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.
That make the news by any chance? Cause thats kinda awesome.
The law is the law-if the court finds for you. Obviously in your case they did.
It might be on my lawyers website, since it set precedent against the Chagrin River Watershed rules which were being pushed all across the state, until prosecutors started telling law enforcement officials that they couldnt proceed with enforcing an unconstitutional law. McNamara V City of Rittman says landowners have a property right to the reasonable use of groundwater.
In Ohio, property rights are right in our constitution, and no law can diminish them. Section 504.21 of our Ohio State code gives townships the right to regulate water degradation and grading but they cant be more stringent than rules established by the EPA. The EPA has backpeddled on regulations they had.
In fact under the States drainage laws, the following are permissable
"deepending, widening, straightening, or any change in the course location, or terminus of a river, creek, or run. A levee, or any wall, embankment, jetty, ****, dam, sluice, revetment, reservoir, holding basin, control gate, breakwater, or any other structure for the protection of lands from any stream, lake or pond, or for the protection of any outlet for the storage or control of water".
As Justice Terrence Odonnell asks in a Supreme Court case over property rights on Lake Erie, "If a deed says you own it, and you pay taxes on that, and the state says we're going to assert rights on that, how is that not a taking"?
The fact is, government regulations over private property is taking of property through adverse possesion, and the courts have ruled that a property owner is entitled to compensation, even if they dont take the property through eminant domain. limiting use of water which rolls through ones land, is taking and controlling it.
Yep. State isn't selling water at monopoly prices to me, is it?
Except that the state isn't selling water to me at gouging prices, so your point is moot
Yes, I do think so. Feel free to move to Somalia if you want minimalist government.
Um, the state, i.e. government, usually owns the water companies and actually does sell water to you at monopoly prices. Who owns the water company which delivers water through the pipes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed
My water is free grew up on well water, now my apartment rent pays for my water. Flat rate.
So if you are paying a flat rate, (which is actually probably illegal, but thats another topic), its not really free is it?
And if the state decides that the rain water shouldnt flow into that well, what exactly would you have used?
Tell me, why is it better that the state hoard all the water, than the landowners own the water that falls on their land?
Hoard? I don't know about Oregon, but this is what the Colorado constitution says about water:
"The water of every natural stream within the state of Colorado is hereby declared to be the property of the public, and the same is dedicated to the use of the people of the state, subject to appropriation as hereinafter provided
...
"The right to divert the unappropriated waters of any natural stream to beneficial uses shall never be denied. Priority of appropriation shall give the better right as between those using the water for the same purpose; but when the waters of any natural stream are not sufficient for the service of all those desiring to use of the same, those using the water for domestic purposes shall have preference over those claiming for any other purpose, and those using the water for agricultural purposes shall have preference over those using the same for manufacturing purposes.
Hoard? I don't know about Oregon, but this is what the Colorado constitution says about water:
"The water of every natural stream within the state of Colorado is hereby declared to be the property of the public, and the same is dedicated to the use of the people of the state, subject to appropriation as hereinafter provided
...
"The right to divert the unappropriated waters of any natural stream to beneficial uses shall never be denied. Priority of appropriation shall give the better right as between those using the water for the same purpose; but when the waters of any natural stream are not sufficient for the service of all those desiring to use of the same, those using the water for domestic purposes shall have preference over those claiming for any other purpose, and those using the water for agricultural purposes shall have preference over those using the same for manufacturing purposes.
I love how it contradicts itself.
The right to use unappropriated waters... shall never be denied.
The right to use unappropriated waters... shall never be denied.
And yet, it then goes on to detail the denials...
Huh? How is that a contradiction?
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.
grew up on well water, now my apartment rent pays for my water. Flat rate. 