Man sentenced to jail for collecting rainwater in Oregon | Hacker News Reader

Man sentenced to jail for collecting rainwater in Oregon

rt.com

11 pointszoowar12 comments

After my initial outrage at the title, I found this comment to the actual article perhaps more telling than the article itself:

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

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

Here is the CNS News story that this one references. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oregon-man-sentenced-30-days...

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

I suspect if he had just found a spot on his land away from rivers, creeks, streams, etc and just dug a big pit for rain to collect in he would have been fine. It seems this is not what he did.

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

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

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

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Cadillac-Desert-American-Disappearing-...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more than just the headline. He didn't "collect rainwater" - he damed and diverted rivers that supply a metropolitan area with drinking water so he could have ponds, on property he didn't own the water rights to.

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

Why is this on Hacker News?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com