By The Right Scoop


This is ridiculous. The short of it is that an Oregon man has ponds that collect rain water that runs down into his ponds from his land. He’s had them for 37 years and their primary function is to extinguish forest fires and they’ve been used for that purpose by local agencies. But now Oregon wants to fine the man and put him behind bars citing a law that says water from tributaries can’t be collected. But the owner says this is rain water and the law doesn’t apply to him.

Watch below:

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/RYQGFT3TATTTVUI6MRT7PVTGWA kyle m.

    You can’t make this stuff up!!! #ObamaNation #LiberalIdiocy

    • leehester

      The law was passed in 1925. Obama wasn’t even born yet. Of course, facts mean absolutely nothing to Republicans. They know that Obama committed the holocaust (at least those Republicans that admit it happened), Obama is the source of halitosis and singlehandedly causes all those damn weeds to sprout in perfectly good lawns. Just keep nodding dittoheads and Faux news believers. If we elect Romney and the country sinks further into hell, you’ll be to blame… But of course you’ll just say it is Obama’s fault.

  • Sandra123456

    There has to be more to this story.

    • NYGino

      There is more to the story but you have to go all the way back to Karl Marx to get it all.

    • sDee

      I suspect there may be more to it, depending on the water laws in Oregon. It is not something most of us think about but without some body of law to manage this, one landowner up the mountain could pretty much control everyone down the mountain.

      Lots of “politics” involved (ie corruption).

      Remember Chinatown?
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071315/

    • Ross Bagley

      There is. He’s not allowed to interfere with the movement of surface water on his property (even if it did originate with rainfall on his property) without water rights to that water. Downstream users with existing water rights can request that the State of Oregon enforce their rights, and then a legal action like this is exactly what happens.

      Water rights law is old, predating the formation of the USA, and is part of the system of titles to private property that all of us use to build a building or plant a farm or dig a mine, or cut down timber, or…

      Looks like this guy didn’t think to ask about the legal implications of messing around with water on his property. Now he’s paying for it. People who have simplistic understandings about what they “own” when they “own” property are all over.

      • SineWaveII

        None of that applies to rain water. Now we know why it’s getting harder to fight the forest fires. This government is completely out of control.

        • rossbagley

          As soon as that rainwater hits the ground and isn’t taken up by a plant or evaporates, water rights law immediately applies.

          Collecting rainwater from your roof into a bucket is prohibited across most of the country unless you buy the water rights to that water. Water rights do not normally come with the access and development rights on your typical property deed.

          • http://twitter.com/singingpatient Carla Ulbrich

            why then is it OK for a company to collect it from a spring put it in plastic bottles and sell it?

            • rossbagley

              Groundwater (wells and springs captured before the water reaches the surface) is treated oddly by water rights law. In Texas there was a recent lawsuit which established (just in Texas) that spring water captured before it reaches the surface can be taken by the access/development rights owner without limit, even if their capture system does infringe on downstream water rights. In most other states, capturing water from a spring before it reaches the surface does potentially infringe on downstream rights, so “other than Texas”, the company would need to buy those rights or find themselves in court.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YHTYSU5APHYEL7F4HWX56VKUY4 Jane Dough

      There is. It’s called AGENDA 21. Do you research. It’s being implemented mostly from the bottom up.. People are being driven off their property. The gov is stealing water supply. Etc, etc..

  • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

    I have a cousin who lives in Washington state, and he told me last year that people could get in trouble for having rain barrels to collect rain water. I couldn’t believe it. How in the world have we gotten to a point where you get arrested if it rains on your property. God help us.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OKIV6ZYHR72VR534MQPGOB2LD4 MS

      A coworker of mine from CO told me the same thing. Even a rain barrel that was holding water that landed on your roof and came down via rain gutters, as he put it, state property.

      • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

        Its completely insane! The founders are rolling a jig in their graves daily from the nonsense from our tyrant wanna be’s, and because of the people who keep electing these morons.

      • sDee

        I do not know about Oregon but we have land in Colorado. The water laws out were a foreign concept to me. They are based on a concept of water making its way downhill, where it falls and who has water rights to it as it is used, released, absorbed, evaporated and re-pumped.

        It is all old and complex law – they even have special water courts.

        Indeed it was against the law in CO to collect rain water because the concept is that you are intercepting the water that, had you let run into the ground instead ,it would have found its way someone who purchased the rights to it downhill.

        Colorado his since made an exception for homeowners collecting water form their roof, but only because liberals like rain barrels.

    • Ross Bagley

      Actually, that’s how it’s been from the founding of America. Water rights laws are OLD laws. As people in parched parts of the country decide they want rain barrels and the legal ability to collect rainwater, they’re getting the law changed (this just recently happened in Colorado).

      But for all that Obama is a maroon, you can’t blame multi-hundred-year-old laws on him, and we shouldn’t be upset that Oregon is enforcing an action requested by a water rights holder somewhere downstream from this guy. Probably a rancher or a farmer with his own water issues, but who actually took the time and money to secure title to the water rights.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1245945847 Deborah Browning

        The guy down the hill should dig his own pond! Some water will still go down the hill! This is insane. I could see if the guy blocked a tributary from flowing that would be wrong. Why can’t we fix stupid laws. Sometimes I feel the governing factors are reprobates.

  • badbadlibs

    Exactly why the EPA should be abolished, those who work for it, support it, or don’t try to take the time to understand what big government is doing should be arrested on the grounds of stupidity.
    If Oregon thinks it owns the rain, then just wait until they start sending water bills to homeowners for services rendered to keeping their grass green. And if Oregon gets away with it, I guarantee the idiot liberals in Washington St. are drooling over the prosects…1925 law or no 1925 law.

    • Sandra123456

      What if we tell the Gov’t that we don’t want their damn rain. Tell them to stop making it rain on our property.

      If the Govermnet can’t control it, they don’t own it.

      • http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu Whitewolf2009

        Excellent point! Love it!

        • Sandra123456

          Thank you all.

      • RighteousCrow_JustCaws

        Yeah, so when it snows why doesn’t the government shovel our driveways?

        By the way, that water – if not collected – runs into a creek and ends up in the Pacific ocean within 2 weeks.

        • Nukeman60

          Ahhh, now we will get into the UN’s realm of tyranny. I’ll bet the oceans belong to them. Tax time.

      • badbadlibs

        Great point. However, the gov’t will just roll their eyes and yell at you for calling them out on their hypocrisy, just like the so called millionaires who want to be taxed more, yet just can’t bring themselves to write the check.

      • mike morrison

        Brilliant, Sandra…just brilliant. I’m actually kind of turned on that’s so good.

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      I was thinking they’ll make this guy drain his ponds under the penalty of prison time, then the EPA will go after him for draining a natural wetland.

      • badbadlibs

        Say hi to your suffering cousin, he could be my neighbor! I had no idea Wa. St. didn’t allow rain barrels, well guess I need to go rain barrel shopping. ;)
        On a side note, this state for years has been raising water bill prices for….get this…”lack of rain”. And there are people who live here, have mildewed and grown mold on their backsides and still believe what the state says.

    • Ross Bagley

      Has nothing to do with environmentalists or liberals. This is based on water rights law, which is very old and convoluted law. If you suggest upending water rights laws, just wait and see how many farmers, ranchers, and other red-voting ag entrepreneurs you find at your doorstep with torches and pitchforks.

      If you think about it for a moment, the dilemmas on how to apportion water rights makes for one of the biggest arguments against absolute land “ownership” and for property taxes against the value of land titles. A sovereign creates a stable rule of law with stable titles to land. Those titles track certain rights (development, mining, access, water, etc.) and in order to mediate between who can take how much water from a particular waterway (and to make sure that water continues to flow to everyone who might need it from the stream), you’re going to need a legislature, courts, etc.

  • Botzilla

    Just imagine what a progressive utopia would look like, this is a snapshot.

    • p m

      Not to mention Doomberg’s edict against bottle-feeding your baby.
      A fore-taste of 0zerocare. These dem voters truly are mentally ill to keep voting their oppressors into power.

  • Landscaper59

    I saw this on the news and it blew my mind. It’s HIS land with ponds! Here in the Southeast NO ONE would dare pull this stunt from a Gov agency. Oregon officials, this is FUBAR.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1245945847 Deborah Browning

      I, too, live in SE, and if you don’t have a retention pond (must have fish to offset mosquito control..lol),….your land gets flooded. This is really stupid mentality. Blocking a stream is another issue, but this IS HIS POND!!!!! STOP THE INSANITY!!!!

  • Nukeman60

    Go to jail for collecting rainwater? What’s next, being taxed for using solar panels to collect sunshine? Or maybe shot dead for breathing the air around you? How about fined heavily for cutting down your own trees for firewood? Where does it end?

    When I was battling the census bureau over the American Community Survey, one poster said that the census worker walked right past his no-trespassing signs using the excuse that the man didn’t own the air. Now I know where that was coming from.

    Who would have thought?

    • http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu Whitewolf2009

      Ok. I might look like an idiot, might be a “brain fart”, but I’ve got to ask “American Community Survey”?

      • Nukeman60

        No, don’t feel like an idiot. The government tries to keep this under the radar as much as possible. The ACS is a 72 question, long form census that asks some extremely personal and revealing questions about your personal life, financial situation and every aspect of your being (questions like ‘what time do you leave for work’ and ‘how long does it take to get there’).

        The survey is a 5 year program, supposedly random, that reaches 3 million people each year, so most people don’t know about it. They claim it is ‘mandatory’ to take this and threaten you with a fine if you don’t respond. I did not respond. Once you refuse, they go through a three month process where they try to intimidate you to fill out the form (first month uses mail after mail, second month phone call after phone call, and the third month, they arrive at your door time after time).

        There is a House resolution in progress (HR 931) that is trying to make this survey voluntary, and in fact, they will never fine you because once they do, you can then take them to court claiming the unconstitutional nature of the survey (I virtually begged them to fine me, but alas, they would not).

        Everyone should be aware of this (you can google it and find out a world of info) but more importantly, everyone should know that no matter how much they intimidate, they cannot force anybody to fill it out.

        Sorry about the length, but there is no short answer, lol.

        • NYGino

          Being the skeptic that I am, or maybe just knowing our current regime, the thought occurred that the people of ACORN, or whatever name they are currently hiding behind, would love to know when you would not be home.

          The jail time for a B&E is usually less than that for a home invasion.

          • Nukeman60

            The survey goes way beyond that, even though that is one of the possibilities. They claim this survey is more accurate than the 10 year census, even though if it’s true that they use the 5-year, 3-million household approach, it would take 39 years to complete (if it wasn’t random). What their goal is intended is to eventually get this survey out there every year, to be able to control every aspect of our lives. It’s the main reason the census was moved over to the White House’s control back when Obama gained power.

            • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

              I was watching for it the last census go around…. specifically so I could tell them to go fly a kite.

              • sDee

                For some reason my scenario always ends up something like this:

                ME: return census with the minimum information required by law.

                a few months later ……….

                THEM: knock, knock.
                ME : hello
                THEM: hello I am here on behalf of the US census – we did not receive a valid census form from your household and would like to ask you a few questions
                ME: well i did fill in and return my census
                THEM: i am sorry but you need fill out another
                ME: wouldn’t it be illegal if I submitted two census forms? Maybe you better verify that you do not have it before I submit another.
                THEM: thank you. have a nice day.

                • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

                  lol- thank you and have a nice day. We’re from the government and we’re here to help. Good grief.

              • Nukeman60

                Actually, my three month experience was enlightening. I found that, if you’re informed they flounder, and they don’t know what to do when you’re not intimidated.

                Maybe it’s bad of me, but I especially enjoyed the last visit. The census worker had to step around my no-trespassing sign (which I had posted just for the occasion). After grilling her on the census in the Constitution and HR 931 (neither of which she knew anything about), I grabbed my camera phone, stepped out in my yard and took a picture of her standing next to the sign.

                I took her phone number, address and informed her she was breaking the law and I’d have to call the police. She asked me why I was persecuting her and I told her I was not persecuting her, but I would prosecute her. She quickly left.

                I really never intended to call the police, but that was the last time anyone from the census came to my door again.

                BTW, it’s an ongoing thing (they hit 250,000 households every month), so you might still get lucky. It’s not just tied with the 10-year census.

                • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

                  LOL- good for you! I have the Constitution and HR 931 handy and ready as well. You’re my kind of patriot Nukefriend! :-)

            • http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu Whitewolf2009

              WOW! Just WOW!! They can get THIS intrusive? add SAD to that WOW… infact, very sad.

        • http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu Whitewolf2009

          I didn’t know about it and when I saw a few (at first) people “liking” it I thought… What a dolt I must be… But I had to ask… NO way to educate yourself than asking good questions. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me in detail and no the length is not a problem! :-) I am now better informed than I was before I read your post! TY!

          • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

            There is no such thing as a stupid question.

            • Nukeman60

              Heh, I have always said there are no such things as stupid questions, only stupid answers. My kids, I think, got tired of hearing it. Much like the walking to school barefoot thingy.

              • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

                or walking 2 miles to school through snow up to here… which I did. ;-) lol!

    • Ross Bagley

      “Go to jail for collecting rainwater? What’s next, being taxed for using solar panels to collect sunshine? Or maybe shot dead for breathing the air around you? How about fined heavily for cutting down your own trees for firewood? Where does it end?”

      If you own development rights, but don’t own the timber rights to a piece of property, then you will be fined and possibly arrested for cutting down those trees without the permission of the title holder.

      In this case, this guy took water from downstream water rights holders by diverting surface water into retention ponds on his property. If he didn’t hold the legal right to that water, then he’s not entitled to divert it away from those who do hold the legal rights.

      • Nukeman60

        Well, I hope you don’t get the air on your property bought by downwind neighbors who expect the wind to blow the air in their direction. It might be hard for you to breathe somebody else’s air.

        If you own development rights, but don’t own the timber rights to a piece of property, then you will be fined and possibly arrested for cutting down those trees without the permission of the title holder.‘ – ross

        Nice try, but you should know darn well that’s not what I was talking about. If I buy property, I buy the timber on it. If I buy developement rights, and someone else buys the timber rights, that’s something altogether different. Try not to use liberal talking methods to twist an argument.

        You can’t tell me they bought the rights to water that falls on his land. I’d like to see the contract. Where is the clause about when it fails to rain. Who do they sue then.

        You keep talking about downstream water rights when you don’t know that he redirected any streams. He was collecting rainwater and any law prohibiting collecting the rain that falls on my property is a bad law.

        My brother-in-law just sealed the bottom of a sink hole on his property in Kentucky to allow it to fill up and become a watering hole for the animals on his property. Natural rainwater fills it. He did not redirect any stream. It belongs to him and he’s allowed to do it. Only bad laws prevent such a thing from happening on your own land.

        Try to stick with apples-to-apples arguments.

        • Ross Bagley

          “You keep talking about downstream water rights when you don’t know that he redirected any streams.”

          The complaint states that he diverted flows of surface water that would have ended up in the Big Butte River.

          Apples to apples and all that.

          So he interfered with the flow of water that he didn’t hold title to and now has the opportunity to learn about his mistakes with a tiny fine and a month in the grey bar hotel.

          Just because you don’t understand doesn’t mean you’re not wrong.

  • http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu Whitewolf2009

    Fined and/or possibly jailed for collecting rain water in a barrel on your OWN land! I tell you, Monty Python couldn’t make a funnier skit! It’s insane! “He’s guilty for standing up for what’s right” This is SOOOO Anti-American! Sadly, it’s not a MP skit and that is the tragedy of it all. I hope this man (and they mention gettin Bill’O involved), like common sense, can prevail!

    • Ross Bagley

      This wasn’t collecting rainwater in a barrel. He was significantly altering the movement of water in his local watershed by diverting surface water into ponds on his property. The lawsuit almost certainly didn’t originate with the State of Oregon but with private water rights holders who figured out that he was stealing water from their long-standing rights.

      Water rights laws are very old and very American. Just because water is flowing on your property does not mean you’re entitled to divert it for your own purposes. Try to divert part of a stream that flows by your land and you’ll shortly find yourself in water court by one or more downstream rights holders and you’ll lose.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1245945847 Deborah Browning

        It was NOT a stream, dummy1 RAINWATER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • Ross Bagley

          Apparently you haven’t read up on the case very much. He diverted tributaries (water that starts flowing on his property) which source from snow melt and rainfall. That’s 100% covered by water rights law since it’s flowing on the surface and leaves his property. If there is a prior interest in that water by downstream rights holders (there almost always is), then you can’t touch that water without permission from either the rights holders (in this case the city of Medford) or from the title authority (the State of Oregon).

          Go shopping for ranch property some time. If there are water rights currently associated with ag operations on the property (including rainfall cachement), they will be prominently listed as part of the justification for the asking price. They’re tremendously valuable in most parts of the country.

          He didn’t have the water rights to the surface water on his property, didn’t check to see who held the water rights, and then left his dams up after being informed of the water rights situation around him. Conclusion: he gets a fine and a stay in the grey bar hotel. They’ll probably also dismantle his dams and drain his holding ponds.

  • Army_Pilot1967

    Okay, that seems totally stupid on the government’s part….the man’s ponds are collecting rain water!!!! It’s not like he’s diverting water from a stream or a river. Apparently the government is going along with an OLD law that is on the books, but needs to be revised or repealed. Wow, that is crazy!!!

  • NYGino

    Somebody made a great point. If the government “owns” the rainwater why would the government not be liable for any damage done by rainwater, floods, hurricanes etc?

    • Nukeman60

      That is where the socialists like Obama keep getting tangled up in their undies. They don’t think before engaging their brains, and they always, always trip over their own tongues.

      • Sandra123456

        They speak first and try to think later.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1245945847 Deborah Browning

          They actually think?

      • Ross Bagley

        Has nothing to do with Obama. Water rights laws are old, and this guy had no idea what he was doing when he diverted surface water into those ponds. Looks like someone downstream finally heard about the ponds that were taking water and $$$ away from their rights and went to court to do something about it.

        Not understanding water rights laws is no excuse for breaking them.

        • Nukeman60

          First of all, I said socialists like Obama. Try to read. Secondly, I see where they had no problem taking water from his ponds to fight the fires. Without that water, it would be pretty tough.

          Looks like someone downstream finally heard about the ponds that were taking water and $$$ away from their rights and went to court to do something about it.‘ – ross

          So, it’s against the law for him to let the runoff water collect in a pond and be used for useful purposes, but it’s okay for someone downstream to use that same water for their purposes and sue if they can’t. Perhaps they should not use it either and let it runoff to the ocean or Gulf where it would normally end up.

          I’ll repeat myself, it’s socialists like Obama (and perhaps you) that think this way.

          • Ross Bagley

            “So, it’s against the law for him to let the runoff water collect in a pond and be used for useful purposes, but it’s okay for someone downstream to use that same water for their purposes and sue if they can’t.”

            If that downstream paid for those water rights, then that’s exactly the situation. That’s the whole purpose of water rights, to claim part of a highly distributed water supply that doesn’t stay put. The downstream user has legal title to a certain capacity from the watershed or waterway and if you interfere with their title, you’re likely to find a well-armed farmer or rancher who does know the law really p-o’d at you.

            “Perhaps they should not use it either and let it runoff to the ocean or Gulf where it would normally end up.”

            Maybe so, but if there is excess capacity in a waterway, it can be secured by a new water rights claim and is then subject to ownership and enforcement. This is private property, but over water. Is private property really so strange to you?

            “I’ll repeat myself, it’s socialists like Obama (and perhaps you) that think this way.”

            Huh? This is private ownership over a fluid resource. It’s complicated and sometimes astonishing, but just being complicated doesn’t make it socialist. It’s also a huge part of the history of this country. Water rights have dictated where cities grew and other places where they didn’t.

            • Nukeman60

              I guess someone will have to send you a bag of apples and a bag of oranges just so you will know the difference in the future.

              • Ross Bagley

                Were you replying to something in my post? I can’t tell if you just hit the wrong “Reply” button or you actually meant to reply to my posting but didn’t add the whole response. In either case, you can hit “Edit” and make your response more meaningful.

    • detectivedick

      My grass and fields grow from rain water, I need some Stimulus money and a few Amnesty (drean act) types to help. While we are at it my roof only leak when it rains.
      Basically the Progressives know that 2012 is the last chance they will have for decades, so it is all aboard with the Progressive Schorched Earth Policy:

    • Ross Bagley

      The goverment mediates and enforces water rights, just like the police will come to pick up tresspassers on your property, if someone is taking water from a watershed that they don’t have rights to, you can have the state fine them and arrest them (like is happening in this case).

      It’s not that the State of Oregon owns the water, any more than the State of Oregon “owns” the development rights to the land under your house. The State of Oregon is the sovereign which creates and enforces the real estate rights held by legal title.

      Taking surface water and changing it’s movement must be checked against existing water rights or else you’re going to have a bad time. Someone else holds the water rights that this guy was diverting to ponds on his property. That someone else (or else’s) brought suit in a water court and the state is now involved in the enforcement action.

      • Nukeman60

        I think your water court’s all wet. Where did he say he changed the movement. If it rained after a long drought, and the ground soaked up the rainwater, not allowing it to run off, would you be suing him for that?

        They specifically said it was not from tributaries. You don’t seem to be paying attention. You have a singular point to make and you keep making it over and over again. The whole purpose of this video was to say it was rainwater, not tributary water. Rainwater, not tributary water. Have you heard it yet?

        • Ross Bagley

          It was rainwater which fell onto his land and was then diverted into ponds on his land. That makes it surface water. He didn’t collect from water flowing onto his land from other land, he only collected when rainwater flowed on his land.

          100% covered by water rights law, and unless he held the water rights for the water he diverted, he’s in the wrong and will be held liable for water rights tresspass.

          Again, this is OLD law, and some of the consequences of the law are surprising to people who haven’t considered the issues at hand.

  • tinker_thinker

    One more reason the commies have to go. This is absolutely ridiculous!

    • Ross Bagley

      Check the dates on the laws in question. Most of them predate the formation of the USA. This guy ran squarely into a water rights conflict, probably by not securing the water rights to the surface water on his property before diverting it into those ponds.

      Someone else asked the State of Oregon to enforce the law and they’re doing it. If you expect cops to come and arrest tresspassers, you shouldn’t be too surprised that they’re willing to enforce these laws too.

      • Nukeman60

        Your argument doesn’t hold water (that’s good, I guess, since someone else would sue you if it did). If this guy plants corn on his property, then it rains on that corn, he would be depriving his downhill neighbors the right to that water since the corn took it. You keep talking about him diverting waterways. Show me where he did that.

        • Ross Bagley

          Water rights allow for things like the water being absorbed by the soil or being immediately used by plants on the soil.

          From the article above:

          “The short of it is that an Oregon man has a ponds that collect rain water that runs down into his ponds from his land.”

          He’s describing catchment of surface water. Which definitely runs afoul of water rights.

          • Nukeman60

            All water rights are not the same. You can’t just say ‘water rights’ and make it all encompassing. they are different across the nation for different areas. They specifically said he was not diverting any streams and that he was being sued for diverting tributaries. So, please, either show us the water right he is violating or stop generalizing.

            • Ross Bagley

              Quick googling of rainwater harvesting in Oregon reveals that you’re only allowed to harvest rainwater that falls on your rooftop without a water rights claim. Presumeably, water collected from any structure on your property would be covered. One other detail, if you want to retain more than 5000 gallons, you’ll need a permit for the cachement you want to use.

              Diverting a tributary means that water used to flow from his property into the Big Butte River but now does not because he dammed it and diverted it into his ponds. I never said that he diverted water that flowed through his property, only water that flowed on it. Which is exactly what’s happening. Without properly obtaining permission to restrict the flow of that water, he has stolen from the downstream rights holders.

              Case closed, he broke the law and is now paying the price.

              • Nukeman60

                Now you’re starting to catch on. It’s not just some general ‘water rights’ comment anymore. Good. You’re learning.

      • tinker_thinker

        The last one was in 1972 and amended in 2011. The amendment was meant to protect citizens like this one. The water isn’t used for commerce therefor it’s a ‘water’ grab. Commies taking people’s water.

  • NYGino

    Rain, hail, hurricanes, tornadoes, they are all listed under ‘acts of God’ on insurance policies. Oh, I forgot, Obama say’s there is no higher power than the government.

    • Sandra123456

      No, no, no, you didn’t build that business and God didn’t make that rain, Government did.

    • Army_Pilot1967

      And didn’t some news hack say that obama was “…almost god-like.” Whoa, not even close. He and some of his followers might think so, but he’s not even close.

      • http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu Whitewolf2009

        Dead on A P . The Anti-Christ! more like.

      • p m

        False idol par excellence. POS, pardon language.

    • freenca

      Maybe the insurance companies should offer up a new type of policy, the one to cover against “stupidity enacted by government”! The Dems and some Reps in congress have been trying to take over ALL sources of water, no matter where they lie, for a long time. Californians have been fighting these water wars for a long long time. At this time the newest fight is over ground water pumping. The government now wants to deny people the right to pump on their own property without permiting and red tape the likes of which would put most farming in the dumpster. Much less any consideration for fire suppression, drinking water, or anything else. It’s all about centralization of CONTROL OF ALL RESOURCES.

      • p m

        Agenda 21, brought to us by those wonderful folks at the UN./sarc

        • freenca

          Both the Agenda and the entity need to be abolished IMHO.

          • p m

            Totally agree, freenca, that’s why I like John Bolton for that job before they appoint him Secretary of State.

            • freenca

              I like John Bolton too. He’s been there before and knows what goes on there, so would be a logical choice to do it.!! Then Sec. of State, that would be a full dance card for him. Perfect, p m !

  • http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu Whitewolf2009

    Remember when America was America? You know, before the Progressive “disease” got into the system. Now a man can’t even collect God’s rain water without getting fined and jailed. I want to know what Liberals (real, old school ones, agree with this insane progressive “control every aspect of people’s lives”) think. Surely, even they can see the writing on the wall now?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1245945847 Deborah Browning

      Many progressives, especially in government, are too lazy to read. Ex: Health Care Bill!

  • Kordane

    This law would be completely unnecessary if the entire river was privately owned, since it would be up to the individuals who own the river, consulting with each other, what rules there are for said river. If they want to allow people to collect water from tributaries, then that’s what people can do.

    The problem is when the river or parts of the river are public, since nobody would own it, but everyone would have a right to it, and it all gets very complicated.

    Really, what people should be advocating for is complete privatization of rivers, and the abolition of laws relating to rivers.

    I know this isn’t actually an issue about a river, but I thought I’d just put that out there, since the law itself is wrong in the first place, and it would be nice to have a national discussion on the complete privatization of land, sea, rivers and air.

    • Ross Bagley

      “The problem is when the river or parts of the river are public, since nobody would own it, but everyone would have a right to it, and it all gets very complicated.”

      You have no idea about the legal framework for water in this country.

      “Really, what people should be advocating for is complete privatization of rivers, and the abolition of laws relating to rivers.”

      This is one of the most spectacularly useless proposals I’ve ever heard, since you completely fail to understand water rights as they currently stand. For any surface water in the US, every drop of that water is under the control of privately and publicly held water rights.

      Water rights are old laws, but throwing them out will bring every farmer and rancher and other ag entrepreneur that went through the trouble of legally securing their access to your door with torches and pitchforks.

      Pretty much all water in the US is covered by water rights, and most of those water rights are privately owned. It is very possible that existing water rights law could be improved, but at horrific cost and complication.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1245945847 Deborah Browning

        Simply: STOP THIS INSANITY!!!!!

      • Kordane

        Quote: “You have no idea about the legal framework for water in this country.”

        Yes, and that’s a major problem because it shows how non-objective the laws are in this country. We need objective law so that everyone knows what is illegal, why it’s illegal and what will be the penalty for violation, without needing to pay a team of lawyers to understand it all.

        Quote: “Pretty much all water in the US is covered by water rights, and most of those water rights are privately owned. It is very possible that existing water rights law could be improved, but at horrific cost and complication.”

        No, just privatize the whole bloody lot of it. Private property is a concept which works GREAT when tried. There should be NO public property in this matter. The government should merely be a custodian (not the owner) over anything which isn’t privately owned, until someone creates value with it and thus private property.

        “Water rights”? – There are no such things in reality. There are ONLY the unalienable individual rights of man. Your so-called water rights are merely PRIVILEGES granted by government. I do not support that at all. I only support the individual rights of man.

        • Ross Bagley

          “Yes, and that’s a major problem because it shows how non-objective the laws are in this country. We need objective law so that everyone knows what is illegal, why it’s illegal and what will be the penalty for violation, without needing to pay a team of lawyers to understand it all.”

          Objective? I think you misspelled “obvious”. You want the law to be obvious. I sympathize with your desire, and agree that in many cases the law should be simpler, but for some problems, the only legal framework that works has a minimum necessary complexity. Water’s essential nature for life and business along with its ability to move around creates complication for law-makers.

          “”Water rights”? – There are no such things in reality. There are ONLY the unalienable individual rights of man. Your so-called water rights are merely PRIVILEGES granted by government. I do not support that at all. I only support the individual rights of man.”

          Access to property and the exclusive right to develop property recorded in deeds and subject to trespass laws are also privileges granted by government. All property rights are “merely PRIVILEGES granted by government”. Again, I’m sympathetic to the desire for simplicity in law, but if you think about how you might organize ownership of water in a region, I think all of your proposals will either create little hydraulic empires or be fairly complex.

          In the absence of a sovereign strong enough to define and defend property rights, the only individual rights you have are those that you are willing and able to fight for. Frequently. While I am mostly prepared for social instability and interruptions in commerce, I strongly prefer a context that allows for commerce, specialization, medicine, safe travel, and all that jazz. I have no romantic fantasies about life in a survival situation. It will be bad, very bad, and our first order of business will be to rebuild civilization.

          • Kordane

            1. “for some problems, the only legal framework that works has a minimum necessary complexity. Water’s essential nature for life and business along with its ability to move around creates complication for law-makers.”

            That’s great reasoning for why government should NOT be involved in legislating over it at all, since government is incompetent at even the simplest things, and so when it comes to complex systems such as that, it should keep its destructively-meddlesome tentacles as far away from it as possible.

            A free market (ie. free from goverment) is the best way to run complex systems such as that, since a free market comprises the minds of every single individual (the more minds the better), all of whom have a stake in the outcome of that system, and all of whom have the right kind of incentives (such as the profit motive) to ensure that resources (such as water) are allocated and run in the most efficient and most productive manner possible.

            So in regards to objective law – Yes, it should be bloody obvious to people, because when laws are obvious then people won’t accidentally become criminals, and people will have certainty when it comes to running their businesses and personal lives. The best way to achieve this is to base law on the principle of unalienable individual rights, and thus make it objective law since said principle is objectively true and valid.

            2. “I’m sympathetic to the desire for simplicity in law, but if you think about how you might organize ownership of water in a region, I think all of your proposals will either create little hydraulic empires or be fairly complex.”

            People are self-interested, and so people organizing scarce resources, such as water (a river, for example), will seek (in their own self-interesT) the simplest, most effective and most prosperous arrangement. Government is the one that is motivated (in its own self-interest, rather than the interests of the individuals involved) to constantly expand its controls and laws/regulations over anything that it can get its power-hungry tentacles on to; you will always see this never-ending ‘law/regulation inflation’ when government is involved.

            3. “So there should never be an interest in a municipality in creating a safe municipal water supply? I know for a fact that if you look at private water supplies in this country and elsewhere, you’ll find that they are much more expensive and lower quality than the typical public water supply. Unregulated private utilities have historically been horrifically bad news for their customers. Another example of a kind of market that is very poorly served by entirely private interests.”

            Firstly, there is plenty of interest in creating privately marketable water to customers willing to purchase it. The profit motive is incredibly strong for this.

            Secondly, where there are instances where private water is more expensive than the public water, it will be because of multiple factors brought about by government involvement, or as I call it “sabotage” of the private market.

            So you want to set up and then run a water company to sell water to people? Ok, well you have to…

            1. Spend loads of money complying with an ever-increasing number of increasingly-burdensome regulations
            2. Spend loads of money paying high taxes
            3. Spend loads of money on litigation (especially after the EPA and who knows what/who else sues you)
            4. Compete with a government which undercuts your market share (taking your customers); a government which can make a loss when providing water, since it doesn’t need to be profitable
            … And so on and so on.

            Unregulated private utilities have historically been horrifically bad news for customers?? What?? Are we living in 1787 where there are no regulations? When is this apparent golden age of “unregulated” private utilities?? It isn’t this or even the last century, I can tell you that.

        • Ross Bagley

          “There should be NO public property in this matter.”

          Whoops, forgot this. So there should never be an interest in a municipality in creating a safe municipal water supply? I know for a fact that if you look at private water supplies in this country and elsewhere, you’ll find that they are much more expensive and lower quality than the typical public water supply. Unregulated private utilities have historically been horrifically bad news for their customers. Another example of a kind of market that is very poorly served by entirely private interests.

  • B-Funk

    Oregon has one of the most idiotic governments on the planet. I’m not even stretching to say that as I lived there for 34 years. They have no idea the effect of their policies, and the people in the major population areas are in too much of a marijuana-induced stupor to realize what’s happening to them. It’s kind of like living on board that space ship in the movie Wall-E.

    • WordsFailMe

      There are so many situations arising these days where, if you know what to look for and listen for, you can see how marijuana-warped-thought plays in decisions people and groups of people are making. Anytime you see thought or action slipping just a few degrees off rational, drugs are involved. How can society have lasted and evolved over thousands of years and suddenly punish a man for collection of rainwater?

      Get used to it folks. And for those of you who either use its recreational or condone it’s use because, “you don;t get a hang-over,” you have no concept of the actual costs. A hang-over is ten time more preferable that the long term effects of widespread marijuana use. It is sickening.

      • B-Funk

        So true, and the facts are coming out about it. My Uncle, a true Oregonian, has used marijuana for years and he has significant short-term memory loss.

        • WordsFailMe

          That memory loss, I think you hit it on the head. Memory is where we store those tiny lessons we learn everyday, those insights into people and parties and platforms where something doesn’t feel right etc, etc.

          Marijuana will destroy a society. and those whose lose it will never be able to remember what they lost.

          Stay home and get drunk. The next day, the very next day and not one minute later, you WILL remember why you don’t drink.

  • http://tinyurl.com/wwsotu Whitewolf2009

    Get rid of the EPA and this problem probably goes away as well.

    • B-Funk

      Not in Oregon. They worship the earth there. I mean that literally, whether they realize it or not.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/44F4AB4VSCTOCHBMBG4ZWWD5OU Laurel

    This is why all government at every level should be part time.

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      YAY!

      • p m

        Was thinking the other day, how to get rid of 0zeroism/Marxist infiltration. We could start by firing every government worker hired since 2009 in the DoE, EPA, OSHA and so many more useless or oppressive taxpayer funded abominations, as a prelude to closing them down. Gotta start somewhere.

        • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

          Double YAY for that pm!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/BA6V5SKRRH54TES3S6UJKO3FRA Jerry

    Here in NC, 20 years ago I purchased a house that had a well on the property. This is one of the main reasons for my purchase. Well (pun intended) there was also a city water line running down my rural road. Guess what? The health department deemed the well as a health hazard and made the property owner fill it in with concrete the day before closing.

    This isn’t happening just one the west coast. I had no choice in the matter, I was given no forum to appeal it. It was done without my knowledge until after the deed was done. This wasn’t an open well. It was like any other modern well.

    What it boils down to is the County can not make a profit off your water if your getting it from the ground. Also, you tell me how dumping concrete into a well is NOT a health hazard? As you can tell, 20 years later I’m still pissed about it. The only thing I wanted it for was watering the yard, garden, washing cars, etc. I had no intent to disconnect the county water. But nobody asked me.

  • wolfveryne

    Name one thing that any local,county or state Government ,, has done to enhance our Private Property Rights .

    • Ross Bagley

      Well, if you aren’t concerned about losing the property by crime or invasion, then they’ve created the context in which your property rights exist.

      Private Property rights are government created. Without a sovereign, there are no private property rights.

      • Nukeman60

        I have private property rights with or without a sovereign. They come in various calibers.

  • JohnOfPhiladelphia

    WTF (F=Flip not F—)!!!!!!!!!!! This is pure bull!

    PS Epic fail from that woman at the end talking about paying the poor guy a visit in jail.

    (And for goodness sake, speaking of the woman, why the flip can’t these Fox women cover up!! Its supposed to be a breakfast show right?! Jeeze! How many more men viewers can you gain just by such cheap tricks? We can’t be that desperate, surely!!)

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/H3FKUGAPVG6CDFYSCJHSAIAZW4 david r

    Oregon is a ( Red-Marxist) Blue state. That’s all you need to know…

  • denbren52

    Education, the environment and healthcare: When government has control of these, they have control of EVERY aspect of your life. There is one glaring exception and that is what you believe. Even in nations that went into and out of Communist rule, the faith of the true believers never faltered. Government can never regulate my soul.

    • sDee

      The pillars of socialism. How we doin’?

  • anyonebutbarry2012

    Oregon is a beautiful state, too bad the liberals are ruining it.

  • ryanomaniac

    Folks, its time to say freaking….NO. The only way this going stop is if large groups in your county just tell them to go beat the street. That’s the only way that I see. They expect us to take it like my mother made me take cold medicine. We’re their children. Its time say hey a$$hole, no way no how. This will never stop until folks make some noise!

  • p m

    They gotta tax this stuff to get money to keep themselves in power so they can pass more stupid laws.

    BTW Why aren’t the fire-fighting ‘agencies’ who have used these ponds standing up for the guy and thanking him?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GFZ4NQSAULWUMOKXDI4Y7YJGZU Eric

    This is why I thank God everyday that I live in Texas. Here is an excerpt from an article about 2 recent TX Supreme Court rulings, reaffirming property rights to water:

    On Feb. 24, 2012, the Texas Supreme Court in Edwards Aquifer Authority
    v. Day reaffirmed that groundwater is subject to the same private-property
    protections that are afforded to oil and gas, and landowners may seek compensation
    if government regulations limit their access to it.

    Most publications and news outlets gave the impression that the Edwards
    Aquifer Authority v. Day case decided this issue for the first time. In addition
    to the 1904 Texas Supreme Court case, though, last year the Texas
    Legislature amended section 36.002 of the Water Code to emphasize that “a
    landowner owns the groundwater below the surface of the landowner’s land
    as real property.”

    Two issues were decided with the Day case. The first deals with just compensation.
    While the state has the right to limit and restrict your right to
    pump your groundwater, you must be compensated if they do so. So while
    the state has the right to regulate the use of underground water, the ownership
    is a vested property right.

    The other question answered was whether groundwater can be owned in
    place. In other words, can you pump groundwater and store it while keeping
    your ownership interest in it? Using oil-and-gas law as its precedent, the
    court ruled it could.

    • Ross Bagley

      I agree that Texas has better water rights laws than most, but if a Texas property holder did the same thing that this Oregonian did (diverting surface water tributaries that originate on his property and would have run into a river to storage ponds), Texas would also have fined and jailed him too. And probably a crapload faster than 10 years after the violations were noted.

      • Landscaper59

        RB, I think you and I took two different messages from this story. I have 400 acres and rain runs off to the lowest place. Be it a drainage ditch, natural creek bed or a pond. Low places in a field will collect water until evaporation or absorption takes place. I did not see anywhere the owner diverted water directly to his ponds, rather it fell there or traveled there as water seeks the lowest possible place as a natural accurance.

  • 12grace

    Agenda 21. All Americans better stand up against this tyranny.

  • sarthurk

    I live in Oregon, and find this somewhat disturbing. To begin with, If the state was really after this guy for that simple reason, then many thousands of landowners in the state are jeopardy because of this. There must be something else going on here.

  • http://www.facebook.com/vonnie.bridgeman Vonnie Bridgeman

    That’s so wrong. It’s the rain is the stupid government gonna try to stop the rain from falling?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/L67IRCVEATTFLL4AUJHYVP6OME holycrap

    Don’t you just love Liberals thinking. Oragon is getting as bad a California.