Collect rainwater, go to jail?

[IronWing]

I figured as much too, since (at least in PA) a lot of farmers create retaining ponds to hold rainwater in case of drought. I have seen many create lakes from a stream, but they allow the stream to continue through after the lake is filled.

This guy totally damned the water flow. Had he just made a few lakes and then let the rest of the water flow as it normally would, I bet he would be OK. Bascially, dig the water way wider and deeper in one spot.

Nope, not under western water law. In the western US, we use variations of first use water rights schemes. In the eastern US we use mostly riparian water rights schemes.

 

[DrPizza]

Nope, not under western water law. In the western US, we use variations of first use water rights schemes. In the eastern US we use mostly riparian water rights schemes.

Wow, I didn't realize there was such a difference. Around here (Eastern US), I prefer the riparian water rights scheme. I just haven't had the time (or money) for all the heavy equipment I'll need for building a couple acre pond & the DrPizza Hydro-electric power plant (which would supply power to my house about 10 days a year = about 10 days a year, people downstream would see any water.)

 

[waggy]

the guy was a idiot.

 

[techs]

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

I fully and wholeheartedly agree with this law.

Apparently people have not paused to think even 10 seconds before posting.

If I buy up some land on either side of the Missisippi near its origin and build a dam can I then just charge the people downriver for the water? Or can I just divert the river to some town I sold the water to?

Yes, it sounds "un-American" to tell people they can't store the water that is on their land or fall from the sky or flows thru their land. But the alternative would pretty much just make water barons who would control not just the economy but the very lives of people.

And for the concept that if rain falls on my propert it is mine and I can build reservoirs, you have the same issue. If a few thousand people build reservoirs or on person builds a large one, you then have issues of these people now controlling a necessity of life.



Its a necessary evil.

 

[Throckmorton]

Didn't you know the government owns the rain and the snow?

Fucking bullshit.

So should people be allowed to dam rivers that cross their land?

 

[Nintendesert]

Guy sounds like a douchebag. He got warned many times and now the government is simply tired of it. Maybe now he'll get the message.

 

[bfdd]

Interesting tid bit, draining of swamp and wetlands is what basically wiped malaria out of the United States. So it's rather interesting to me that we've some how forgotten that and people want to go to such desperate ends to protect them.

 

[Throckmorton]

Interesting tid bit, draining of swamp and wetlands is what basically wiped malaria out of the United States. So it's rather interesting to me that we've some how forgotten that and people want to go to such desperate ends to protect them.

Malaria is curable and wetlands are extremely important ecosystems, both for the sake of the species that inhabit them and for the economy. Without wetlands there is no shrimp industry in the Gulf.

 

[techs]

Interesting tid bit, draining of swamp and wetlands is what basically wiped malaria out of the United States. So it's rather interesting to me that we've some how forgotten that and people want to go to such desperate ends to protect them.

What wiped out malaria in the US was Big Government. In the late 1940's the Federal Government launched a malaria eradication program. It consisted of massive DDT spraying, educating people to make their homes mosquito resistant and draining wetlands. Draining of wetlands was the least effective. Turns out that in places where peoples homes are constructed well and people use screens even without any other actions malaria is very rare.

 

[momeNt]

What wiped out malaria in the US was Big Government. In the late 1940's the Federal Government launched a malaria eradication program. It consisted of massive DDT spraying, educating people to make their homes mosquito resistant and draining wetlands. Draining of wetlands was the least effective. Turns out that in places where peoples homes are constructed well and people use screens even without any other actions malaria is very rare.

It also wiped out a very large portion of our bird population.

 

[techs]

It also wiped out a very large portion of our bird population.

Yes. And so nowadays the government has tried to keep wetlands which were found to be far, far more important than anyone suspected from being drained while still combating disease.

Its one of the legitimate areas of government.

 

[IGBT]

yet another reason to get the eco-KOOKS out of the public policy loop.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

So should people be allowed to dam rivers that cross their land?

Jesus, shut up. Read more than 5 posts before you decide to single someone out.

 

[momeNt]

Yes. And so nowadays the government has tried to keep wetlands which were found to be far, far more important than anyone suspected from being drained while still combating disease.

Its one of the legitimate areas of government.

I was talking about the DDT, but the wetland draining also impacted their habitat obviously.

 

[JKing106]

How so? Does he not have the right to collect melting snow and rainwater?

Sure he does. But he was also diverting streams to fill his reservoirs, and that is illegal per local laws in his area. Read the entire article.

 

[DominionSeraph]

How is there not outrage over this?

America fuck yea!!

:thumbsdown::thumbsdown:

This is a state law. Do you guys have a problem with states' rights?


Funny how conservatives work:

If the Federal Government is conservative on an issue, it's:
"Majority rules."

If the Federal Government is liberal but the states are conservative, it's:
"The Federal government has no right. States' rights!"

If the states are liberal, it's:
"Mah rights!"

If the personal right is liberal, it's:
"You have no right because it violates my right to discriminate against you on a personal, state, and federal level!"

So, far from any adherence to any objective principle, what conservatism really boils down to is, "Me, me, me, me. I am in charge of everybody, and nobody is in charge of me."

(And conservatives wonder why they are so easily charged with being racially discriminatory on issues.)

 

[OutHouse]

Funny how conservatives work:

what conservatism really boils down to is, "Me, me, me, me. I am in charge of everybody, and nobody is in charge of me."

wow that came out of left field, wtf does conservatives have to do with this or the two people you quoted??

the two people you quoted im sure didn't fully understand what the guy was doing when they posted and certainly did not understand water laws.

im middle of the road and post like yours and the rightwing nutjobs we have in here remind me why i am I hate both parties.

 

[werepossum]

From an article with actual information in it:


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oregon-man-sentenced-30-days-jail-collecting-rainwater-his-property

Good info, thanks. This guy absolutely needs to go to jail. One simply cannot dam or divert streams. I could maybe see his point if he was building ponds or reservoirs to catch only rainfall direct on his property as long as it didn't materially affect the stream, but even that needs to be carefully regulated as any water trapped on his property is water that does not enter the streams or water table. In the case of runoff from others' property the principle is incontrovertible, and even runoff on one's own property may be significant enough to be damaging. Especially on 172 acres, that can form a lot of a stream's drainage depending on how the land lays and how much rain falls.

The very fact that he's hoarding water for fire control suggests the area doesn't have enough water to be hoarded.

 

[Howard]

Even if he hadn't collected so much water, at some point, it's detrimental to the public welfare. I recall certain parts of the US being very dry (don't know the technical term) and preventing water from re-entering the water table is just going to hurt everyone else.

 

[sao123]

I think you guys are misreading the article... this guy created a DAM to hold surface runoff before it enters the clearly defined watercourse.
Water running down a hillside is neither a tributary nor stream.


What he is claiming he is doing is legal in many first use water states... like texas.

Diffused surface water, in its natural state, occurs after rainfall or snowmelt and flows across land from high elevations to lower elevations. This diffused water is often called stormwater, drainage water or surface runoff.
Once the water flows into a clearly defined watercourse, it is claimed by the state and is subject to appropriation. On its way to the watercourse, drainage water often flows across privately owned lands. In such cases the water does not automatically become the property of the landowners, although they may capture and use it.

 

[SparkyJJO]

*partisan trolling*

Nice lame attempt at turning it into some sort of partisan crapola. Take off the colored goggles for once, OK?

 

[zinfamous]

sounds like he went too far to get the attention of the water overlords. capturing rainwater coming off the roof of your house or barns into a rain barrel is one thing, but capturing water from a running tributary like what this guy was doing is quite another. how much water was he hording?

this

 

[DrPizza]

Good info, thanks. One simply cannot dam or divert streams.

Half of the country doesn't agree.

 

[Smoblikat]

Big butte creek

This whole suit is just insane, its rainwater. Id love to see them proove it came from any of their supplies.

 

[werepossum]

Half of the country doesn't agree.

I'd just add a bit. Half of the country doesn't agree as long as they aren't downstream. As soon as their own water dries up, bet your ass they care.

I'm a native fish nut, so I'm one of the few people on the side of the fish versus the farmers anyway.