
Man sentenced to jail for collecting rainwater in Oregon - zoowar
https://rt.com/usa/news/rain-water-harrington-oregon-439/
======
alanhenry
After my initial outrage at the title, I found this comment to the actual
article perhaps more telling than the article itself:

"Geographically, this is southern Oregon, near Medford; not the North
Cascades. That part of the state simply dosen't recieve the amount of rain
annually that Oregon is "known for". Eight acre feet of snow melt and rain
waterannualy to fill those ponds, that's impossable. He's not filling from his
well or tapping localized springs on his property, this guy divertied water
flowing thought his property which feeds a tributary creek that supplies the
city of Medford with it's potable water. Geeze can the truth be told once and
a while? He admidted to doing just that some years ago. He's free to "store"
all the rain water he pleases; which will likely evoporate by mid June."

Aside from the defensive tone, it looks like it's not that he's just
innocently collecting water falling from the sky here, he's actually diverted
natural resources that happen to flow through his property to suit his own
needs because he wants ponds. That's a _really_ important point that was left
out of the article (glossed over, at best.)

------
jack-r-abbit
Here is the CNS News story that this one references.
[http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oregon-man-
sentenced-30-days...](http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oregon-man-
sentenced-30-days-jail-collecting-rainwater-his-property)

It has more info... including the guy admitting that he has dams for
collecting the water. He even was previously given 3 years probation and
ordered to open the water gates. He did... and then shortly after his
probation ended, he closed them again. I think there is a lot more to this
story than this one sensational head line.

I suspect if he had just found a spot on his land away from rivers, creeks,
streams, etc and just dug a big pit for rain to collect in he would have been
fine. It seems this is _not_ what he did.

------
hudibras
Water rights issues can seem outrageous at first blush, but there are good,
logical reasons for them. For example, suppose this guy filled up his ponds
with a garden hose from the farm's plumbing. He wouldn't expect to get that
water for free, even though the equivalent amount of rainwater fell on his
property.

But more importantly, the fact that he doesn't have water rights to his
property is factored into the price he paid when he bought the property and is
also factored into his taxes every year. His property is worth less because it
doesn't come with water rights and he knew that when he bought it for that
reduced price. For him to now try to keep the water that he didn't pay for is
a laughable claim.

------
ChuckMcM
Bogus headline. For those of you who haven't lived on the West Coast or read
up on issues with water ("Cadillac Desert" is a very accessible) Consequently
there are always 'water rights' associated with parcels. Either you have them
or you don't when you buy the land. This guy doesn't have rights to the water
going through his property, but he is diverting the water for his own use
anyway.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Cadillac-Desert-American-
Disappearing-...](http://www.amazon.com/Cadillac-Desert-American-Disappearing-
Revised/dp/0140178244)

------
bunderbunder
According to another source
([http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201208...](http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120801/OPINION/208010314/-1/NEWSMAP)),
he's created three water reservoirs by constructing two 10-foot dams and one
20-foot dam.

Calling it "collecting rainwater" implies that he's just filling up a plastic
barrel from a downspout. A more accurate phrase might be "disrupting the
watershed."

------
MattSayar
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted."

~~~
hudibras
A $1500 fine and a month in jail is hardly cruel or unusual.

~~~
MattSayar
I feel it's excessive for collecting what is essentially free.

~~~
dalke
Then you don't have an inkling on the history of water rights laws in the US.
Start with <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_right> . It sounds like you
want to structure this purely monetarily, so think of it this way. The water
already had downstream uses, and diverting the water to fill ponds affects
those users, and likely negatively. Using a first-come, first-serve accounting
method leads to increased risk. Suppose Las Vegas decided to let Lake Mead
fill up, which ensures more water and power available for Vegas. Then there's
less water available for Southern California, and a farming disaster.

The south-western states settled this specific problem via the Colorado River
Compact (though there are problems as well with the compact). However, do you
really expect everyone upstream and everyone downstream to work out an
agreement on how the water will be used? That's extremely expensive.

Instead, there's (in this case, long-settled) law on what people can do with
the water. As hudibras pointed out, this law has been around long enough that
its effect has already been factored into the cost of the land, taxes, etc.

What legal principle do you want in place instead of what's currently there?

------
kenthorvath
Anyone else getting an invalid certificate from Moscow on this site?

------
wkdown
Why is this on Hacker News?

