Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So basically just like Oregon. You can protect your structures, and you can't change the natural water course. Which this guy did.
I don't think you would find the Oregon laws disagreeable. You might quibble about "personal use" I find 15 million gallons a bit excessive mind you....while I could buy 1 million or 2.
So you agree that the jury should not have heard the facts?
You agree with the officials reversing their decision?
You agree that rainwater falling on his 170 acre land should not be flowing into his fish ponds? So how much water should someone with 170 acres of land be able to store for his fish ponds?
This is really important stuff out West. And it's not some newfangled way government is getting out of control. Here in Colorado, what I was just describing was enshrined in our state constitution at the time we became a state.
water that falls on my land should belong to me. End of story.
You agree that rainwater falling on his 170 acre land should not be flowing into his fish ponds? So how much water should someone with 170 acres of land be able to store for his fish ponds?
As much as they want, provided they return it back to its natural state prior to leaving the property..
If you don't own the rights to that water but want to, I'd suggest you make an offer to buy those rights from the owner.
Who says one doesnt own the rights to the water? Its on my land, why do I own the rights to the grass and trees on my land, but not the water which waters them?
Explain how you buy the rain before it falls, and who it was purchased from.
even better question is, if one cant buy the rain before it falls, then how can government state they can take it?
Doesnt the constitution say something about taking property without just compensation? If I'm using the rain water which is on my property to fill a lake, and the government then takes it and says I cant use it, then they've denied me property without compensation.
Who says one doesnt own the rights to the water? Its on my land, why do I own the rights to the grass and trees on my land, but not the water which waters them?
Simple answer: your state says you don't own the rights to that water. That's what the law is and always has been (especially out West).
And you don't own the exclusive rights to the trees and grass and dirt on your land. If the wind blows dirt from your property onto my property, I now own "your" dirt. If you have some beautiful Walnut trees growing on your land and a Tornado rips them up and deposits them on my land, guess who owns that lumber - I do, not you. I wonder if some prior owner ever split of the mineral rights from your property and sold them to somebody else.
How about if a squirrel makes it home on your land - do you own it? (Nope - your state owns that squirrel)
So you agree that the jury should not have heard the facts?
You agree with the officials reversing their decision?
You agree that rainwater falling on his 170 acre land should not be flowing into his fish ponds? So how much water should someone with 170 acres of land be able to store for his fish ponds?
Strange.
Sigh.
in 2007, Mr. Harrington entered a guilty plea for illegally damming water from the tributaries crossing his property. He received three years probation and was ordered to release the impounded water. This recent lawsuit filed by the State stems from his refusal to meet the conditions of his probation.
So....yeah. not so much Roadking.
The "reversed decision" I take it to mean the permits fiasco? Not as much on that one. The argument is they messed up on issueing the permits, but he agreed to plead guilty under the underlying agreement that the permits would be issued. That to me, im not as OK with.
But heres the reality-courts are not bound by plea agreements in Oregon. The court ruled, he then ignored that, the court called him on it. Theres the distinction of "if you plead guilty theres no underlying promises made to you" which I kinda get, but it results in some...unfairness that I am not fond of.
But here in oregon thats the deal. If you plead guilty (which he did) then you are agreeing that your conduct was illegal.
Simple answer: your state says you don't own the rights to that water. That's what the law is and always has been (especially out West).
So? "The state" says and claims many thing. There's nothing about "the state" that makes what it says or tries to do right or good.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
