The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: santahog on July 31, 2012, 10:02:36 AM
-
Folks, this needs to be paid attention to. Rain Water?!
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oregon-man-sentenced-30-days-jail-collecting-rainwater-his-property
– A rural Oregon man was sentenced Wednesday to 30 days in jail and over $1,500 in fines because he had three reservoirs on his property to collect and use rainwater.
Gary Harrington of Eagle Point, Ore., says he plans to appeal his conviction in Jackson County (Ore.) Circuit Court on nine misdemeanor charges under a 1925 law for having what state water managers called “three illegal reservoirs” on his property – and for filling the reservoirs with rainwater and snow runoff.
“The government is bullying,” Harrington told CNSNews.com in an interview Thursday.
“They’ve just gotten to be big bullies and if you just lay over and die and give up, that just makes them bigger bullies. So, we as Americans, we need to stand on our constitutional rights, on our rights as citizens and hang tough. This is a good country, we’ll prevail,” he said.
The court has given Harrington two weeks to report to the Jackson County Jail to begin serving his sentence.
Harrington said the case first began in 2002, when state water managers told him there were complaints about the three “reservoirs” – ponds – on his more than 170 acres of land.
According to Oregon water laws, all water is publicly owned. Therefore, anyone who wants to store any type of water on their property must first obtain a permit from state water managers.
Harrington said he applied for three permits to legally house reservoirs for storm and snow water runoff on his property. One of the “reservoirs” had been on his property for 37 years, he said.
Though the state Water Resources Department initially approved his permits in 2003, the state – and a state court -- ultimately reversed the decision.
“They issued me my permits. I had my permits in hand and they retracted them just arbitrarily, basically. They took them back and said ‘No, you can’t have them,’ so I’ve been fighting it ever since,” Harrington told CNSNews.com.
The case, he said, is centered on a 1925 law which states that the city of Medford holds exclusive rights to “all core sources of water” in the Big Butte Creek watershed and its tributaries.
“Way back in 1925 the city of Medford got a unique withdrawal that withdrew all -- supposedly all -- the water out of a single basin and supposedly for the benefit of the city of Medford,” Harrington told CNSNews.com.
Harrington told CNSNews.com, however, that the 1925 law doesn’t mention anything about colleting rainwater or snow melt -- and he believes that he has been falsely accused.
“The withdrawal said the stream and its tributaries. It didn’t mention anything about rainwater and it didn’t mention anything about snow melt and it didn’t mention anything about diffused water, but yet now, they’re trying to expand that to include that rain water and they’re using me as the goat to do it,” Harrington
But Tom Paul, administrator of the Oregon Water Resources Department, claims that Harrington has been violating the state’s water use law by diverting water from streams running into the Big Butte River.
“The law that he is actually violating is not the 1925 provision, but it’s Oregon law that says all of the water in the state of Oregon is public water and if you want to use that water, either to divert it or to store it, you have to acquire a water right from the state of Oregon before doing that activity,” Paul told CNSNews.com.
Yet Paul admitted the 1925 law does apply because, he said, Harrington constructed dams to block a tributary to the Big Butte, which Medford uses for its water supply.
“There are dams across channels, water channels where the water would normally flow if it were not for the dam and so those dams are stopping the water from flowing in the channel and storing it- holding it so it cannot flow downstream,” Paul told CNSNews.com.
Harrington, however, argued in court that that he is not diverting water from Big Butte Creek, but the dams capturing the rainwater and snow runoff – or “diffused water” – are on his own property and that therefore the runoff does not fall under the jurisdiction of the state water managers, nor does it not violate the 1925 act.
In 2007, a Jackson County Circuit Court judge denied Harrington’s permits and found that he had illegally “withdrawn the water at issue from appropriation other than for the City of Medford.”
According to Paul, Harrington entered a guilty plea at the time, received three years probation and was ordered to open up the water gates.
“A very short period of time following the expiration of his probation, he once again closed the gates and re-filled the reservoirs,” Paul told CNSNews.com. “So, this has been going on for some time and I think frankly the court felt that Mr. Harrington was not getting the message and decided that they’d already given him probation once and required him to open the gates and he refilled his reservoirs and it was business as usual for him, so I think the court wanted -- it felt it needed -- to give a stiffer penalty to get Mr. Harrington’s attention.”
In two weeks, if unsuccessful in his appeals, Harrington told CNSNews.com that he will report to the Jackson County Jail to serve his sentence.
“I follow the rules. If I’m mandated to report, I’m going to report. Of course, I’m going to do what it takes in the meantime to prevent that, but if I’m not successful, I’ll be there,” Harrington said.
But Harrington also said that he will never stop fighting the government on this issue.
“When something is wrong, you just, as an American citizen, you have to put your foot down and say, ‘This is wrong; you just can’t take away anymore of my rights and from here on in, I’m going to fight it.”
-
I am sure there is more too it then that. Knowing a little bit about water rights in that part of Or. There is alot there that is " I don't think so". I will wait for the other shoe to drop.
-
I am sure there is more too it then that. Knowing a little bit about water rights in that part of Or. There is alot there that is " I don't think so". I will wait for the other shoe to drop.
Too little info. I agree with you there. It's not like the guy is just putting buckets under the gutters on his house. From the sounds of it, he has a little creek on his property that feeds a river when it rains. If he dammed that, he's definitely doing something shady.
-
Welcome to the New world Agenda 21 where the UN and Government will control everything and you can pay the taxes but they own all. Water, Land , Natural resources, and were headed there now under obama and the UN. It started back with Bush 1 and his statement on 1 world order and wake up America and defend us from Agenda 21. Just look it up and we are being force by money loaned out to cities . towns, townships and in every state and our nation. No UN :'( :-X :P
-
Welcome to the New world Agenda 21 where the UN and Government will control everything and you can pay the taxes but they own all. Water, Land , Natural resources, and were headed there now under obama and the UN. It started back with Bush 1 and his statement on 1 world order and wake up America and defend us from Agenda 21. Just look it up and we are being force by money loaned out to cities . towns, townships and in every state and our nation. No UN :'( :-X :P
Yeah, that's it. The gov't is forcing this guy to dam a section of creek to take over the world. So if you lived in Medford, or the surrounding area, it's OK for this guy to divert water, rainwater or otherwise, away from the public reservoir for personal use while you can't? The water the rest of the area uses has to get there somehow. Did this guy think that the rest of the area water just magically appears in the streams and river used by everybody else? I know the water in the Seirras I fished/swam in was rainwater/snow melt year round. Is the way water flows different in OR?
-
slight thread drift ahead....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3db2IMqx4j0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
-
Too little info. I agree with you there. It's not like the guy is just putting buckets under the gutters on his house. From the sounds of it, he has a little creek on his property that feeds a river when it rains. If he dammed that, he's definitely doing something shady.
Yeah, that's it. The gov't is forcing this guy to dam a section of creek to take over the world. So if you lived in Medford, or the surrounding area, it's OK for this guy to divert water, rainwater or otherwise, away from the public reservoir for personal use while you can't? The water the rest of the area uses has to get there somehow. Did this guy think that the rest of the area water just magically appears in the streams and river used by everybody else? I know the water in the Seirras I fished/swam in was rainwater/snow melt year round. Is the way water flows different in OR?
You didn't pay attention,.
FTA
Harrington said he applied for three permits to legally house reservoirs for storm and snow water runoff on his property. One of the “reservoirs” had been on his property for 37 years, he said.
Though the state Water Resources Department initially approved his permits in 2003, the state – and a state court -- ultimately reversed the decision.
-
Tom having a permit does not mean anything. if the permit said you could replace a hvac and you built an addition. they are going to make you tear down the addition. I have a uncle in bend( stones throw away) he is a water rights broker/developer. I have run several water related jobs for him. building a pond in a low point is no big deal. Damning a stream will cost you millions in envromental impact studys. Seeing how by the story he was convicted of this once, then went back to doing it after his probation was over, I would bet he is trying to say bacon is kohser.
-
Tom having a permit does not mean anything. if the permit said you could replace a hvac and you built an addition. they are going to make you tear down the addition. I have a uncle in bend( stones throw away) he is a water rights broker/developer. I have run several water related jobs for him. building a pond in a low point is no big deal. Damning a stream will cost you millions in envromental impact studys. Seeing how by the story he was convicted of this once, then went back to doing it after his probation was over, I would bet he is trying to say bacon is kohser.
You still aren't paying attention, it was built in 1975 (ish)
-
As I read this there could be some "he said - she said," but the basics are that the State claims all water as public property. He is not damming up or diverting any streams or the like. All he is doing is keeping the rain and snow melt run off on his property.
In Minnesota we are being forced to keep that water on our land. Businesses are being forced to purchase land to build "rain gardens" and retention ponds.
Based on the news story, I say that government is out of line.
-
As I read this there could be some "he said - she said," but the basics are that the State claims all water as public property. He is not damming up or diverting any streams or the like. All he is doing is keeping the rain and snow melt run off on his property.
In Minnesota we are being forced to keep that water on our land. Businesses are being forced to purchase land to build "rain gardens" and retention ponds.
Based on the news story, I say that government is out of line.
But he IS damming the areas that the runoff has to get to the stream
Yet Paul admitted the 1925 law does apply because, he said, Harrington constructed dams to block a tributary to the Big Butte, which Medford uses for its water supply.
“There are dams across channels, water channels where the water would normally flow if it were not for the dam and so those dams are stopping the water from flowing in the channel and storing it- holding it so it cannot flow downstream,” Paul told CNSNews.com.
...
In 2007, a Jackson County Circuit Court judge denied Harrington’s permits and found that he had illegally “withdrawn the water at issue from appropriation other than for the City of Medford.”
According to Paul, Harrington entered a guilty plea at the time, received three years probation and was ordered to open up the water gates.
“A very short period of time following the expiration of his probation, he once again closed the gates and re-filled the reservoirs,” Paul told CNSNews.com. “So, this has been going on for some time and I think frankly the court felt that Mr. Harrington was not getting the message and decided that they’d already given him probation once and required him to open the gates and he refilled his reservoirs and it was business as usual for him, so I think the court wanted -- it felt it needed -- to give a stiffer penalty to get Mr. Harrington’s attention.”
and the "It's always been that way" reasoning doesn't necessarily make it legal now, or when it was originally built.
-
And how does this differ from the mandatory terraces to stop runoff from cutting channels?
We deal with federal laws here that requires us to stop the runoff from eroding hills and even slopes.
-
And how does this differ from the mandatory terraces to stop runoff from cutting channels?
We deal with federal laws here that requires us to stop the runoff from eroding hills and even slopes.
Conflicts over water rights have been going on ever since man learned how to use a shovel. When one man thinks he can divert a water supply for his own personal use, it deprives many people of the water necessary to live. That's wrong any way you slice it.
-
In Minnesota we are being forced to keep that water on our land. Businesses are being forced to purchase land to build "rain gardens" and retention ponds.
The reason for this is because most of the storm sewers drain directly into the lakes. I'm sure you've noticed the water quality of the lakes around here has decreased significantly in the last 20 years and that's because all of the runoff pouring phosphates from fertilizers into the lakes.
High phosphate concentrations are causing the accelerated Eutrophication of all of the lakes around here. Secchi disk readings and dissolved O2 levels are at record lows, and the low dissolved O2 levels are what are primarily responsible for all of the fish kills and winter kills.
The reason business are forced to build rain gardens and retention ponds are to filter the phosphates out of the runoff before it can get to the lakes.
-
But, but, but, we don't have storm sewers! Just hundreds and hundreds of acres of corn, soybeans and other assorted cereals and salads. When I have enough water running down a slope to create erosion I am required to stop it and hold it. It is my water and I am responsible for the damage it does to the public waterways according to the federal government. Once it reaches a public waterway I can't do anything with it, including protecting banks and shorelines with riprap to stop the erosion from claiming more farmland.
-
As I read this there could be some "he said - she said," but the basics are that the State claims all water as public property. He is not damming up or diverting any streams or the like. All he is doing is keeping the rain and snow melt run off on his property.
In Minnesota we are being forced to keep that water on our land. Businesses are being forced to purchase land to build "rain gardens" and retention ponds.
Based on the news story, I say that government is out of line.
The .gov is claiming it "owns" rainwater runoff. The .gov is out of line.
-
Conflicts over water rights have been going on ever since man learned how to use a shovel. When one man thinks he can divert a water supply for his own personal use, it deprives many people of the water necessary to live. That's wrong any way you slice it.
3 ponds in 170 acres doesn't sound like any diversion to note. This is about .gov owning and controlling your land - and making you pay for the privilege.
.gov is always wrong unless proven otherwise!
Aren't there any more libertarians (small l) on this forum anymore? ? ? ? ?
-
For all we know this guy could have built a pond right over his leach field. To. Just becuase its been that way for decades, does not mean it ok or that they won't make you remove it.
-
... Based on the news story, I say that government is out of line.
That's my take on it as well.
The water in my pond is in my pond, or ponds, or the cattle born on that land belong to the State.. What's the difference between the water in a pond and the water in a well?
Permits are required for anything I've ever done to house or land. To date, I've never gotten one. It's not their business.. If I get caught in process, I'll say I thought xxxx or whatever and deal with it then, but I don't take well to being told what I can do on my own land, and saving the rain that falls on it isn't hurting anybody.
I can't get to a place where I can see believing that I owe the State for rain..
Just my opinion...
-
3 ponds in 170 acres doesn't sound like any diversion to note. This is about .gov owning and controlling your land - and making you pay for the privilege.
First of all, it doesn't say how big those 3 ponds are. By definition, a "pond" can be any body of water up to 19 acres (actually 8 hectares to be exact), regardless of depth. 3 "ponds" can be a lot of water.
Secondly, the issue isn't him having the retention ponds to collect rainwater. The issue is that this guy thinks he can divert a tributary of a decent sized river that supplies water for a town to fill his ponds. Not only that, but he was fined for it before, he knew it was wrong, and he still continues to do it.
Yeah, one person diverting a stream for their personal ponds probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference, but if this guy can do it, why can't his neighbor and his neighbor's neighbor and so on. If that happens, civilization is beholden to the few who "own" the water supply.
-
First of all, it doesn't say how big those 3 ponds are. By definition, a "pond" can be any body of water up to 19 acres (actually 8 hectares to be exact), regardless of depth. 3 "ponds" can be a lot of water.
Secondly, the issue isn't him having the retention ponds to collect rainwater. The issue is that this guy thinks he can divert a tributary of a decent sized river that supplies water for a town to fill his ponds. Not only that, but he was fined for it before, he knew it was wrong, and he still continues to do it.
Yeah, one person diverting a stream for their personal ponds probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference, but if this guy can do it, why can't his neighbor and his neighbor's neighbor and so on. If that happens, civilization is beholden to the few who "own" the water supply.
In other words, .gov.
-
That's my take on it as well.
The water in my pond is in my pond, or ponds, or the cattle born on that land belong to the State.. What's the difference between the water in a pond and the water in a well?
Permits are required for anything I've ever done to house or land. To date, I've never gotten one. It's not their business.. If I get caught in process, I'll say I thought xxxx or whatever and deal with it then, but I don't take well to being told what I can do on my own land, and saving the rain that falls on it isn't hurting anybody.
I can't get to a place where I can see believing that I owe the State for rain..
Just my opinion...
But this jacknut DID get caught, not once but TWICE. The first time the State told him to stop and he did, but as soon as he wasn't being watched decided to do it again. Did he really think he wasn't going to get caught? Did he expect to only get probation the second time?
How do you know what he was doing wasn't limiting the water available to the rest of the community? We have areas that are growing to the point that it is expected that they will not have drinking water in about 5 years. The cost of water is rising due to demand and lack of supply. Pretty sad considering I'm surrounded on three sides by water, just nothing drinkable.
-
Pretty well sums it up I think
-
http://kirbycenter.hillsdale.edu/pages/first-principles-archives/kcls---steven-hayward---the-epa-and-private-property
This is a lecture on the EPA and private property..
(I realize that we're not all talking about the same thing, but .gov can't control the rain or snow falling on my land, before or after the fact..)
-
(I realize that we're not all talking about the same thing, but .gov can't control the rain or snow falling on my land, before or after the fact..)
Under no circumstances is it ok for .gov to tell you what you can with rain or snow that falls on your property. That's absolutely perposterous.
I've been arguing that the guy has no right to divert a stream that flows through his property for his personal use.
-
Just a fwiw, for all of you that think you own your land and every thing about it. You may want to check the paper work for your property. often you don't own water rights( either full or partial) or your mineral rights. it should be in the paper work you signed when you bought the place. there is often provisions for you waving your right to sue for diffrent prexhisting things. that could be anything from noise, to smell.
-
So my FIL has a spring fed pond on his property that doesn't feed any stream, is he breaking the law? It is "the people's water" after all. Maybe not a perfect analogy but having lived in Oregon for the past 10 years and heard the fighting from down south between everyone and .gov there is no doubt that .gov is way out of line. BUT they vote for them so they deserve what they get.
-
Here is a link to the Foxnews article about the USDA promoting “Meatless Mondays”. Please read it carefully.
See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/26/usda-under-fire-for-backing-meatless-mondays-linking-ranching-to-climate-change/
The USDA newsletter said it was an “international effort” and “[t]he production of meat, especially beef (and dairy as well), has a large environmental impact. According to the U.N., animal agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gases and climate change. It also wastes resources.”
Tell me, what international effort supports this viewpoint? The answer is Sustainable Development/Agenda 21!
Remember the words of Maurice Strong, UN Secretary General: “...current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”
-
Under no circumstances is it ok for .gov to tell you what you can with rain or snow that falls on your property. That's absolutely perposterous.
I've been arguing that the guy has no right to divert a stream that flows through his property for his personal use.
And yet it was state law in Colorado until just a couple of years ago, when another one of these cases popped up - and the landowner won, forcing the state - which got a lot of seriously bad publicity - to back down and amend the law.
-
Back in the 60's a friend of my Dad had a gravel pit.
He hit a spring so he dug it out as a pond, the outlet ran into a culvert that handled run off.
He graded the sides nicely, even stocked it with fish.
One day a guy from the state came by and was giving him a bunch of crap because while he was digging it out the back tires of his backhoe were in the water.
He went and got a Boat plate and put it on the backhoe, when the officious turd came back he told him to go f*ck himself since he was legal.
Weird, but legal .
Another time some State A hole was giving him grief , he says "who does this water belong to, me or the State ?"
The State guy says, "it belongs to the state".
My Dads friend told him to get the states water the hell off his land or he was going to sue them for interfering with his gravel business.
That was another problem that went away. ;D
This guy never finished 8th grade, but you did not want to tangle with him unless you seriously knew what you were talking about.
Another time a town tried to shut down a pit that he had bought as a working gravel pit.
It cost him a million dollars but the State Supreme Court ruled in part that town ordinances do not have the force of law, only the State Govt. has the authority to enact laws, Town ordinances are merely an expression of a preference.
That may be different in other States, it would depend on how the State Constitution is worded.
And special for TAB, In the 14 States that were colonies, or parts of colonies the land owner retains all mineral rights.
That may have been changed in the former Confederate States, but I don't think so, other wise how would Jed Clampett have gotten rich off that oil ?
-
Mineral rights here in AL were teased out years ago by quietly reverting back to the State unless the last owner (of mineral rights) included with deed upon sale. I checked when I bought back here. They can be had here, (purchased back from the State) but it will cost you..
You can dig a pond here as big as you want, but I think they want a permit. They're more interested in what you put into a pond than what you pump out..
As for pumping the aquifer out for commercial use, (like Poland Springs in Maine) I don't know. I think it could be done, quietly, on a small scale at first, only because Al. is pretty business friendly.
Generating electricity? Probably not.. The TVA doesn't like competition..
I really don't think one would have trouble with a cistern here, as big as one could make it on, a residential level.
The price of municipal water has doubled here like every place else east of Kansas in the last few years..
-
... My Dads friend told him to get the states water the hell off his land or he was going to sue them for interfering with his gravel business.
That was another problem that went away. ;D
That is clever.. This is why I love old people!!! This sounds just like something my grandfather would say/do.. He was Chief Engineer at Goodyear here. (He was a bootlegger too, but that's another story..)
-
Tom out west almost all of the mineral rights have long been snatched up. some to oil, some to mining companys and the rest too.... The rail roads which was basicly the .gov back then.
-
Here if you dig a pond you get a good sized break on your fire insurance.
Tom out west almost all of the mineral rights have long been snatched up. some to oil, some to mining companys and the rest too.... The rail roads which was basicly the .gov back then.
I know, that was the draw back to the "Free land".
That was ALL you got, the land, nothing over, under, or passing through.