Man Imprisoned for Collecting Rainwater on his Own Land

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Jul 11, 2014.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    http://www.tpnn.com/2014/07/09/tyranny-man-imprisoned-for-collecting-rainwater-on-his-own-land/




    http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/Pages/law/index.aspx
     
  2. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #2
    Oregon, beautiful state with generally crazy politics.
     
  3. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #3
    That is pretty messed up.

    I see where the law is coming from; reference the guy that proverbially took a leak in Dawson's Creek when he tapped a kidney, opened the spigot, and cost Portland 38 million gallons of water. But here is where the law backfired.

    Seriously, a judge and/or governor should look at this, pardon the guy, and send a note to the legislature to clarify this law.

    BL.
     
  4. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #4
  5. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #5
    It's not about water from the sky. It's about reservoirs.

     
  6. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    see bold.
    the officials are claiming that water should be "free" to flow to the river. the river is not being diverted to the reservoirs.
     
  7. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #7
    This guy wasn't just setting a few rain barrels to catch the water than ran off his roof (which is clearly permitted under Oregon law.)

    He set up a system of dams and ponds with 13 million gallons of water in them. Water that was illegally diverted from the river system. He stocked these ponds with bass and other game fish, which he further exploited for commercial purposes. And he had been repeatedly warned that his ponds, dams, etc. were in contravention to Oregon law - and yet he persists in violating those judgements.

    Water is a public resource. Nobody has the right to blatantly appropriate it for their own purposes, depriving those downstream.
     
  8. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #8
    He has 13 million gallons of rainwater complete with 10- and 20-foot-tall dams is verboten.

    Capturing water with artificial, with an impervious surface such as a rooftop with the assistance of rainwater barrels is not restricted.
     
  9. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #9
    how many YEARS did it take for him to collect RAIN WATER to make it there on damns he built?
     
  10. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #10
    It all depends on the state, it all depends on subtle details, and, I haven't looked at the details. But, on the face of it, the man, and the people getting hysterical, are flat out wrong about their basic assumption. You don't necessarily have a right to all the water that originates on your land. Watch some old westerns about people feuding over water rights. Read some books. Water rights in the West are typically held separately from the land title, just like subsurface mineral rights are. Unless he has title to that water, then, he is just stealing it.

    Imagine a different example: a very large series of springs, like the Headwaters of the Metolius river near Camp Sherman in central Oregon. The whole river emerges out the ground. The water rights for that water are held by -- who knows, but, landowners in the neighborhood need water rights before they can drop a hose in and start pumping.
     
  11. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #11
    So why are the reservoirs on his land and not public land?
     
  12. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #12
    the man HAD the appropriate permits until the city decided to withdraw them

    his damns were already built & had the water in them, they are essentially back pedaling from what THEY (city) had already allowed & jailed him for it.
     
  13. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #14
    Yeah, if he were collecting water that simply fell from the sky onto his land, I could side with him...but if he's actually restricting the flow of other water going through his land, I have to side with the judge on this one.
     
  14. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #15
    These are his personal constructs.
     
  15. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    The thing is he's capturing water equivalent to 20 Olympic sized swimming pools. It's a hell of a lot more than a typical homeowner would collect and it will be significant enough to make some impact to the river system.
     
  16. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #17
    from link
    the water was already captured, the man HAD permits the city had issued to him.
     
  17. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    Lets say his house is as big as the largest country house in England which has a frontage of 606 feet (184m) and lets assume it is square, then in order to put in a 4 metre wide moat that's two metres deep would need (200*4*4*2) 6400 cubic metres of water or 1.4 million gallons which is about a tenth of the amount of water he has collected.
     
  18. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #19
    except he doesn't just have a house, he has plenty of land that need irrigation & water for fire suppression should the need arise. you are overlooking the FACT the man HAD a permit at one time.
     
  19. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    That's absurd, you can't have every landowner protecting all their land from fires.

    Looks like he got it by mistake.
     
  20. lostngone macrumors demi-god

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #21
    I do not take issue with using collected rainwater for personal use. However 13 million gallons isn't what I would call "personal use".
     
  21. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #22
    1. why? do you think the water from a few trucks will put out the fire?

    2. he got it at any rate.
     
  22. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #23
    I think the fact that they gave him a permit, then he built the dams and reservoirs... Now they have taken back the permit and want him to release all the water, is pretty crappy.
     
  23. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    No but fires are part of nature. You can't fight it.

    I have no issue with him protecting his house, but not his land as well.

    In the UK you aren't allowed to stop your land from being flooded, regardless of how rich you are.

    And then he lost it.
     
  24. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #25
    Perspective: 13 million gallons = 39 acre-feet. (One acre, one foot deep, is 325,851 gallons.)

    Comparison: Oregon is noted for a lot of rain. Texas isn't. In Texas, you can have all the reservoirs on your land that you want, as long as they each hold less than 100 acre-feet. Anything on a flowing stream, you must release the "normal" flow, capturing only flood waters. Obviously no problem when the dam is across a gully.

    IOW, IMO, the Oregon law is silly.
     

Share This Page