Rainwater is not free for you and me.

[Blakenzy]

It just so happens that collecting rain water can land you in jail. Apparently, water that falls from the sky, can be Government owned, and beyond the commoner's reach. 

http://www.naturalnews.com/029286_rainwater_collection_water.html

http://personalliberty.com/2012/07/30/man-arrested-for-collecting-rainwater-on-his-property/

I'm just waiting to hear a certain someone jump on the bandwagon and say we should be charged for the rain that falls on our lawns, because you know, rain just doesn't fall on it's own, someone else made that happen!

[SADShooter]

Hey, it's falling through FAA-regulated airspace. Just because the drops don't respond to radio communication shouldn't matter a bit....

[griz]

My SIL in Colorado was telling me that the state considered collecting rainwater to be stealing from what should be flowing in to the river.  I thought she was exagerating at the time.  Wow, it's worse than i thought.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

damning streams to deny folks down stream is illegal?  horrors!  and this guy plead served his probation then did it again.  i'lll cry no river for him

[AmbulanceDriver]

C&SD, there's a little more to the story.   

First, he's not damming streams.   He's collecting rainwater runoff and snow melt into three ponds on his property.  Yes, he's preventing that runoff from eventually joining into streams, etc.  But there's no stream running onto his property that he's blocking.

Second, he got the permits from the state to build the reservoirs.  The state then allegedly arbitrarily yanked his permits.   When he didn't open up the ponds, that's when he got dinged the first time.  At which point he opened the ponds up.

Once his probation was served, he once again closed the ponds, believing that he was legally right still.  And he's still fighting this in court.  The law the state is using is pretty specific in that it doesn't include rainfall, snowmelt, or "diffused" water.  Only streams, etc.  But they are now trying to argue that it does apply to the water sources he's using to fill his ponds. 

So it's a big mess, and he's still fighting it in court, filing an appeal on his current mess.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

my understanding is there is in fact a  dam its mentioned in the filings

[AmbulanceDriver]

Well, yes and no.  Yes, there are dams on the property that close the ponds.  No, they don't dam an actual stream.  They do prevent runoff/snow melt from joining a stream (eventually).  But he has not blocked a stream that flowed onto and off from his property.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

But Tom Paul, administrator of the Oregon Water Resources Department, claims that Harrington has been violating the state’s water use law by diverting water from streams running into the Big Butte River.

“The law that he is actually violating is not the 1925 provision, but it’s Oregon law that says all of the water in the state of Oregon is public water and if you want to use that water, either to divert it or to store it, you have to acquire a water right from the state of Oregon before doing that activity,” Paul told CNSNews.com.

Yet Paul admitted the 1925 law does apply because, he said, Harrington constructed dams to block a tributary to the Big Butte, which Medford uses for its water supply.

“There are dams across channels, water channels where the water would normally flow if it were not for the dam and so those dams are stopping the water from flowing in the channel and storing it- holding it so it cannot flow downstream,” Paul told CNSNews.com.

[dogmush]

“The law that he is actually violating is not the 1925 provision, but it’s Oregon law that says all of the water in the state of Oregon is public water and if you want to use that water, either to divert it or to store it, you have to acquire a water right from the state of Oregon before doing that activity,” Paul told CNSNews.com.

So the article in the OP is correct. It is the state of Oregon's position that rainwater that lands on private property belongs to the state.

FWIW, the other quote from Mr Paul on "where water would flow" sounds like seasonal streams from this guys snow runoff.

[longeyes]

So...we are all poachers now on the King's land?

Seems so.

[MillCreek]

I remember years and years ago briefly looking into a simple water rights issue for a friend.  A very complex area of law, and they take it pretty darn seriously in the West.  Between ranchers, farmers, hydropower, fish, recreation and other users, it can be a real rat's nest trying to untangle who has rights to what water and in what order of priority. 

[HankB]

Hmmm . . . if the water belongs to the State, doesn't that mean he should have a cause of action if State water causes flooding and damages his land?

[Tallpine]

It's not my fault if a culvert gets plugged up 

[SADShooter]

What is the state law concerning mineral rights on private land?

[AmbulanceDriver]

Again, my understanding is that this is not a "stream" in the common sense of the word that was being dammed up.  He built what I would call "retention dams" that kept rainfall and snow melt from eventually flowing into the Black Butte tributary system.   

One interesting thing I found while researching this is that one study showed (in one area examined) that only 3% of rainfall actually ran off into a stream.   The remainder was lost to absorption into the soil, used by plants, and evaporation.   

[Angel Eyes]

"Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over."

Millcreek is correct. Law and politics regarding water in the western states is . . . complicated.