Oregon man jailed for collecting rainwater

[MikeA57]

Saw this yesterday and did some checking. He apparently has 3 large ponds on 170 acres that he owns and he's been collecting rainwater in them for years. At one point, he was told he didn't need permits for his ponds but later was told he was. He got the permits, then they were taken away from him in the same year. He's been steadily collecting water in the ponds but the city of Medford decided to pursue this because of a 1925 law that states "the city of Medford holds all exclusive rights to "core sources of water" in the Big Butte Creek watershed and its tributaries."

Does this seem to be a little overreaching by the government? The water comes from snow and rain runoff into the ponds which he states is solely for the purpose of fire suppression. (The lakes are stocked with fish too.) I'm guessing that if the area suffered a wildfire, that would be a possible source of water to help extinguish them. On the surface this just seems to be crazy that they would go to this length over rainwater, but maybe we don't have the whole story...

Gary Harrington, Oregon Resident, Sentenced To Jail For Stockpiling Rainwater

 

[Rock knocker]

I bet there is more to the story. And we're not talking about some ponds, we're talking about 40 acre-feet of impounded water, and an individual who ignored previous court orders.

One could argue that the water is not being prevented from flowing into the river system, but is merely being delayed by impoundment. But I get the sneaking suspicion that Mr. Harrington represented himself, or ignored is lawyers advice

 

[Baby Grand]

In the West wars have been fought over water rights. Think about how a rancher downstream would be affected if a property owner upstream impounded the water in a large lake - one big enough to stop stream flow for months or years at a time. Or if the dam broke and took out the rancher's farm & family in the ensuing flood. Would you want your local government to get drug into that conflict and all the nonsense that it would entail? Sometimes "less government" means more regulation so this kind of conflict cannot happen in the first place, or if it does, the one in violation may be cited & forced to comply with regulation.

 

[dmccarty]

Water rights are very strange in some places. In this guy's case, I can't decide who is in the right. I have heard of places where you can't even use rain barrels to catch water which seems a bit absurd. If it falls on my land is it not my water? How can one legally take away someone's rain water? On the other hand, if an entity owns the water shed, putting up dams and ponds seems to be taking what someone else owns. The only difference between a cup, a rain barrel, or a pond is the size of the container. "Owning" the rain seems a bit far fetched.....

However, my understanding is that the ground water in the county that contains Wilmington, NC, is owned by a company. You own the land, but someone else owns the water under the land. Dangest thing I have ever read. This happened a long time ago, late 1800's or early 1900's if I remember right and it smelled of corruption.

Later,
Dan

 

[Rainbody]

Every state is different. Our water battle was this year with the state after our 100 year drought.
http://kfyo.com/landowners-keep-water-rights-after-texas-supreme-court-ruling/
Even if this guy was diverting water from a stream(navigable body) why waste the money for 30 days in jail? Bust up the dams, fine guy for cost of labor/court costs plus 20%. Jail is a waste.

 

[joshuabardwell]

If it falls on my land is it not my water?

Dan,

If you don't have a problem understanding how someone can own land, why is it a problem to understand why someone can own rainwater? Both concepts are equally artificial. I submit that one is just more familiar to you than the other. Someone from another culture might find both concepts equally ludicrous.

 

[BrianDT]

We had a neighbor block off his ditch to collect water. Unfortunately it has backed up the ditch on my property and made my tile work overtime to drain a lot of water that should have been drained directly from our ditch to a larger ditch. I can see where this sort of stuff can cause huge issues.

 

[greasemonkeyok]

So the story goes in Oklahoma, the native Americans did not recognize private ownership of land, but believed all land belong to everyone. So when the government divided up and allotted out parcels of land to individual tribal members, some of those tribal members were more than willing to "sell" for a pittance what they did not believe was something they could "own."

 

[forgeblast]

13 million gallons with 10- and 20-foot-tall dams is verboten without the proper, state-issued water-right permits, it gets even more messy with accusations of water diversion and a three-year bench probation issued against Harringon in 2007. In that case, Harrington plead guilty and agreed to open up the gates of his reservoirs only to close them back up again shortly thereafter.


The bigger story here is that rainwater collection is indeed kosher in Oregon, provided that you’re capturing it from an artificial, impervious surface such as a rooftop with the assistance of rainwater barrels.

That was from the article, I would worry about being down stream from him if one of his dam's let loose.

 

[Raspy]

Dan,

If you don't have a problem understanding how someone can own land, why is it a problem to understand why someone can own rainwater? Both concepts are equally artificial. I submit that one is just more familiar to you than the other. Someone from another culture might find both concepts equally ludicrous.

We don't have enough information to come to a reasonable conclusion with this story. But once you back up and start questioning the validity of "ownership", you are questioning the whole society and all of it's underpinnings. The question is too big to answer and too big to recognize as valid. Certainly too big to agree with. The whole idea of owning land is just a legal distinction that gives more rights than renting the land, and more responsibilities in our modern world. What about owning a car? How about a rock? A diamond is a rock and so is a piece of gravel. One is just more valuable so ownership is more important. If you lose a piece of gravel the police will not help you.

I wonder what would happen if someone from another culture that did not recognize land ownership, built their home somewhere. Then someone else wanted that spot for their home too. Ownership might be a mechanism to settle that dispute. It could be called "I was here first" or "we agreed I could". That is ownership.

If the guy is storing water for later use, that is not really the problem, maybe. It might be flood damage concerns, or not enough water down stream, that are the real concerns. Just as if I reach into his pond and fill a cup to drink, I'm storing water for later use. Is that a problem? Is it stealing?

If people or officials don't like what someone is doing, they will find some way to justify stopping it and some mechanism to use in the effort. Then they will use that law or mechanism as the reason or the morality behind their effort. In the process, property rights that were thought to accompany ownership will be invalidated.