Man arrested for collecting rainwater on his own property

[Chalenge]

Rats! This had me going through my storm water ordinances and regulations books. I had already won the case for this guy! 

Name a city where one person owns 170 acres yet the city has superceding water rights outside of their jurisdiction (city boundaries).

[TonyJoey]

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


semp

 

[guncrasher]

Rats! This had me going through my storm water ordinances and regulations books. I had already won the case for this guy! 

Name a city where one person owns 170 acres yet the city has superceding water rights outside of their jurisdiction (city boundaries).

it wasnt the city but the state who objected.


semp

[Chalenge]

I thought you said it was a bogus letter passing around the internet? 

My question was to point out that any city (or state as you claim) has superceding rights if the flow of water is cut off. Anyone can retain water as long as the flow to the watershed remains consistent. By the same token if the man did something to increase the flow of water so that it has the ability to do damage downstream it is the cities (or states) responsibility to deal with it. Its the friend/foe side of storm water.

[hlbly]

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.

Del , you and grizz are entirely wrong here . The ponds are small in size and much less costly to the man than well drilling . The impact is also the same as taking the water out by drilling a well . The ponds would have to be concrete or some other costly material to stop them from leaching the water back into the water table . They are not . He lost his permits in an effort to make him pay a well driller . If you have livestock those are your choices . The mans property is zoned agricultural . We have very strict zoning laws here in Oregon . The total impact on the water table would be exactly the same no matter which method is used . The difference is cost to the man . Where the man lives the conservative estimate for a well is a minimum of 15,000 dollars . The pond permit allowed him to store 12 gallons of water per head per day . The water is coming out of the water table one way or another . The only difference is cost .

[MarineUS]

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


semp

I'm sorry that where you come from, people are p*$$i*s.

the internet was supposed to help us get smarted and instead of making us dumber.


semp

BTW: You owe me a month of AH.

[hlbly]

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.

It was the city that petitioned the court to revoke them . They used a 1925 law that dealt with surface water of the Big Butte creek . It was designed to stop people from altering the flow of the creek . This mans ponds do not attach to the creek . The man has the right to water his livestock . They are just trying to force him to dig an expensive well . The water is coming out . Period . The only difference is how much is the man going to pay .

[hlbly]

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

Sorry bro but this is simple local corruption .  There is no headgate on these ponds . There is no spillway either . The law applies to surface water . This is merely an effort to make the man pay to have wells drilled . His property is zoned agricultural . He has the right to raise cattle there . The water is coming out period . The amount of water he was allowed to store in his 3 ponds is 12 gallons per head per day . This is nepotism period . I am going to Grants Pass next week I will get a photo of the ponds .

[bj229r]

Very vool. wonder if ACLU is gonna stick its nose on thiis

[bmwgs]

Del , you and grizz are entirely wrong here . The ponds are small in size and much less costly to the man than well drilling . The impact is also the same as taking the water out by drilling a well . The ponds would have to be concrete or some other costly material to stop them from leaching the water back into the water table . They are not . He lost his permits in an effort to make him pay a well driller . If you have livestock those are your choices . The mans property is zoned agricultural . We have very strict zoning laws here in Oregon . The total impact on the water table would be exactly the same no matter which method is used . The difference is cost to the man . Where the man lives the conservative estimate for a well is a minimum of 15,000 dollars . The pond permit allowed him to store 12 gallons of water per head per day . The water is coming out of the water table one way or another . The only difference is cost .

Let me see if I have my math correct.  Allowed to store 12 gallons of water per head of livestock per day.  His pond was 40 acre feet or about 20 Olympic size swimming pools.  An Olympic size pool is about 660,000 gallons of water.  So, 660,000 x 20 = 13,200,000 gallons, divided by 12 =  1,100,000 head of livestock.  That is a lot of animals on 170 acres.


Sorry, early in the morning with nothing better to do.    

Fred

[bj229r]

I remember working on a job site in New Mexico some years ago......found that land was inCREDibly cheap.....THEN I discovered the reason why--owning the land doesn't mean you are allowed to touch the water beneath it.....making it worthless

[Tracerfi]

I remember working on a job site in New Mexico some years ago......found that land was inCREDibly cheap.....THEN I discovered the reason why--owning the land doesn't mean you are allowed to touch the water beneath it.....making it worthless

WOW 

[VonMessa]

Let me see if I have my math correct.  Allowed to store 12 gallons of water per head of livestock per day.  His pond was 40 acre feet or about 20 Olympic size swimming pools.  An Olympic size pool is about 660,000 gallons of water.  So, 660,000 x 20 = 13,200,000 gallons, divided by 12 =  1,100,000 head of livestock.  That is a lot of animals on 170 acres.


Sorry, early in the morning with nothing better to do.    

Fred

Where did you find the size(s) of these ponds?  I have been looking...

[Shuffler]

Fine, 2 can play it that game.  When it snows, the government can come and clear "their snow" from the backyards, frontyards and roofs of each home.  If you have to do it, you can bill them for your service.   

 

[bj229r]

Where did you find the size(s) of these ponds?  I have been looking...

http://mobile.oregonlive.com/advorg/pm_29233/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=3E82u8Dk