Oregon's 'Rain Man' Begins Serving Sentence For Rainwater Theft...

[martybegan]

Good point. They could raise taxes and make everyone living in the state pay for it instead of the property owner that is going to reap the benefit.

Thats a valid point, but the people of the state are reaping the benefit of owning water that falls on a persons property and/or flows through it. In effect they are getting free use of water off of someone else's property, less of course the cost the water companys charge.

I'm not seeing how the state benefits from the free use of water. The water use is (supposedly) managed by the state for the benefit of the state's population. This isn't a business it is a state.

The state benefits because they get to decide who uses the water and how. Have you ever been thorugh a building department permitting process? It seems sometimes that the word "No" is to be said the first 3 cycles out of habit.

The problem I have with alot of these permitting setups is there is no place to appeal to. The agency is usually judge, jury, and denier.

 

[paulitician]

All water belongs to the government. That means the government owns your piss. If you pee in a cup instead of the public sewer you have committed water diversion and it's the same as building a dam to divert the Colorado river.

"MUST GET EVIL-DOERS!! MUST GET EVIL-DOERS!!"

Don't bother. You're dealing with Goose Stepping Zombies. Some will defend anything Big Brother does, as long as it's their particular team in power at the time. Very few Citizens are standing up for Freedom & Liberty these days. And that's just very sad.

 

[Ravi]

Thats a valid point, but the people of the state are reaping the benefit of owning water that falls on a persons property and/or flows through it. In effect they are getting free use of water off of someone else's property, less of course the cost the water companys charge.

I'm not seeing how the state benefits from the free use of water. The water use is (supposedly) managed by the state for the benefit of the state's population. This isn't a business it is a state.

The state benefits because they get to decide who uses the water and how. Have you ever been thorugh a building department permitting process? It seems sometimes that the word "No" is to be said the first 3 cycles out of habit.

The problem I have with alot of these permitting setups is there is no place to appeal to. The agency is usually judge, jury, and denier.

That's what elections are for.

 

[martybegan]

I'm not seeing how the state benefits from the free use of water. The water use is (supposedly) managed by the state for the benefit of the state's population. This isn't a business it is a state.

The state benefits because they get to decide who uses the water and how. Have you ever been thorugh a building department permitting process? It seems sometimes that the word "No" is to be said the first 3 cycles out of habit.

The problem I have with alot of these permitting setups is there is no place to appeal to. The agency is usually judge, jury, and denier.

That's what elections are for.

Another good point.

 

[martybegan]

Good point. They could raise taxes and make everyone living in the state pay for it instead of the property owner that is going to reap the benefit.

Thats a valid point, but the people of the state are reaping the benefit of owning water that falls on a persons property and/or flows through it. In effect they are getting free use of water off of someone else's property, less of course the cost the water companys charge.

Perhaps I'm missing something but it seems analogous to building codes and zoning rights. When a house needs a certificate of occupancy it's not the town's responsibility to fund the inspection and ensure compliance - it's the landowners job. Afterall, they built the house / diverted the water.

But I'm not sure that analogy is airtight

Yes they are similar, but building codes are "usually" simpler, and have been established over long periods of time. Something as complicated as figuring out how a water division affects other areas of flow can become much more expensive.

 

[L.K.Eder]

What comes next after the 'War on Rainwater-Collectors?' The 'War on Breathing?' Stay tuned.

He wasn't collecting rainwater, you asinine buttclown.

He was diverting a public channel, and using it for personal recreational use. The permit is required because he can disrupt commerce (hello? liberty) of all other properties that the channel runs through.

If this were legal with no permits, like 8537 said above dummy, it would be perfectly fine to just create damns on your property that would flood all surrounding areas. The permits make perfect sense, ya dope.

you can't be sure about that. maybe it had been raining fisheggs as well. can't blame a thirsty man for being lucky.

 

[Politico]

Here's a more realistic version of the story:

Jackson County man sentenced for water diversion

Your lies are noted, faux-Paul supporter.

Shhh. We wouldn't want actual facts getting in the way.

 

[BlindBoo]

It's a States right issue. What's the matter you don't beleive in states rights to determine water rights. The man repeatedly and knowingly broke the law by diverting water from a stream. Doesn't matter that the stream was on his property as the local municipality has the rights to the watershed of that valley which include all streams, creeks, rain water and meltwater.

 

[g5000]

From Oregon:

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.

30 days is a light sentence considering they have been dealing with this jackhole for ten years.

.

 

[g5000]

Gary Harrington said the water containers are merely ponds holding rain and snow runoff from his property, and that he stores the water mainly for fire protection.

Man disputes Oregon convictions of illegal water use | Fox News


He's a liar:

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.

Jackson County man sentenced for illegal water diversion, ordered to breach dams | OregonLive.com

 

[Ariux]

It's doubtful that the only water he damned precipitated on his property. Regardless, property rights don't, and shouldn't, give you a right to impact your neighbor's property by diverting natural resources. That asshole doesn't even need the water, but maybe a farmer downstream does need the water.

The shithead anarchists on the side of this asshole, I wonder how they'd feel if their neighbor diverted a river into their living room? "It's his property, he should have the right to dam or divert it?"

 

[paulitician]

So many loyal Goose Steppers. What a sad country we've become.

 

[G.T.]

So many loyal Goose Steppers. What a sad country we've become.

1925 Law, ass clown.