Water Rights...

[jnevis]

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In 2007, a Jackson County Circuit Court judge denied Harrington’s permits and found that he had illegally “withdrawn the water at issue from appropriation other than for the City of Medford.”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.

[MikeBjerum]

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.

[lhprop1]

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.  

  

[lhprop1]

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.

[MikeBjerum]

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.

[Sponsor]

[Pathfinder]

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.

[Pathfinder]

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? ? ? ? ?

[TAB]

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.

[santahog]

... 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...

[lhprop1]

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.