Sunday, July 7, 2013

Man sentenced to jail for collecting rainwater in Oregon

An Oregon man is expected to spend a month in jail after being convicted on nine misdemeanor charges related to his illegal use of…water. Gary Harrington was sentenced after being found guilty of illegally collecting water on his own rural property.
Harrington, of Eagle Point, Oregon, has been fighting for his right to do what he wishes with water since 2002. Now more than a decade after he first defended himself over allegations that the man-made ponds on his 170 acres of land violated local law, Harrington has been sentenced to 30 days behind bars and fined over $1,500.

Authorities say that Harrington broke the law by collecting natural rain water and snow runoff that landed on his property. Officials with the Medford Water Commission contested that the water on Harrington’s property, whether or not it came from the sky, was considered a tributary of nearby Crowfoot Creek and thus subject to a 1925 law that gives the MWC full ownership and rights. Therefore prosecutors were able to argue in court — successfully — that three homemade fishing and boating ponds in Harrington’s backyard violated the law.
For filling “three illegal reservoirs” on his property with runoff water, Harrington has been convicted on nine misdemeanor charges in Circuit Court. He says he will attempt to appeal, but as long as the conviction stands to serve 30 days of imprisonment. He has also been sentenced to an additional three years of probation.

"Thirty days in jail for catching rainwater?" Harrington tells the Mail Tribune. "We live in an extreme wildfire area and here the government is going to open the valves and really waste all the water right now, at the start of peak fire season.”
"When it comes to the point where a rural landowner can't catch rainwater that falls on his land to protect his property, it's gone too far," he adds to the Associated Press. "This should serve as a dire warning to all pond owners."
Taking his outrage to CNS News, Harrington says that others should be fearful of how they could come after attack next. In his own case, he was issued permits in 2003 by the state that allowed him to do what he wished with the water on his own property. And although the state Water Resources Department saw no fault at first, they shortly after revoked that license and left Harrington to fight for another nine years.
“The government is bullying. They’ve just gotten to be big bullies and if you just lay over and die and give up, that just makes them bigger bullies. So, we as Americans, we need to stand on our constitutional rights, on our rights as citizens and hang tough,” he tells CNS.
“This is a good country, we’ll prevail,” he insists.
Originally Posted On: http://rt.com/usa/rain-water-harrington-oregon-439/

116 comments:

  1. At least your method of collection allows for evaporation un like closed water towers that take away from the natural water cycle.

    Tragedyfae

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You knwo that this water enters the water cycle again when it is used? So even water in closed towers does not leave the water cycle-

      Delete
  2. What if you had a BEAVER and they damned you, NATURALLY? you may wind up with MORE water then you had before...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think we all need more beaver Mark.

      Delete
  3. Amazing, that the government spends money to do this! Wow....what a waste of taxes. I'm sure that water was a great source for animals as well. Can't they find better things to do? Really?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's sort of happened, and the state sent a letter to the beavers. http://www.snopes.com/humor/letters/dammed.asp

      Delete
    2. This is about the most STUPID THING i HAVE EVER HEARD OF A STATE OR TOWN DOING! They should be ashamed, some one needs to have a reality check! Rain is a gift from God, and is not owned by anyone! STUPID, STUPID LAW, AND WATER DEPARTMENT JUST STUPID!!!!!

      Delete
    3. As stupid as it may sound on the surface, what he is doing is affecting his neighbors and any creatures that rely on water in that stream. There is simply less water in the stream if people collect it and prevent it from entering the stream. I'd want to see a hydrologist's report before passing judgement on his actions. Suffice to say the issue isn't as simple as it may sound.

      Delete
    4. One or two ponds on a person's ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY acres, is not gonna affect his neighbors! I too would like to see the report you ask for... unfortunately it would take a 20year study to prove that his ponds does or does not affect the wildlife for that area... A man should be able to do as he wishes with his land w/o government interferance and this is why I support oganizations that fight for those rights. A pond would have to be like... 70 acres in size for it to keep the water from entering a stream and that is a maybe (once again, where is the statistics)... I doubt that it is anyway. 30 days in jail for this is an ABUSE of government authority and is NOT what I give my local government the authority to be doing.

      Delete
    5. actually once the pond is full the natural water cycle continues. with the exception of evaporation

      Delete
    6. Based On Rand Pauls Book Government Bullies he is lucky the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers haven't locked him away for 20 years. But they might come along later. Their rules are even stupider because he can be prosecuted for the ponds because a Duck might land in his pond, pick up a single toxic molecule and transfer it to a lake 20 miles away.

      Delete
  4. Our water can't be fluoride free that's what the govern think.

    ReplyDelete
  5. All He has to do is add fluoride and it will be legal again

    ReplyDelete
  6. Because fluoride makes people more compliant... something the government relies on...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Flouride does not do that. Quit listening to Alex Jones. He makes crap up and feeds on people's fears.

      However, too much flouride will increase your risk for a heart attack (if you ingest too much before your kidneys can flush it). It can also leech into your bones putting you at risk for various bone and joint issues.


      http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/water-fluoridation-and-cancer-risk

      Delete
    2. There is more than one type of Flouride.

      Delete
    3. Wrong. Harvard did a study that said sodium fluoride ,the kind added to tap water by american governments, is a nerotoxin. It causes decreased IQ and and cancer. Even the American cancer society agrees it is toxic. 97% of the world does not put it in there water, except the Nazi's. Portland,Oregon just banned fluoride use in public water based on scientific research. Wake up, read information from multiple reliable sources and scientist.

      Delete
    4. If you're going to try to convince people of the validity of any study, it'd behoove you to learn to spell "neurotoxin." Just sayin'.

      Delete
    5. Starshadow is an obnoxious ass. Just sayin'.

      Delete
    6. looked like a typo not an error to be pointed out....smh

      Delete
    7. That was a improper use of the term "leech". Leeching is when something is actively drawn out of a source. Bones do not leech fluoride from any other body tissue. Fluoride is evenly distributed throughout the body but tends to bind with the calcium found in the bones to form salts.

      Delete
    8. There are no proper or improper uses of words, nor are there such things as misspellings except in narrow cases like when governed by a specific style, such as the AP Stylebook or AMA citation style. If you think that's what a dictionary is for, you need to go back to school and learn it again because you've got it completely backwards. Prescriptivism vs Descriptivism

      Delete
    9. "star shadow" should stay in the shadows...."AM sayin"...none of that stupid passive-aggressive "just sayin" bullshit...just say the shit and beat it....i agree with you 110 % anonymous

      Delete
    10. Star shadow is either a brainwashed automaton who will parrot anything the talking heads on tv say... or he is a dis-info shill sent here to cause animosity and hijack the topic to turn it around to their favor. There is a plethora of verifiable facts that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that fluoride is toxic. For gods sake... the EPA lists it as toxic waste. It is a by product of the aluminum manufacturing process. The human body cannot metabolize it so it settles in bones and teeth and the brain. When it settles there, it can cause lack of motivation, lethargy, apathy and increased docility.... exactly what is needed by a police nanny state who is attempting to install total tyranny to a once free nation...

      Delete
  7. Perhaps it's the fluoride. Perhaps they are afraid someone will run tests and realize what's really in those chemtrails. Perhaps they just make too much money polluting the water, filtering it, and selling it back to us

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, those are CON-trails, not CHEM-trails. One of the by-products of combustion is water vapor, or condensation. Depending on the altitude, as well as atmospheric conditions, the exhaust from aircraft engines will form a trail of CONdensation, thus the name CONtrail. I am a huge conspiracy freak, but being familiar with the aviation industry, I can assure you, they are nothing more than exhaust, and water. :)

      Delete
    2. Kyle you are correct to a point. Yes, it is condensation from jet aircraft and condensation also evaporates with in 10 minutes or so. But there are Chem-Trails that do not evaporate in the atmosphere for hours and hours. Check out: http://www.naturalnews.com/037451_chemtrails_conspiracy_theory_geoengineering.html
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmhOhuYyy-Y
      From those two sites you can venture on and check out other Chem-Trails & Geoengineering info.

      Delete
    3. You are correct. Also being in the aviation industry I can attest to the fact that Chem-trails are real. Most everything people point out is a con-trail, but chem-trailing is a tried and true practice.

      Delete
    4. Geoengineering by the use of aircraft disbursement has been granted numerous patents to the US government. There are several videos of actual spraying taking place real time. There are whistleblower accounts from people whos job in the military was to retrofit and repair the spraying modifications. And if thats not enough, just look up!. The differences between real contrail and a chem trail are night and day. Only the brainwashed mind slaves continue to hold on to the tired rhetoric that its "just a contrail". Thats a gov psy op phrase used to cover up the project.

      Delete
  8. i'm in oregon. we are NO. ONE in the country for the WORST state in which to retire, one of the main reasons being the CRIME here. and you are harrassing and potentially imprisoning a person for doing something ecologically and environmentally harmless and beneficial????? get OVER yourselves, idiots!!! you make yourselves and this beautiful state a laughingstock and an UNDESIRABLE area to make a life!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. The aim is total government control of all natural resources. No worries, the Real Owner is coming back soon to straighten everything out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Native Americans are coming back to take back their land? As much as I would love this to happen, I highly doubt it will.

      Delete
    2. What I think Daniele meant to say was that various comets sparsed throughout our solar system are going to return to take back all the water left here when they collided with Earth a few billion years ago.

      Delete
    3. I think she meant Jesus Christ.

      Delete
    4. mother nature

      Delete
    5. She is speaking of the second coming of Jesus Christ.

      Delete
    6. I thought he was supposed to be a virgin? How's he gonna have a second coming if he never came the first time?

      Delete
    7. I think He came already. But he looked too middle eastern so they sent him to Guantanimo. Then He kept saying he was Jesus so they evaluated him for being crazy. I can't believe there are people out there who think Jesus had blonde hair and blue eyes. Hahaha. Silly people.

      Delete
  10. yea rain water is for everyone BUT did you not read the part in this article that says "was considered a tributary of nearby Crowfoot Creek and thus subject to a 1925 law that gives the MWC full ownership and rights" sorry but this is not the gov't being a bully its people trying to claim what is for everyone for themselves... hes selfish if you ask me

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah it was "considered" which means some government official made the decision to "consider" it a tributary of nearby Crowfoot Creek. How is this man being selfish when his money bought the property and his hard work, sweat, and tears went into collecting the water? This water is not for everyone. It wouldn't be collected in such large quantities for ppl to use if it weren't for this mans hard work and inginuity. He is taking measures to protect himself and the property he worked hard and saved for to purchase. How is it his resposibility to take care of others when they are to lazy to safeguard themselves? This is clearly the government trying to make a buck on the back of anothers HONEST dollar. Everybody wants something for nothing. Its a crying shame.

      Delete
    2. Just like patent trolling. Wait for others to invent something and then the opportunists/patent trolls (who put no actual work in for their idea) get paid for somebody else's work.

      Delete
    3. There is no way in hell you can call rainwater that is caught prior to touching the earth a tributary of any physical body of water on the earth.

      I have read about this case a few times over the years now, and this gentleman collects RAINWATER BEFORE IT TOUCHES THE EARTH. He is not removing the water from the nearby creek. NOR is he taking water that is owned by ANYONE.

      Delete
    4. So, you can get a permit to do something like erect a building and the government entity that issued the building permit can come back and say you must tear it down. I am sure there is enough run off from his ponds to keep the unfloridated streams active.

      Delete
    5. When an UNJUST law is written, is it not a patriots duty to stand against that law? The law was passed with the sole purpose of giving the state control of the water, it had NOTHING to do with conservation or supply. This is simply an example of a far overreaching government attempting to assert total dominance of the subjugated populace.

      Delete
  11. Well if you've taken your story to CNS News, you must be serious. How the hell is the water "yours" and not others' in the surrounding area? I think I'll trust the government over some selfish individual.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The water that lands on his property is his. The water that falls from the sky is everyone's. He is just smart not selfish.

      Delete
    2. You just made that rule up. That's annoying, stupid, and untrue. That's why he was found guilty.

      Delete
    3. The problem with America today is that too many people blindly trust the government. Always question and stand up for what is right. Questioning makes our country stronger and keeps the officials on their toes. Water that falls on your property should be yours otherwise that tributary should be paying his taxes.

      Delete
    4. so I guess kids who g outside in winter and collect snowflakes on their tongues are guilty of stealing from the area people as well? Better get out the posse and round these little criminals up...

      Delete
    5. Mr anonymous at the top of this page you are a retard!!!

      Delete
    6. So what you are saying is that since it comes from the sky it's everyone's , then any tornado, lightning strike or hurricane is everyone's also, thus liable for any damage they cause!!!! Quit being an idiot tree hugging ass!

      Delete
    7. doesnt anyone notice how these shills keep coming in and inserting conversations that try to make you believe that the gov is correct in this? or that we should all just believe the gov instead of" some selfish individual". Their lame tactics thick out like a sore thumb. SHILLS GO HOME... WE CAN SPOT YOU A MILE AWAY NOW!!!

      Delete
  12. Thank fuck I dont live in the police state that is AMERICA.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Beavers - the answer is natural resource managers come blow up the dams, either kill or relocate the beavers, then cry about the disappearance of wetlands.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The next illogical step will be to prohibit you from using wind turbines because the utility companies own distribution rights to supply power.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or worse, the guy upstream can't simply dam the creek running through his property? Fascism! What's next, I can't just dump my garbage into the watershed?

      Delete
    2. The sad thing is this IS law in many places. Even when you own your own land and produce your own utilities you are legally mandated to hook up to the local power company and pay their monthly delivery charges even if you do not use a single pindrop amount of their energy.

      Delete
    3. hello... its the agenda of the corporate friendly fascist government. force us all to become slaves to their system. Thats why self sustainability and rain water collection are being outlawed. They are even making it illegal to grow your own food in some states.

      Delete
  15. Plain and simple anything within your property lines is your property and even.the air.space for.so many feet above your property is also.yours . There are way to many bullshit laws rules and regulations out there . Next thing will be if you have oil on.your land or gas the government will lay claim.to.that to..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously that's not how civil society or the law works or he wouldn't be in jail.

      Delete
    2. you are attemting some humor I would hope.. If not.. well, you are in trouble too! .. if you believe what you say..

      Delete
    3. The term is eminent domain and it does not apply in this case.

      Delete
  16. And I thought Canadians had stuff to be apologetic for . . . I guess I'm sorry you are being put through this by those bunch of bureaucratic pencil pushers unable to perform basic cranial functions and use logic and common sense.

    Perhaps 'un'common sense in their utopian dictatorship.

    ReplyDelete
  17. So if the county takes claim to the natural waters of the earth, does this mean they take accountability for the damages that the snow and rain cause?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Nothing surprises me anymore with our laws and regs, and most importantly interpretation of laws and regs. Then there is the lack of enforcement of right laws passed. Nope, not surprised at all. Who knows where we are going.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What the hell are you even talking about?

      Delete
  19. Why is everyone a freaking idiot on this site? Why does this one individual get to decide the fate of our water? Yeah, it's a freaking government conspiracy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. how are not an idiot yourself? how is one individual collecting rain water in a pond "deciding the fate of our water"? Not to mention, calling rainwater part of a tributary is a false concept, and an abusive of the laws meant to protect public water ways. If this guy was hoarding water large scale, or pulling from an aquifer, maybe I'd see a point. 170 acres and ponds? That's like going out of your way to punish a guy for not paying income taxes on a quarter he found on the ground.

      Delete
    2. Because it's not his damned water, it's The Commons' water. He was told this and continually defied the law.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, its the selfish libertarian-objectivist philosophy of "As long as I get mine, I do not care about you". The most Un-American and Un-Christian philosophy there is; our founding fathers were egalitarians, as was Jesus.

      Delete
    4. ^ WTF? It's Fu*king rain water...is it only raining on his land? The dude got permits and was approved to do this in 2003; they let the guy spend money on permits and dig the ponds, and then the powers that be changed their mind...after this guy already spent hundreds of dollars on permits, heavy equipmentment and fuel. Did the city offer to reimburse all of his expenses after they revoked the permits they sold him? Otherwise, this guy has every bit of right to be pissed that this is happening to him. He went the legal way and got screwed...if he had just dug the ditches, he'd be happily collecting rainwater in peace right now. You are right in one area though, as a Johnson voting Libertarian, I find the government telling you that you can't collect rain water on 170+ acres of your own land, to be absolutely ridiculous...especially after you've paid to have the right. Do ya'll really think that we can't have people willing to help the needy without Daddy Government telling them to? I'd be willing to help out the homeless, with the extra money I'd save by only paying one flat consumption tax, under a Libertarian candidate...but as it is, my taxes are going to fund the muslim brotherhood in Syria, while the US is going bankrupt...now there's some real Christian American philosophy in practice for ya.

      Delete
    5. Your taxes are not funding the muslim brotherhood in Syria you conspiratorialass. Show me me proof and I'll give you a million bucks. Sounds about as believable as what you just said

      Delete
  20. Just another reason I do t live in a shit hole like Oregon. WTF. I always thought that state was full of nothing but gays and tree huggers. Now I can add to the list, stupid government and crooked judges....... No one owns the fucking water or air from the sky......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, no ONE owns the water. WE own the water. He was told that yet diverted 15 million gallons of water OUR into his little ponds. That's why he's in jail, he doesn't own the fucking water.

      Delete
    2. Another what is your's is mine, and what's mine is mine mentality, eh Anon? As long as you don't pull water from the waterways or remove from the aquifers more than is needed for normal family use, it is, in fact, his to do with as he pleases. If he were to built dew catchers or other survival moisture gathering devices to capture ambient humidity, is he still doing wrong, since this moisture would simply evaporate and be gone? I think not. You don't have shit, pal, and that's glaringly obvious by your attitude. You're just jealous someone thought of it and you didn't!

      Delete
    3. It's called the law. He was found guilty because he broke the law. You might not like the law, but your opinions are wholly irrelevant here because he, in fact, broke the law repeatedly for years. And 15 million gallons is a tad bit more than any family will ever need. Stop flying off the handle everytime you read some lazy conspiratorial nonsense on the Internet.

      Delete
    4. Moron... dont you see this is the model they will try to install in ALL of the states???? Most of them already have the laws in place and these early cases are trial runs to work out all the legalities. Rest assured... its coming to town near you....

      Delete
    5. WTF do you know about this part of Oregon. NOTHING. This is RED STATE CENTRAL in Southern Oregon. It has nothing to do with tree hugging bs you spouted. Go away with your made up facts

      Delete
  21. by the time the goverment gets done with us we will be in jail for farting and putting gases into the ozone....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope you will be jailed for "Thinking about farting"

      Delete
  22. I wish conservatives had to be held to their own stupid arguments. If their neighbor was doing this, they'd be the first to cry about it. That is always the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We will never come to a constructive dialog in this country until these sorts of comments stop.

      Delete
  23. By catching the water in his man-made ponds, he is preventing the water from cycling back into the natural waterways in the area... the same waterways that provide habitat and drinking water for the surrounding wildlife, and probably provides drinking water for any surrounding towns. If he is gathering enough of it for boating and fishing, I doubt it's a small amount. Personally, I think 30 days is a slap on the wrist for such what he's doing to the local environment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The water is in open ponds on the property- it evaporates and goes back into the environment in a continuous cycle, just like anywhere else. This is rediculous, as there are actual criminals out there that need to be brought to justice, not someone who collects rainwater. Next thing they'll argue is that you can't have rain falling on your garden, because it's robbing the creek that they "own" the rights to.

      Delete
  24. Gosh, in Texas they're called stock ponds and anyone can have one.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I find this amazing, On one side of the country you can go to jail for collecting water runoff and on the other side of the country you can be taxed for allowing runoff

    ReplyDelete
  26. Obviously this guy was protecting his own property and found a way to do so. Rain water is not the property of the government and any politician who writes a law that states a man can't catch rain water run off on his own property should be voted out of office. What a joke our country is turning in to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean "what a joke our country IS." It's already been going downhill for years now, and there's still no end in sight.

      Delete
  27. They tried to do that to people up here, they said anything that falls from the sky within the boarders of Washington, belongs to the State of Washington, or is respective municipality. So, when they rains flooded houses in our neighborhood, 2 of the homeowners sued the state for damages, since they did not control their property. HA HA HA laughed my ass off, now they deny owning the rain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Awesome. Washington's official's ideas are off a bit.

      Delete
  28. well the rainwather came from Sweden so we want be payd for it

    ReplyDelete
  29. This is ridiculous.Make a joke of it if you want. But the government is taking all of our rights.It's gotten way too big.If they can do this & you laugh about it,don't yell when they nail you for doing something with your own property because they will.Soon we will have no rights left at all. I love my country,I however am ashamed of the government.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This is lame. I learned in 2nd grade how evaporation works. Apparently the court officials need to go back to Elementary school. If water that was evaporated, rained back down in the same spot, there would never be rain in the desert and places that have a lot of water would be flooded consistantly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Weird that none of his neighbors or others who need access to this water are crying about the government taking his rights away.

      Delete
    2. do you know his neighbors? Do they need water desperately? Do you know for sure they dont have their own ponds? are you certain he is taking away from someone?.... Maybe... just maybe... the pacific NW gets alot of rain and they simply need a place for it all to run into so as to not flood places they dont want water to go. and maybe the state is just exercising their power for the purpose of a larger agenda....

      Delete
  31. Their argument was the water that fell from the sky was considered a tributary of a nearby creek. So, there are boundaries in the sky that begin and end in Oregon? Because water falls from the sky here in Nebraska too but I am no where near Oregon.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Gotta to remember that this was a law put in affect in 1925. There may have been a water shortage that year or something. There is no possible way he could collect all the rain water and run off on 170 acres of land. I'm not supporting the government or anything. They do a lot of stupid things and there are a lot of stupid laws that aren't enforced until someone complains especially if he had gone through the government channels and gotten his permits.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Holy #@$@&*!!! You tree and bunny huggin' West Coaster's are the MOST compliant bunch of "sheeple" I've EVER had the displeasure of reading the opinions of.

    Why don't you just admit what your postings reveal, and that is that you're ALL communists who hold NO respect for personal property rights!

    And if you're going to bend some old 1925 law to defend the government's actions, then it's beyond obvious that THAT law needs to be clarified and changed!

    Wake UP and realize just HOW much control of your lives you are WILLINGLY and IGNORANTLY ceding to the bureaucrats!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  34. So...he dug some big holes...which water fell into from the sky...and now he's going to jail because his big holes caught water...from the sky? I'm having trouble understanding this. In the city of Memphis, Tn there is a noise ordinance that prohibits frogs from croaking after midnight. No joke. I think this is a case of a similar law actually being enforced because the people in the area failed to take notice and take appropriate action to have such a law removed or amended. Also, I'm wondering how long it will be now until Memphis police start arresting frogs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Send your story idea to Cameron Harper. He might just investigate it.

      Delete
  35. I wonder how many people will sue the city and state for water damage caused by rainwater since it is an act of the government belongings that did the damage.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "The water that fell from the sky"... If I yawn while looking up when it's raining will I be put in jail? This is a joke, right? Some sort of hoax? People aren't really that stupid, are they?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Are you kidding me you will put someone in jail over rain water but let my boyfriends ex walk the streets with 26 counts of identity theft 4 charges of meth a theft 1 and theft 2.. But putting someone in jail is more of a priority to you wow now I know just who messed up this good for nothing state really is....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I ment puting someone in jail over water from the sky is more of a priority to you

      Delete
  38. What pple need to start realizing is, that the government works for you. not the other way around .And if it wasn't for the people,it would just be a bunch of rich think they no whats good for everyone but themselves pricks controlling each other... what pple need to do is all get together and fight back at the same time. no matter how big a country's military and government is, it will never be bigger then its citizens that are ready to fight for there rights.

    ReplyDelete
  39. All I can say is this ruling sets a president. Should your roof leak during a rain storm or your house flood, or your car etc. I would think about seriously suing Medford Water Commission for damages. They own the water that just damaged your house/car/roof etc. Hope someone is smart enough to argue that one.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Next we won't be able to use wind turbines because they block the wind from entering the next property over. That's everybody's wind, guys! Who are you to selfishly block the use of wind with your turbine?
    In fact, I'm going to need you to tear down that barn in your back yard. It's blocking the sun and casting a shadow onto my property...how will I ever grow any plants while you selfishly use the sun that was "invented" for everybody. You guys are a bunch of selfish jerks. Thanks...but I'm gonna go ahead and trust the government on this one. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  41. I've heard of people being penalized for damming up rain water when the culprit was beavers... Look, if the government (we the people?) write laws to restrict the use of public (?) resources, this is what we get.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The MWC should hope this mans home never floods. In essence they are taking responsibility for any damages incurred due to their acknowledgment that any water that falls from the sky or as another natural source they retain full ownership of said waters, therefore legally they should be sued for water damages due to their negligence to improper water management.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Wouldn't his effect on the water supply be more or less a one time thing? As in, once the ponds were full, the same amount of water would pass through to the next zone, as before?

    A small amount would get lost to evaporation or ground seepage possibly, but I would guess that to me a small amount.

    ReplyDelete

Sharing Is Caring