|
| Author |
Message |
Bzzzzzt
Member
|
# Posted: 13 Apr 2015 18:14 - Edited by: Bzzzzzt
Reply
You may be committing a criminal offense!
http://yournewswire.com/man-gets-prison-sentence-for-collecting-rainwater-on-his-own- property/
Stealing rainwater that falls on your property from the state is a serious offense and you are clearly a menace to society and should be locked up!
Here is a 2 year old story about states that have rainwater collection laws: http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/rainwater-harvesting.a spx
|
|
pizzadude
Member
|
# Posted: 13 Apr 2015 19:24
Reply
My oh my,, sticks in my craw
It's getting out of hand. The criminals we pay....
|
|
turkeyhunter
Member
|
# Posted: 13 Apr 2015 21:15
Reply
unreal
|
|
Don_P
Member
|
# Posted: 13 Apr 2015 22:24 - Edited by: Don_P
Reply
My understanding of the basis of the argument, which is very limited, is that the east uses the old English riparian rights laws, if water flows on your land you have right to use it, and the west works by prior appropriation, those who used, or appropriated, it first have dibs. However, the EPA has recently tried to lay claim to every mud puddle in the land.
|
|
cabingal3
Member
|
# Posted: 13 Apr 2015 22:27
Reply
thats not stopping me.i am not gonna collect big barrels but i sure will have a barrel by my kitchen door to collect.
some laws make no common sense.
|
|
MtnDon
Member
|
# Posted: 13 Apr 2015 22:48 - Edited by: MtnDon
Reply
Quoting: Don_P west works by prior appropriation
Lots of water use laws in the west. For example the Rio Grande passes north to south through NM. By treaty there is a required amount of water that must pass through to TX. That can be difficult in recent years with the drought.
Back in the 60's the city of Albuquerque (on the Rio Grande) purchased water rights in southern CO (San Juan-Chama river basin). This water naturally flowed into the Colorado River basin. A pipeline was built to carry water under a mountain range and via the Rio Chama into the Rio Grande further downstream. Then at ABQ water is removed from the river in a volume equal to that that was placed into the Rio Grande further north. The city of ABQ had no right to the river water as when the city was founded and grew they used rights to the ground water in the underground aquifer. The aquifer proved to be smaller than thought and was being pumped lower and lower as the city grew. Now most of the city water comes from CO, indirectly.
So it is more complicated than one might think. If the west had more water or fewer people and less agriculture or industry there would be fewer issues.
Editorial comment.... like it makes a whole lot of sense to place an intensive water use like semi conductor manufacturing in the dessert.
|
|
MtnDon
Member
|
# Posted: 13 Apr 2015 22:55 - Edited by: MtnDon
Reply
a map
|
|
Jim in NB
Member
|
# Posted: 14 Apr 2015 06:04
Reply
Only in the land of the free eh? LOL!!
|
|
|
Littlecooner
Member
|
# Posted: 14 Apr 2015 07:26 - Edited by: Littlecooner
Reply
No Jim in NB, only on the "Left Coast". Land of the living idiots and their freedom sucking laws. Do you not understand that only the government can protect you from yourself? That guy could have actually drank some of that water falling on his roof, or used it to wash a dirty dish. O, the horror, such a bad, bad person. Could be he will understand after his 30 days in the local jail. They will probably give him water taken from a polluted river that is laced with chemical to remove most of the bad stuff so he can see the error of his ways.
|
|
turkeyhunter
Member
|
# Posted: 14 Apr 2015 08:00 - Edited by: turkeyhunter
Reply
Quoting: Littlecooner only on the "Left Coast". Land of the living idiots and their freedom sucking laws
good one... like it..lol
I just got back from New Mexico and Texas ( been on a 10 day road trip) was going to stay 2 or 3 weeks....I had enough and was missing my trees....LOL....
but I was amazed at the lack of water...NONE
dry river and creeks...WATER its definitely a high commodity out there for sure. I saw a holding tank/pond like structure in a settlement in New Mexico with a high fence and several spigots and buckets for water...don't know if it was rain water collected or what...signed as "Public water" wondered what it was about.
I believe if the rain water is on your property you have the right to use it or not. For drinking or a pond etc. .....
|
|
cabingal3
Member
|
# Posted: 15 Apr 2015 12:24
Reply
once i was visiting my sister in texas.her hubby asked me to help him water the garden.i was watering away...
he asked me if they have alot of water in Oregon.i was puzzled and said yes...why?
i guess i had used the water too much.so he was letting me know .then when it came time to do laundry.my sister would gather mine up so i could not do my own laundry.it was the lack of water where she lived.
we have so much water here.
hauling water is hard work.if i could just have a container to catch some by my kitchen door and save me back breaking work.i will surely do it.
i believe its not anyones business but mine.
doesnt hurt anyone anywhere.
|
|
jrbarnard
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Apr 2015 11:26
Reply
I guarantee... no-one is going to tell me I cannot collect rainwater.. period.
I am like him, I do not give a crap if I go to prison for collecting rainwater. I'll fight it.
R
|
|
RiverCabin
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Apr 2015 13:22
Reply
Let me be the voice of disagreement in this discussion and reap all the benefits of hateful messages.
This supposed "victim" of the state is a jerk and an idiot.
Despite what the article title says, he wasn't collecting "rainwater" as the article says, read on a little further and you will see that he was damming and diverting existing natural waterways for his sole use. Using his argument that all water is "rainwater" and "snowmelt", a landowner could theoretically block any river, stream, or creek as long as they owned both banks. Wouldn't that be wonderful if you went to your camp to discover that your babbling brook had dried up because the a**hole upstream decided he needed a personal bass pond.
Everyone has rights guaranteed under the constitution but your rights don't extend to the point where you are depriving others of their same rights. Mr Harrington had his due process and enjoyed his right to a trial and an appeal but he lost. Now he has lost a second time. No one would have said a word if this guy had a hundred barrels under a hundred downspouts. It was when he decided to divert natural waterways that he ran afoul of the law.
I ran into this same problem with my place. I didn't have to do anything but the DNR came down on an upstream neighbor. It seems a cattle farmer upstream decided that since he owned both banks of the river that he could run fences across the river and then allow his cattle to wallow in the river. It never happened as the DNR heard and came down on him but it would have ruined the river for all my neighbors and myself. Would you want to to let your kids swim and fish in a river full of nitrates and other junk from cow poop?
As a final note, I'm a bit dubious of his article. I tend to doubt the veracity of a news site that has articles like "Russian Lamb Born With A Human Face" and "Humanoid Mushrooms Discovered in the UK" on their front page.
|
|
jrbarnard
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Apr 2015 13:30
Reply
River - I read the same thing into it and I think there is more to it than he is letting on. If the sole supply of the water was rainwater and snow melt from HIM land, then I would say he has a case, but if the snow melt was from other areas.. i.e. a small creek or river than ran through his property, then damming it up would be rude.
Now, if it was blocked for a while (37 years as he stated) and it overflowed.. i.e. it filled up and then continued to run off to the people downstream, then.. no huge deal as it only would hold so much and then others could get back to business, but he would have needed to ask them if it was okay if he blocked it up for a while to catch a little extra etc.
Again, in MY situation.. the only water I ever see it rainwater at my ranch and, that belongs to no-one imo.
Russ
|
|
Bzzzzzt
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Apr 2015 14:31 - Edited by: Bzzzzzt
Reply
If you read the source quoted ( http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oregon-man-sentenced-30-days-jail-collecting-rainwate r-his-property ) You will see that what he is "damming up" is runoff ditches, not creeks and streams. I have such a ditch running through my property. It only gives rainwater a path to get to the river when it rains. NO ONE depends on that as a source of water and I expect if I dammed it up in order to make myself a reservoir to hold some of that runoff for my own use no one would even take particular notice. I have read other stories from Colorado where people collecting rainwater into cisterns were being punished under the same kind of law. What falls on your property should be yours to use as you please.
|
|
jrbarnard
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Apr 2015 14:37
Reply
Again, I agree if it is on MY land.. it is mine.. I just do not know the particulars... but.. I applaud him for fighting for his rights.
Russ
|
|
bldginsp
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Apr 2015 15:15
Reply
I recently drilled a well on my Calif. property and for now all is fine. There is a piece of legislation being tossed about that would, if passed, require well owners to pay a tax on their well. Sounds bad- who are they to tax my water from my land.
But, it's a little different when you look at the larger story. We have a four year drought here and so farmers are drilling lots of new wells. So much so that they are dropping the water table seriously and perhaps irreparably. So, the wells of local residences are going dry sometimes because of this. Should those residents have to pay for a new well because of the farmers? Does taxing all wells help solve the problem?
Then you look at my situation, I have a well in a remote area on a mountain side far from any agriculture and with only 3 other wells within a half mile radius. Am I impacting an aquifer? Why should I pay that tax when it will never cover services to the aquifer I am on?
Chapter 823 of California water wars.
|
|
creeky
Member
|
# Posted: 17 Apr 2015 16:18
Reply
I'm with RiverCabin.
Aquifers are fed by rainwater. People don't think about it. Realize that in most areas you will have millions of homes all taking some hundreds of gallons out of the aquifer. And for what? For green lawns fed with shipped in chemicals. To watch with pride as their children scamper about on poisoned foliage.
That's one of the good things about taxes. We pay for protective services like the DNR and our local Parks Canada. In my area Parks controls the Rideau Canal. A world heritage site and better. A place for millions of people, birds, fish, bugs (getting into the billions and trillions now), plants all to frolic in the clear unpolluted Majesty of this river, this land.
Isn't that what it's all about? The pursuit of happiness?
Now I'm not pro taxation. But when it comes to something that isn't "your land." Rather a temporary benediction that falls from a global eco sphere (ie. the sky) and then moves through the earth offering sustenance to all lifeforms on earth. The vast majority of which assist your ability to eat and breathe.
To say it's yours as it passes through. Man you might want to think on that some.
|
|
|
