Oregon man jailed for collecting rainwater

Status
Not open for further replies.

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
But it's not "navigable water" is it, shit for brains!
Do you ever think before you open that big mouth of yours?
Quit adding that nitrogen to mature flowering plants and you just might end up with top shelf taste, NEWB!

I have not read the story or the "law" so cannot comment on it specifically, but i do find it absolutely amazing how few people on this site actually understand the wording of a statute. They even have definition sections for the very purpose of explaining what is meant by a certain word to remove confusion, but people just gloss over and think they know what they know. If as you say the act is specifically with regard to navigable rivers and it's tributaries and the river in question is niether a navagable river or a tributary of a navigable river then indeed, the act bares no relevance at all.
 

Total Head

Well-Known Member
i'm confused. i get the whole bit about dams diverting the public water, but i don't understand the "illegal reservoirs" that supposedly collect rain and snow. are they one and the same? is the argument that the rain and snow itself populates the rivers/creeks and is not available for personal storage? meaning that if i went outside with a shovel in january and filled buckets with snow and stored them in my basement for later use, i am guilty of theft?

if they are separate, it would be a simple matter of obtaining a permit, which the guy applied for and was denied. if they are the same, and (at least 1) in place since the 1970s, 50 years after the introduction of the law, how is it appropriate to make a stink about it now?
 

beenthere

New Member
I have not read the story or the "law" so cannot comment on it specifically, but i do find it absolutely amazing how few people on this site actually understand the wording of a statute. They even have definition sections for the very purpose of explaining what is meant by a certain word to remove confusion, but people just gloss over and think they know what they know. If as you say the act is specifically with regard to navigable rivers and it's tributaries and the river in question is niether a navagable river or a tributary of a navigable river then indeed, the act bares no relevance at all.

A BILL FOR AN ACT Relating to the Big Butte Creek watershed; amending ORS 538.430. Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: SECTION 1. ORS 538.430 is amended to read: 538.430. (1) Subject to water rights existing on May 29, 1925, the City of Medford, in Jackson County, is granted the exclusive right to use for municipal purposes all the waters of Big Butte Creek, a tributary of Rogue River situated in Jackson County, and of the springs at the head which form the creek, and of its tributaries. http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/sb0900.dir/sb0908.intro.html
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
But it's not "navigable water" is it, shit for brains!
Do you ever think before you open that big mouth of yours?
Quit adding that nitrogen to mature flowering plants and you just might end up with top shelf taste, NEWB!

By the same logic that a d&c is a murder, that rivulet is the embryo of navigable water. cn
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
But it's not "navigable water" is it, shit for brains!
Do you ever think before you open that big mouth of yours?
Quit adding that nitrogen to mature flowering plants and you just might end up with top shelf taste, NEWB!

you know you're losing when you bust out that picture.

you're a person who's cocksure of himself, but you're also a dumbass whose confidence is unfounded.

i am going to irrigate with nitrogen later today when it cools off. i won't be having any of that sickly yellow sugar leaf that you are so proud of.

I love how an article about collecting rainwater can turn into a full on political debate....
well, it's not really about collecting rainwater, it's about damming a river.

more fear mongering from mr. neutron, who is short on substance nowadays.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
here is a much better, non conspiratorial anti-authoritarian read about what this douche is doing. he has previously pleaded guilty to the crime. he just waits until probation is over and he fills the dams again.

Jackson County man with a 10-year history of illegally diverting water with homemade dams was sentenced this week to 30 days in jail and fined $1,500.

Gary A. Harrington was convicted earlier this month of nine counts of unauthorized water use. Under Oregon law, all water is publicly owned and a permit is required to divert or store it for personal use.

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.

In addition to the fine and jail time, Harrington was placed on probation for three years. He is scheduled to begin his jail term in August, and water officials are watching to make sure Harrington complies with the terms of his sentencing, Paul said.

Harrington was cited and fined in 2002, and in 2008 pleaded guilty to one count of unauthorized water use. The day after his probation expired, however, he closed the headgates and refilled the reservoirs, Paul said.

Oregonians may collect water that gathers on impervious surfaces such as a parking lot, or divert roof runoff to rain barrels, but otherwise need a permit. Paul said Harrington appears to have political beliefs that are in opposition to state law. Harrington represented himself at his Jackson County Circuit Court trial this month.

"I don't think he necessarily believed what we were telling him," Paul said
 

InCognition

Active Member
it's called maintaining property values. no one is forcing her to live in that neighborhood.

do you support my "right" to spray paint my lawn neon pink and display life sized pictures of dead polar bears for everyone to see?
It's called property rights. No one else is forced to live in the neighborhood. So why is someone forced to follow rules regarding what they can't do with their own property? Of course there are limits. But do you understand the hypocrisy in your statement? Surely not... you never do.

so tell me, did the president say anything that wasn't true? did you build the road that's in front of your house?

dumbass.
Nope, the people didn't build it directly, they just payed for it to be built by someone else.

Dumbass.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
It's called property rights. No one else is forced to live in the neighborhood. So why is someone forced to follow rules regarding what they can do with their own property? Of course there are limits. But do you understand the hypocrisy in your statement? Surely not... you never do.
your right to plant a garden does not trump the rights of the rest of the neighborhood to maintain property values.

as always, you have a selfish, childish, entitled view of rights. your right to do whatever stops when it harms the rights of others.

built by someone else.
thanks for agreeing with obama!
 

beenthere

New Member
you know you're losing when you bust out that picture.

you're a person who's cocksure of himself, but you're also a dumbass whose confidence is unfounded.

i am going to irrigate with nitrogen later today when it cools off. i won't be having any of that sickly yellow sugar leaf that you are so proud of.



well, it's not really about collecting rainwater, it's about damming a river.

more fear mongering from mr. neutron, who is short on substance nowadays.
I am cocksure of myself on certain things, that's why I'm willing to debate it, if I'm not sure of what I'm talking about, I shut my mouth and observe others that do. You on the other hand, don't have that kind of self control, you open your mouth on every issue, right of wrong your mouth is flapping, that's why you get your ass handed to you so much by others on this forum! LOL

Now, you claimed I didn't know how to read, I claimed it was actually you, so, show us all where these "navigable waters" are on this guys property!

And please explain where that river is on his property that you claim he is damming? LMAO
You're such a major fucking FAIL Bucky!
 

DelQ

Active Member
Colorado owns every drop of water that falls from the sky, its not yours to collect and use as you want,,,, That came strait from my water commissioner here in Colorado... and if you own water right here its a use it or lose it program.. water here in colorado is some serious shit.....
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
But it's not "navigable water" is it, shit for brains!
Do you ever think before you open that big mouth of yours?
Quit adding that nitrogen to mature flowering plants and you just might end up with top shelf taste, NEWB!

Why is he building boat docks then?
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
I am cocksure of myself on certain things, that's why I'm willing to debate it, if I'm not sure of what I'm talking about, I shut my mouth and observe others that do. You on the other hand, don't have that kind of self control, you open your mouth on every issue, right of wrong your mouth is flapping, that's why you get your ass handed to you so much by others on this forum! LOL

Now, you claimed I didn't know how to read, I claimed it was actually you, so, show us all where these "navigable waters" are on this guys property!

And please explain where that river is on his property that you claim he is damming? LMAO
You're such a major fucking FAIL Bucky!
"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
 

beenthere

New Member
Colorado owns every drop of water that falls from the sky, its not yours to collect and use as you want,,,, That came strait from my water commissioner here in Colorado... and if you own water right here its a use it or lose it program.. water here in colorado is some serious shit.....
The revenue generated from water rights will become the biggest money making industry in the US, whoever controls the water, will control almost everything.
It's some serious shit in CA too.
 

beenthere

New Member
That would certainly point towards navigable waters wouldn't you say?
No not at all, navigable waters are waters deep enough and wide enough for navigation by the public.
Private ponds or lakes that are not part of a navigable river are not subject to this federal law.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
No not at all, navigable waters are waters deep enough and wide enough for navigation by the public.
Private ponds or lakes that are not part of a navigable river are not subject to this federal law.
You can't dam off streams and call it private

" Lakes and rivers are generally considered navigable waters, but smaller bodies of water may also be navigable. Attempting to address years of problematic litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1979 created four tests for determining what constitutes navigable waters. Established in Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 100 S. Ct. 383, 62 L. Ed. 2d 332, the tests ask whether the body of water (1) is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, (2) connects with a continuous interstate waterway, (3) has navigable capacity, and (4) is actually navigable. Using these tests, courts have held that bodies of water much smaller than lakes and rivers also constitute navigable waters. Even shallow streams that are traversable only by canoe have met the test."
 

beenthere

New Member
You can't dam off streams and call it private

" Lakes and rivers are generally considered navigable waters, but smaller bodies of water may also be navigable. Attempting to address years of problematic litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1979 created four tests for determining what constitutes navigable waters. Established in Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 100 S. Ct. 383, 62 L. Ed. 2d 332, the tests ask whether the body of water (1) is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, (2) connects with a continuous interstate waterway, (3) has navigable capacity, and (4) is actually navigable. Using these tests, courts have held that bodies of water much smaller than lakes and rivers also constitute navigable waters. Even shallow streams that are traversable only by canoe have met the test."
There ya go Ginja, as you can see, none of them apply to this property owners case.
He wasn't damning a river, a stream or any other navigable body of water, trust me, if he was, the federal government would have intervened and the state of Oregon would have been the least of his problems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top