"[EAGLE POINT, OR] Gary Harrington was also fined more than $1,500 for nine
misdemeanor convictions for filling his reservoirs with rain and snow runoff
that the state says is owned by the Medford Water Commission. He was given
two weeks to report to the Jackson County Jail to begin serving his [30 day]
sentence."

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs...NEWS/207260314

HeyBub wrote:
"[EAGLE POINT, OR] Gary Harrington was also fined more than $1,500
for nine misdemeanor convictions for filling his reservoirs with rain
and snow runoff that the state says is owned by the Medford Water
Commission. He was given two weeks to report to the Jackson County
Jail to begin serving his [30 day] sentence."

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs...NEWS/207260314

Second conviction. Must be a slow learner.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:48:37 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"[EAGLE POINT, OR] Gary Harrington was also fined more than $1,500 for nine
misdemeanor convictions for filling his reservoirs with rain and snow runoff
that the state says is owned by the Medford Water Commission. He was given
two weeks to report to the Jackson County Jail to begin serving his [30 day]
sentence."

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs...NEWS/207260314



I have a hard time with this. Rain falls on my property, I should be
able to do whatever I want with it. Save it, boil it, let it run. It
just seems to be a government grab of private property.

If he was diverting water from streams outside of his property, then
guilty. I hope a judge has some common sense.

On 7/27/2012 2:17 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:48:37 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

"[EAGLE POINT, OR] Gary Harrington was also fined more than $1,500 for nine
misdemeanor convictions for filling his reservoirs with rain and snow runoff
that the state says is owned by the Medford Water Commission. He was given
two weeks to report to the Jackson County Jail to begin serving his [30 day]
sentence."

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs...NEWS/207260314



I have a hard time with this. Rain falls on my property, I should be
able to do whatever I want with it. Save it, boil it, let it run. It
just seems to be a government grab of private property.

If he was diverting water from streams outside of his property, then
guilty. I hope a judge has some common sense.


typically in colorado, people downstream own the water rights of the
rainshed above them. people don't actually own the water that rains on
their property in CO.

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:19:45 -0700, chaniarts
wrote:

I have a hard time with this. Rain falls on my property, I should be
able to do whatever I want with it. Save it, boil it, let it run. It
just seems to be a government grab of private property.

If he was diverting water from streams outside of his property, then
guilty. I hope a judge has some common sense.


typically in colorado, people downstream own the water rights of the
rainshed above them. people don't actually own the water that rains on
their property in CO.

How high above a roof does the state own the water? If rain falls 10'
above my roof, in my yard, I think it is mine. I've read property
owners do not own air space of their home into infinity.

Below 10'? This man is keeping water for fire protection, right?
--

On 7/27/2012 4:17 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
....

I have a hard time with this. Rain falls on my property, I should be
able to do whatever I want with it. Save it, boil it, let it run. It
just seems to be a government grab of private property.
....

In general what stays there on its own volition but most jurisdictions
don't allow collection/diversion from the established flow...at least
other than in some instances existing practice may have been
grandfather'ed in when later modifications to existing or new water law
were/was made.

So, if his property has a natural lake he's ok; he digs one or builds a
dam and not so much (at least w/o the hoops, etc.) ...

--

Oren wrote:

How high above a roof does the state own the water? If rain falls 10'
above my roof, in my yard, I think it is mine. I've read property
owners do not own air space of their home into infinity.

Below 10'? This man is keeping water for fire protection, right?

Typical state Real Property Law says you own everything above your property,
to a reasonable extent and everything below the surface, again to a
reasonable extent. The legal concept of "capture" further says you own
anything that wanders into your land (such as deer), again subject to
reasonable restrictions.

On 7/27/2012 2:52 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Oren wrote:

How high above a roof does the state own the water? If rain falls 10'
above my roof, in my yard, I think it is mine. I've read property
owners do not own air space of their home into infinity.

Below 10'? This man is keeping water for fire protection, right?

Typical state Real Property Law says you own everything above your property,
to a reasonable extent and everything below the surface, again to a
reasonable extent. The legal concept of "capture" further says you own
anything that wanders into your land (such as deer), again subject to
reasonable restrictions.



in many states, land owners don't own any mineral rights under their land.

On 7/27/2012 4:52 PM, HeyBub wrote:
....

Typical state Real Property Law says...

But water rights (particularly in the western states) are an entirely
different matter...

--

In article , dpb wrote:

On 7/27/2012 4:17 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
...

I have a hard time with this. Rain falls on my property, I should be
able to do whatever I want with it. Save it, boil it, let it run. It
just seems to be a government grab of private property.
...

In general what stays there on its own volition but most jurisdictions
don't allow collection/diversion from the established flow...at least
other than in some instances existing practice may have been
grandfather'ed in when later modifications to existing or new water law
were/was made.

So, if his property has a natural lake he's ok; he digs one or builds a
dam and not so much (at least w/o the hoops, etc.) ...

--

He just needs to put in a really big parking lot then he HAS to build a
retention pond (g)
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On 7/27/2012 4:55 PM, chaniarts wrote:
On 7/27/2012 2:52 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Oren wrote:

How high above a roof does the state own the water? If rain falls 10'
above my roof, in my yard, I think it is mine. I've read property
owners do not own air space of their home into infinity.

Below 10'? This man is keeping water for fire protection, right?

Typical state Real Property Law says you own everything above your
property,
to a reasonable extent and everything below the surface, again to a
reasonable extent. The legal concept of "capture" further says you own
anything that wanders into your land (such as deer), again subject to
reasonable restrictions.



in many states, land owners don't own any mineral rights under their land.


Here in Alabamastan, my father bought the mineral rights to the family
farm so many years ago when he bought the property, otherwise a coal
company could have strip mined the mountainside with impunity and a
bunch of big machines. O_o

TDD

On 7/27/2012 5:44 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In , wrote:
....

So, if his property has a natural lake he's ok; he digs one or builds a
dam and not so much (at least w/o the hoops, etc.) ...
....

He just needs to put in a really big parking lot then he HAS to build a
retention pond (g)

Yeah, there'd surely be no hoops in _that_ exercise...

--

HeyBub wrote:

[EAGLE POINT, OR] Gary Harrington was also fined more than $1,500
for nine misdemeanor convictions for filling his reservoirs with
rain and snow runoff

Land of Liberty, Land of the Free my ass.

That kind of **** doesn't happen in Canada.

chaniarts wrote:

in many states, land owners don't own any mineral rights under their
land.

That could be true but either a) Somewhere upstream the land was sold
without the mineral rights or b) By state law, the mineral rights are owned
by the state.

I'd be surprised if you could show an example of the latter.

On 7/27/2012 8:11 PM, HeyBub wrote:
....

without the mineral rights or b) By state law, the mineral rights are owned
by the state.

I'd be surprised if you could show an example of the latter.

Colorado.

--

On 7/27/2012 7:48 PM, House Man wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

[EAGLE POINT, OR] Gary Harrington was also fined more than $1,500
for nine misdemeanor convictions for filling his reservoirs with
rain and snow runoff

Land of Liberty, Land of the Free my ass.

That kind of **** doesn't happen in Canada.

I'd be _very_ surprised if their surface water rights aren't very similar...

--

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 20:48:31 -0400, House Man wrote:

HeyBub wrote:

[EAGLE POINT, OR] Gary Harrington was also fined more than $1,500
for nine misdemeanor convictions for filling his reservoirs with
rain and snow runoff

Land of Liberty, Land of the Free my ass.

That kind of **** doesn't happen in Canada.


Bull****
http://www.watergovernance.ca/factsh...ter_Rights.pdf

if there was enogh water for everyone, no one would care!

there are preliminary plans for a big canal from the great lakes to
provide water to the west.

If the drought continues this canal or ocean desalinazition will be
necessary for california, nevada, arizonia plus irrigation water for
much of the country.........

when food prices get high enough and citys like las vegas begin to go
dry it will get approved.

lake mead that provides water to nevada is 1/2 empty. and nearly all
the ground water in nevada is contaminated with radiation from nuclear
bomb testing.......

look for proposals for the largest US infrastructure project
ever........

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:48:37 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

"[EAGLE POINT, OR] Gary Harrington was also fined more than $1,500 for nine
misdemeanor convictions for filling his reservoirs with rain and snow runoff
that the state says is owned by the Medford Water Commission. He was given
two weeks to report to the Jackson County Jail to begin serving his [30 day]
sentence."

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs...NEWS/207260314

You have to know the facts in this case. You can't just read the attention
grabbing headlines.

In Oregon (where I live) many, if not most, communities depend on snow melt
from the mountains for their water supplies. To a lesser extent, rainwater
also contributes some water. I live in one of these communities.

This water eventually gets to the communities via streams and rivers.
Individuals cannot be allowed to disrupt the water supply by building dams
and other obstructions. That's what this guy is doing.

He says he is only collecting rain and snow melt from his property ¡V that's
a bunch of bull****. He's just a selfish, cantankerous asshole who doesn't
care for the community he lives in.

House Man wrote in :

HeyBub wrote:

[EAGLE POINT, OR] Gary Harrington was also fined more than $1,500
for nine misdemeanor convictions for filling his reservoirs with
rain and snow runoff

Land of Liberty, Land of the Free my ass.

That kind of **** doesn't happen in Canada.

Canadian "Human Rights Commission";and Mark Steyn's book.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 23:57:41 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 20:48:31 -0400, House Man wrote:

HeyBub wrote:

[EAGLE POINT, OR] Gary Harrington was also fined more than $1,500
for nine misdemeanor convictions for filling his reservoirs with
rain and snow runoff

Land of Liberty, Land of the Free my ass.

That kind of **** doesn't happen in Canada.


Bull****
http://www.watergovernance.ca/factsh...ter_Rights.pdf

Home Guy is back with his usual bull****.
--

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

[EAGLE POINT, OR] Gary Harrington was also fined more than $1,500
for nine misdemeanor convictions for filling his reservoirs with
rain and snow runoff

Land of Liberty, Land of the Free my ass.

That kind of **** doesn't happen in Canada.

Bull****
http://www.watergovernance.ca/factsh...ter_Rights.pdf

There is no mention of "rain" in that document.

=========
Limited uses, such as for domestic use, are permitted without a license.

Domestic uses on the land are not limited in quantity. Additionally,
water for irrigation or manufacture on the land is permitted as long as
the water is returned to its source in similar quantity and quality
after use.
=========

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 20:52:28 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 7/27/2012 7:48 PM, House Man wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

[EAGLE POINT, OR] Gary Harrington was also fined more than $1,500
for nine misdemeanor convictions for filling his reservoirs with
rain and snow runoff

Land of Liberty, Land of the Free my ass.

That kind of **** doesn't happen in Canada.

I'd be _very_ surprised if their surface water rights aren't very similar...

Please don't feed the idiot troll.