalist dumbed it down substantially, the most intuitive interpretation of this paraphrasing is that the city government will fine or imprison you for any water taken without their permission, even if it is on your land.

Fine, I'll accept that over-broad nonsense as justified (because unless the majority of his 170 acres is a big hole in the ground there is no way he's affecting the local water-table in any substantial manner), so did this guy, too, because he paid for the permits.... Which means that the time and resources which went into creating those reservoirs was done so under oversight and the protection of the law. In order to stop a reservoir from being a reservoir, you have to fill it back in, which, surprise surprise, requires more time and money.

When the state withdrew the permits, in effect pulling the city out of the deal they made with him, did they also provide him with compensation for his trouble and loss? Did they offer to do the work for him? I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess they didn't.

Unless there are facts the writer left out, namely, things like a financial settlement for the burden the state/city put on this guy, they are in the wrong.

So long story short, we don't know the facts.

[Delirium]

Not only that, but I question the source as well. That site leans so far one way that the owner must walk in circles.

[MarineUS]

*hangs head in shame*

My country.....with laws like this....

[guncrasher]

*hangs head in shame*

My country.....with laws like this....

look on the bright side you can walk around with your hand on your gun and nobody will think twice about it.


semp

[bj229r]

Not only that, but I question the source as well. That site leans so far one way that the owner must walk in circles.

There's the thing (for me) If a 'reputable' source like the NY Times doesn't see fit to print it, did it really happen? I googled the subject matter, got to 13 pages, nothing but right-wing sites (as far as one can tell by the url) I'm assuming leftist sites don't see the problem, and don't understand why it ought be considered news, hence, noone would EVER know it happened, otherwise. Anyhow, here's the only local account I could find
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2012/07/jackson_county_man_sentenced_f.html

A Jackson County man with a 10-year history of illegally diverting water with homemade dams was sentenced this week to 30 days in jail and fined $1,500.

Gary A. Harrington was convicted earlier this month of nine counts of unauthorized water use. Under Oregon law, all water is publicly owned and a permit is required to divert or store it for personal use.

State Water Resources Department officials said Harrington has three dams across channels that cross his property outside of Medford and feed into Big Butte Creek. The creek is a tributary of the Rogue River.

Two of the dams stand about 10 feet high and the third is about 20 feet tall. Harrington stocked the reservoirs that formed behind the dams with trout and bluegill, built boat docks and used the ponds for fishing.

State officials estimated 40 acre-feet of water collected behind the dams, enough to fill nearly 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Officials are uncertain whether Harrington built the dams himself, ordered their construction, or if they were on the property when he bought it. At any rate, it is illegal to divert and store waters of the state without a permit.

Tom Paul, deputy director of the Water Resources Department, said Harrington would not have been granted a permit even if he'd applied for one, because the city of Medford has an existing water right to the Big Butte flow.

Harrington twice was ordered to drain the reservoirs and did so in 2002 and 2008, but refilled them each time, according to a Water Resources Department news release. At Harrington's sentencing this month, a judge ordered the headgates kept open with chains and locks, and ordered the dams to be breached after the water drains.

In addition to the fine and jail time, Harrington was placed on probation for three years. He is scheduled to begin his jail term in August, and water officials are watching to make sure Harrington complies with the terms of his sentencing, Paul said.

Harrington was cited and fined in 2002, and in 2008 pleaded guilty to one count of unauthorized water use. The day after his probation expired, however, he closed the headgates and refilled the reservoirs, Paul said.

Oregonians may collect water that gathers on impervious surfaces such as a parking lot, or divert roof runoff to rain barrels, but otherwise need a permit. Paul said Harrington appears to have political beliefs that are in opposition to state law. Harrington represented himself at his Jackson County Circuit Court trial this month.

"I don't think he necessarily believed what we were telling him," Paul said.

--Eric Mortenson

[CAP1]

Most new builds in certain florida counties are required to dig a retention pond.

 which are great breeding grounds for mosquitoes. or do you guys call them something different down there?

[guncrasher]

the internet was supposed to help us get smarted and instead of making us dumber.  I got an email about the 28th amendment to the constitution, it took me about 1 minute to find out that there are several variations of this chain email going thru.

I used to get several chain emails a week about some bs or another.  then I would research it and reply to everybody that was on the cc to list.  sometimes I would get some nasty emails about it.  I guess I upset enough people off because now I get perhaps one chain email a month.

 most people believe that just because they got an email from somebody they trust that that email is true.  even thought person they got it from got it from another who got it from another that was full of it.


so there goes the story about this guy going to jail for collecting rainwater.


semp