Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Mickthestick on August 12, 2012, 02:59:58 PM
-
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.
I think the next logical step will be regulating the free use of air.
http://personalliberty.com/2012/07/30/man-arrested-for-collecting-rainwater-on-his-property/ (http://personalliberty.com/2012/07/30/man-arrested-for-collecting-rainwater-on-his-property/)
-
In.
-
WOW JUST BULL CRAP
-
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.
I think the next logical step will be regulating the free use of air.
http://personalliberty.com/2012/07/30/man-arrested-for-collecting-rainwater-on-his-property/ (http://personalliberty.com/2012/07/30/man-arrested-for-collecting-rainwater-on-his-property/)
"Naturally falls and flows"? It sounds like he had build 3 illegal reservoirs that he did not have permits for.
-
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. :old:
-
"Naturally falls and flows"? It sounds like he had build 3 illegal reservoirs that he did not have permits for.
you cant be serious.....have to get "Permits" to collect rain water.....thats absurd.
this is a perfect example of...........ehhhh never mind
-
you cant be serious.....have to get "Permits" to collect rain water.....thats absurd.
this is a perfect example of...........ehhhh never mind
You KNOW you had a rule #14 coming..... :O
-
"Naturally falls and flows"? It sounds like he had build 3 illegal reservoirs that he did not have permits for.
"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."
I think the point of this man's conflict is that the illegality of those reservoirs is itself an abuse of lawmaking.
-
you cant be serious.....have to get "Permits" to collect rain water.....thats absurd.
this is a perfect example of...........ehhhh never mind
You actually bit that bait? :headscratch: or well, you bit it then spit it out.
-
"Naturally falls and flows"? It sounds like he had build 3 illegal reservoirs that he did not have permits for.
He had permits..."the state arbitrarily revoked them..." What if he was a rancher & watering his cattle in those tanks. In Texas these are everywhere so the ranchers don't have to haul water or dig wells...bullies is right. :furious
-
He tried to do the right thing and get the permits. Bet he don't pull one for the underground bunker.
+1 on gubment over-extending it's privileges.
-
Complete BS, IMO. Shouldn't be able to govern Mother Nature.
Shame on them for even trying. :furious
Coogan
-
"Naturally falls and flows"? It sounds like he had build 3 illegal reservoirs that he did not have permits for.
I have to agree with Grizz on this one... he wasn't collecting rain water off his roof (which is illegal in some places), he was changing the flow of water entirely. I know the government is forcing permits because it needs to make money, but those reservoirs also need to be monitored for potential flooding.
edit: If someone buys property in the Rocky Mountains, does that mean he can stop the flow of all water off the mountain? The line must be drawn some where.
-
I have to agree with Grizz on this one... he wasn't collecting rain water off his roof (which is illegal in some places), he was changing the flow of water entirely. I know the government is forcing permits because it needs to make money, but those reservoirs also need to be monitored for potential flooding.
edit: If someone buys property in the Rocky Mountains, does that mean he can stop the flow of all water off the mountain? The line must be drawn some where.
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.
Your first point is valid. The government needs to make money, so, naturally, they're manufacturing criminals.
-
There is a long history of the government having to create rules to protect downstream residents/ranchers/farmers from activities of those upstream. The movie Pale Rider has a pretty good example of one way activity upstream can destroy the livelihood of those living downstream, ruin property values, etc. when the bad guys divert the river away from the placer mining camp. Enough residents, ranchers, farmers, etc. diverting even a tiny bit of water can either instantly or over time completely change the ecological balance downstream due to reduced or diverted water flow.
On the flip side, the laws often have no way to allow for truly insignificant upstream water usage simply because everyone that lives even one foot downstream has an interest in not allowing the upstream guys to divert or hold any water that would otherwise flow downstream. So instead of coming up with ways to measure cumulative effects or drawing a line as to what is and is not allowable use, they simply pass a blanket law that bans all such activity and then arbitrarily enforce it whenever someone catches the attention of the city/county/state or arouses the ire of a downstream resident with enough money to force the lawsuit through.
As always, the trick is not getting caught.
-
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.
-
Most new builds in certain florida counties are required to dig a retention pond.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 :)
-
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!"
-
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.
-
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.
-
Not only that, but I question the source as well. That site leans so far one way that the owner must walk in circles.
-
*hangs head in shame*
My country.....with laws like this....
-
*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
-
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
-
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? :D
-
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
-
Rats! This had me going through my storm water ordinances and regulations books. I had already won the case for this guy! :D
Name a city where one person owns 170 acres yet the city has superceding water rights outside of their jurisdiction (city boundaries).
-
look on the bright side you can walk around with your hand on your gun and nobody will think twice about it.
semp
:rofl
-
Rats! This had me going through my storm water ordinances and regulations books. I had already won the case for this guy! :D
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
-
I thought you said it was a bogus letter passing around the internet? :D
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.
-
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 .
-
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. ;)
-
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 .
-
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 .
-
Very vool. :aok wonder if ACLU is gonna stick its nose on thiis
-
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. :D
Fred
-
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
-
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 :bhead
-
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. :D
Fred
Where did you find the size(s) of these ponds? I have been looking...
-
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. :old:
:rofl
-
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
-
http://mobile.oregonlive.com/advorg/pm_29233/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=3E82u8Dk
Cool, thanks :aok
I wanted to see how big they were before I formed an opinion.
I will check it out.
-
I can't say I've ever heard the term before
-
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
Right. There is a big ad campaign on in NM right now for "ranch properties" from 20 to 30ish acres (if I recall correctly). The big selling point is that the developer has approval to dig wells so every property has their own water source. That's a big deal in high desert territory.