Oregon man jailed for collecting rainwater
- Thread starter Mr Neutron
- Start date
- Status
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
This has been going on since 2002
he knows his actions are outside of the law
and he got a minimal punishment for breaking said law
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Well, if you paid any attention, you would know he is disputing the law and after looking at his property and the 1925 law, I think he has a good case!
Why do people like you love stand up for government so much, and could give a shit about property owners rights?
BTW, I have no clue what ideals "neocons" adhere to, ask a neocon!
No mush brain, he's damming diffused runoff, do you see a fucking creek on his property?
You already claimed Big Butte Creek which is year round ran through it, so WTF Skippy, did it disappear? LOL
WyoGrow
Active 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 should maybe know what you are talking about.... like before you start telling people they are stupid and stuff
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
so your acknowledging that he intentionally broke the law and is justified . . ?
and what about this case and the 1925 law do you feel will be changed or revised in order to allow him to do whatever it is you think he is doing, i cant assume my premise is correct . . .?
and i thought the issue is not navigable water but water, part of a watershed that is designated for a different purpose, and there is no legal right to steal water/runoff thats already owned
where i live its illegal to pollute the watershed, im assuming it is similar laws protecting the use/storage and diversion of any water within specific amounts in that water shed, where you from beenthere, somewhere without abundant water im assuming?
well that's your opinion... judges have already convicted him once...
water flow isn't a property owner's rights so I don't know what you are talking about..
if he's damming a creek, holding all the water to himself, and a guy who owns property downstream doesn't get enough water... what then?? same creek, two different property owners two different properties... what then? think about it...
I do know what I'm talking about, it's not even close to being navigable water. Anyone with half a brain could figure this out.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
With one a'these, anything is navigable. cn
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
doesn't have to be navigable water, braniac.
and show me the tributary that feeds the actual reservoir just northwest of his property.
just because it doesn't show up on google earth doesn't mean it doesn't exist, smart guy.
and if he is so innocent, why did he plead guilty to this same charge in 2008 and wait until he was off probation to do it all again?
i just watered my plants, and i added nitrogen. i plan on keeping nitrogen at full levels until preflowering shows up in late august, at which point i will gradually cut down.
where are all those pics of your awesome grows? seems like you just try to bait people into showing their grows to collect evidence, like a narc would.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Easy on that nitrogen, UB. It has been conclusively linked to emerging conservatism and a sudden admiration of "Hee Haw" reruns. cn
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
come on now i can just repost it agian, flex that brain of yours and educate me as i do not know anyting about the law
so your acknowledging that he intentionally broke the law and is justified . . ?
and what about this case and the 1925 law do you feel will be changed or revised in order to allow him to do whatever it is you think he is doing, i cant assume my premise is correct . . .?
and i thought the issue is not navigable water but water, part of a watershed that is designated for a different purpose, and there is no legal right to steal water/runoff thats already owned
where i live its illegal to pollute the watershed, im assuming it is similar laws protecting the use/storage and diversion of any water within specific amounts in that water shed, where you from beenthere, somewhere without abundant water im assuming?
so your acknowledging that he intentionally broke the law and is justified . . ?
and what about this case and the 1925 law do you feel will be changed or revised in order to allow him to do whatever it is you think he is doing, i cant assume my premise is correct . . .?
and i thought the issue is not navigable water but water, part of a watershed that is designated for a different purpose, and there is no legal right to steal water/runoff thats already owned
where i live its illegal to pollute the watershed, im assuming it is similar laws protecting the use/storage and diversion of any water within specific amounts in that water shed, where you from beenthere, somewhere without abundant water im assuming?
To the contrary, I don't believe he broke the 1925 law, is there anything wrong in your book for someone standing up for their rights when they feel they've been wronged?
I believe the law was written very specific in saying private land owners cannot restrict, divert or dam up watersfrom Big Butte Creek or the springs at the head that form the creek, obviously he is doing neither.
If he was literally damming Big Butte Creek or any of it's tributaries, I would wholeheartedly agree that he was breaking the law.
You are right, the issue isn't about navigable waters because the water this guy is damming isn't close to being navigable, but some on here think it makes a stronger case for their argument.
Nah, there's plenty of water here in Nor Cal.
I agree, but your the one that made that argument, and lost I might add!
There is no tributary moron, that's the whole fucking point and the property owners contention, do you comprehend what you read shit for brains?
“The withdrawal said the stream and its tributaries. It didn’t mention anything about rainwater and it didn’t mention anything about snow melt and it didn’t mention anything about diffused water, but yet now, they’re trying to expand that to include that rain water and they’re using me as the goat to do it,” Harrington
That's a question only he can answer for sure but my guess is, he didn't want or couldn't afford the money it would take to fight them in court!
Excellent, you're learning something at least. Maybe later in your endeavors you'll find out that many equatorial strains have less chlorophyll (green) and more yellow pigments to protect the plant from intense light.
Stay off that nitrogen fetish of yours midway through the flowering stage and give them a good flush, you'll be surprised with the superior smell and taste.
I've never baited one person on this forum to show their pics and that's a fact, for you to even insinuate it, tells me you are one frustrated little worm of a man.
I couldn't really give a flying fuck about seeing cannabis pics punkass, that's about as exciting as looking at pictures of my wife.
The next time you feel the need to call anyone a narc, have the balls to do it to their face, don't be a little punkass hiding behind a computer, Oregon's not that far away from Nor Cal.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
sorry to hear your wife is an uggo.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
remind me who brought up "navigable waters" first, smarty?
LOL!
more self ownage. lovely.
- Status