Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well, if Big Brother says he's an evil-doer, than you know it just has to be true.
According to Oregon water laws, all water is publicly owned.
the city of Medford holds exclusive rights to all core sources of water in the Big Butte Creek watershed and its tributaries.
Harrington constructed dams to block a tributary to the Big Butte
theyd 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. Harringtons attention.
Harrington had gotten in trouble before for damming the river and they did not put him in jail.
He is a repeat offender:
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 theyd 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. Harringtons attention.
Well, if Big Brother says he's an evil-doer, than you know it just has to be true.
When you said he was "collecting rainwater on his own property", you implied the rainwater was just falling from the sky into his reservoir.
That is not the case.
He is diverting a creek which provides water for other residents in the area. And that is an entirely different issue.
Huh? what the fuck did he do wrong?
Apparently he knowingly violated a law. Since he was sentenced to 30 days in the County Jail a prosecutor and a judge (maybe even a jury) believed he was guilty.
Harrington had gotten in trouble before for damming the river and they did not put him in jail.
He is a repeat offender:
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 theyd 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. Harringtons attention.
Does Oregon have the Three Strikes law? They could just give him life!
Arguing Big Brother's case for him ay? Figures.
Under Oregon law, all water is publicly owned. With some exceptions, cities, farmers, factory owners and other users must obtain a permit or water right from the Water Resources Department to use water from any source whether it is underground, or from lakes or streams. Landowners with water flowing past, through, or under their property do not automatically have the right to use that water without a permit from the Department.
Oregons water laws are based on the principle of prior appropriation. This means the first person to obtain a water right on a stream is the last to be shut off in times of low streamflows. In water-short times, the water right holder with the oldest date of priority can demand the water specified in their water right regardless of the needs of junior users. If there is a surplus beyond the needs of the senior right holder, the water right holder with the next oldest priority date can take as much as necessary to satisfy needs under their right and so on down the line until there is no surplus or until all rights are satisfied. The date of application for a permit to use water usually becomes the priority date of the right.
East of the Mississippi, the riparian doctrine usually applies. Under the riparian doctrine, only landowners with water flowing through their property have claims to the water. The prior appropriation doctrine is the basis of water law for most of the states west of the Mississippi River. In Oregon, the prior appropriation doctrine has been law since February 24, 1909, when passage of the first unified water code introduced state control over the right to use water. Before then, water users had to depend on themselves or local courts to defend their rights to water.
An example of prior appropriation at work
Prior appropriation ensures that the first water user to obtain water rights has first access to water in times of shortage. If a downstream landowner has the earlier priority date (they initiated their water right in 1910) the upstream landowner may have to let the water pass unused to meet the needs of the senior, downstream water right holder.
Arguing Big Brother's case for him ay? Figures.
Defending a thief, eh? Figures.
Arguing Big Brother's case for him ay? Figures.
Defending a thief, eh? Figures.
Funny & ironic. You say that while defending the biggest thief on this Planet. Yup, Big Brother knows what's best for ya. You just keep on believing that. I know how much that comforts you Goose Steppers.
...is the fact that once his ponds are at full pool (can't hold any more water), the entire volume of the water the falls on his land during a day flows off his land to whatever place it would have gone had he not built the reservoirs.
high places with limited water have a lot of regulations on collections
Big Brother wants control of rain too. Go figure.
high places with limited water have a lot of regulations on collections
Big Brother wants control of rain too. Go figure.
I know this may go over some of your heads but I believe the issue is The Diversion Of Ground Water.
On a larger scale this same issue is fought over in many places. It seems simple that the man should be within his rights but there is more to it than that.
In some ways rain water run off is the property of the commons. I'm not saying that in this situation the man is wrong. I am saying that what he is doing MAY be illegal if his water diversion affects someone else's access to ground water.
It is not as open and shut as it could be seen.
Big Brother wants control of rain too. Go figure.
I know this may go over some of your heads but I believe the issue is The Diversion Of Ground Water.
On a larger scale this same issue is fought over in many places. It seems simple that the man should be within his rights but there is more to it than that.
In some ways rain water run off is the property of the commons. I'm not saying that in this situation the man is wrong. I am saying that what he is doing MAY be illegal if his water diversion affects someone else's access to ground water.
It is not as open and shut as it could be seen.
Isn't rainwater run off part of a watershed?
Sounds a little crazy to me to send a man to jail for collecting rain water on his own property.
