Why Oregon Man Sentenced to 30 Days in Jail -- for Collecting Rainwater on His Property?
jt
2012/07/29 04:26:54
|
|
|||||
|
95 votes
|
|
82% | |||
|
5 votes
|
|
4% | |||
|
16 votes
|
|
14% | |||
(CNSNews.com) – 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.
A fwd article: -jt
Top Opinion
-
ktmg 2012/07/29 04:47:29
What you need to know is that water is big business for some markets, and those with big money are quite willing to buy a judge to get their way.
Look at all the people harassed by the RIAA over file sharing. And collecting your own rainwater is a thousand times more legitimate.
But in both cases, somebody with money thought money should give them power as well.
Fight it. Argue, complain, VOTE, demand any judge that sells his soul be replaced.
Petitions and Social Networking are working. In many cases, once confronted, the bullied back off because they can't stand the light of day.
Meanwhile, this guy should set up a PayPal site to pay for his fines. I'm good for a dollar.
Unless the 1925 law was done under an "eminate domain" process then the law is an unconstitutional invasion of the mans property rights.
This will eventually go to the SCOTUS since in reality all streams and rivers are governed under the federal waterways act of 1842 which preceeds the local Oregon law of 1925 and does not address or accert action against the 1842 act.
I guess the the Crow, Cheyenne, Arapahoe, Sioux, Ute, Kiowa, Comanche, Apache, Caddo, Wichita, Navajo, Hopi, Nez Pierce, Shoshoni, Shebits, Kaibab, Utah, Ouray, and Paiute will all be very happy to know that, since they were there and had claim on the land and all that went with it to start with. :)
Yes, the water belongs to the People of Colorado; but water barrels are illegal there too, because of century-old laws.
It's like the descendants of the original rights holders are an aristocracy.
Until we do away with mail in voting and require an ID at polling places we are probably stuck with the situation which those fools create. Yes, there are lots of idiots in Portland, Salem and Eugene but most Oregonians are reasonable down to Earth people. When we do away with mail in voting and require ID at the polling places, then the people in the big cities will not be voting multiple times for IDIOTS and we may be able to restore some sanity to the state.
The only people proven to have committed Voter Fraud are Republicans.
James O'Keefe: when trying to prove voter fraud happens, he and his friends tried to register for the Republican Primary election using names copied from the Obits. They got caught when somebody recognized the name and had to run for it.
Mitt Romney: voted in MA though not a resident. He put his address as his son's basement.
Charlie White, IN : moved out of the town limits when he got divorced, but kept voting from his ex-wife's address because otherwise he'd lose his easy money seat on the town council.
John Enright: sent in the absentee ballots intended for his girlfriend for years after she died.
As far as Oregon goes, since they have mail-in voting, your assertion about "observed and recorded as voting multiple times" is obviously a lie.
They vote by mail.
How could anyone "observe" them voting multiple times? By illegally opening their mail? Where would they get duplicate mail in ballots?
And once the duplicate ballot got to the Polling authority, it would instantly be noted as duplicate because they have a signature ID system.
http://democratherald.com/new...
To the contrary, mail-in voting works VERY well. And it grants a certain immunity to Republican Voting ...
The only people proven to have committed Voter Fraud are Republicans.
James O'Keefe: when trying to prove voter fraud happens, he and his friends tried to register for the Republican Primary election using names copied from the Obits. They got caught when somebody recognized the name and had to run for it.
Mitt Romney: voted in MA though not a resident. He put his address as his son's basement.
Charlie White, IN : moved out of the town limits when he got divorced, but kept voting from his ex-wife's address because otherwise he'd lose his easy money seat on the town council.
John Enright: sent in the absentee ballots intended for his girlfriend for years after she died.
As far as Oregon goes, since they have mail-in voting, your assertion about "observed and recorded as voting multiple times" is obviously a lie.
They vote by mail.
How could anyone "observe" them voting multiple times? By illegally opening their mail? Where would they get duplicate mail in ballots?
And once the duplicate ballot got to the Polling authority, it would instantly be noted as duplicate because they have a signature ID system.
http://democratherald.com/new...
To the contrary, mail-in voting works VERY well. And it grants a certain immunity to Republican Voting Suppression tactics.
The people can't be tricked into voting a day late; scared away from voting by telling them anyone with parking tickets will get caught and fined when they come in; all the tricks Republicans have used.
No doubt this is very frustrating for you.
A postal worker delivering five mail in ballots with similar names to the same address where normally there is only one person receiving mail. Same postal worker also delivering multiple ballots to the same person's place of business in five similar names. He brought it to the attention of his supervisor who told him;
"Our function is to deliver the mail, not investigate voter fraud. Deliver it."
The same postal worker knew of other carriers with similar deliveries. How many more out there?
Immoral, or course. And the people that believe you must be stupid.
But it's free !
http://democratherald.com/new...
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 ti...
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.
http://www.kxl.com/07/31/12/G...
The claim is that he is preventing water from flowing into the aquifer that feeds Crowfoot Creek, that itself flows into the Big Butte Springs watershed.
He's not doing this by blocking an existing creek, as far as I can tell.
I went to Google Maps, typed in Crowfoot Rd, and did some looking via satellite.
I found three ponds, right along the road.
https://maps.google.com/maps?...
What you should understand is that creeks often start from seeps or depressions where the water table is close to the surface.
Picture a lot of rocky strata where the water runs off and collects in a lower area that's semi-permeable.
Seeps will trickle away eventually through the ground strata, unless, for example, somebody digs a pond, or puts up a "spreader" dam.
That restrains some water. Not a whole lot. In his case, he says the ponds are no more than five feet deep.
And he points out, that if a fire starts on his property, he can be liable for fire damages up to $100,000 if the fire department can't put it out.
Which, they CAN, currently, because of his convenient water reservoirs.
He says the Fire Department is all for the water reservoirs. And the local city of Medford hasn't complained.
It's some bureaucrat in the pay of SOMEBODY.
...
http://www.kxl.com/07/31/12/G...
The claim is that he is preventing water from flowing into the aquifer that feeds Crowfoot Creek, that itself flows into the Big Butte Springs watershed.
He's not doing this by blocking an existing creek, as far as I can tell.
I went to Google Maps, typed in Crowfoot Rd, and did some looking via satellite.
I found three ponds, right along the road.
https://maps.google.com/maps?...
What you should understand is that creeks often start from seeps or depressions where the water table is close to the surface.
Picture a lot of rocky strata where the water runs off and collects in a lower area that's semi-permeable.
Seeps will trickle away eventually through the ground strata, unless, for example, somebody digs a pond, or puts up a "spreader" dam.
That restrains some water. Not a whole lot. In his case, he says the ponds are no more than five feet deep.
And he points out, that if a fire starts on his property, he can be liable for fire damages up to $100,000 if the fire department can't put it out.
Which, they CAN, currently, because of his convenient water reservoirs.
He says the Fire Department is all for the water reservoirs. And the local city of Medford hasn't complained.
It's some bureaucrat in the pay of SOMEBODY.
There was a case this Spring in Michigan; a woman put in a little 4ft by 4ft garden bed to raise vegetables after the City dug up her yard running cables.
Well, she was threatened with jail time. Because somebody claimed that vegetables were "inappropriate vegetation".
It finally came out that the threats were coming from a landscape designer hired by the City. He had no authority of any kind but was determined that all lawns had to look the same.
So he pulled strings in the Administration and got the system to lean on the woman.
She fought back, and won.
There is simply no basis for the claim that water collecting on his land belongs to anybody but him.
Unless you're in Colorado; they have long established laws that say your water, and ANY mineral resource, doesn't belong to you.
This article is from a RIGHT WING news source, almost avowedly so, but they give enough facts to contradict the "property rights" narrative. It seems to me that while this guy claims to be merely collecting "rainwater" and "runoff," yet he has seen fit to dam up streams in order to do so, claiming essentially that it's all "runoff" and "rainwater," which it may ULTIMATELY be. However, dams are not needed to collect rainwater and runoff, only water flowing from streams and rivers. These are streams that may flow onto his property, but other people downstream from him have a right to use them as well. These laws were made to prevent one person from monopolizing precious water resources. Nor are they the only state to do so. Only idiots think this is a "liberal" vs. "conservative" issue.