Someone please tell me this is joke.

[Scout26]

Seroiusly, you can't build ponds on your property to store water (as long as it doesn't cause problems on your neighbors property).

I've never heard of Mother Nature News, but maybe one of our PNW members can shed more light.


http://www.mnn.com/your-home/at-home/blogs/oregon-man-in-possession-of-13-million-gallons-of-illicit-rainwater-sentence

[makattak]

Water rights are a huge deal out west.

So, yes,  in many places, you don't "own" the water that falls on your property.

[freakazoid]

He should release it in a most dramatic fashion.

[French G.]

He should release it in a most dramatic fashion.

Finally, our detcord answer fits! Well, detcord tied to a series of splodey thingies along the base of the dam.

[Gowen]

Mother nature news, is a very....  I don't want to say liberal, because it's more than that.  They are into organic ways of growing food.  They have been around since the 60's or 70's.  It's funny the vegans would get ticked off when they do articles on growing your own meat naturally.  It's not a bad magazine, but you have to overlook some of the "mother gaia" preaching.

[AZRedhawk44]

Water rights are a huge deal out west.

So, yes,  in many places, you don't "own" the water that falls on your property.

Especially in regards to the Colorado River watershed.  I would be violating city and state laws if I did the same here in Mesa, AZ.

That being said, if this is true:

Apparently, once upon a time, the state did indeed allow Harrington — code name: “Rain Man" — to collect water in his reservoirs. However, officials reversed their decision the same year, 2003, that the three permits were issued, citing a 1925 law that states the city of Medford holds all exclusive rights to "core sources of water" in the Big Butte Creek watershed and its tributaries.

I believe that any government reversal of decision is much like attempting to prosecute an ex-post-facto legal situation.

He had hundreds of man hours in commercial equipment use, plumbing and pumping infrastructure and other investment tied up into a permitted behavior.  Then the goobermint comes along and says, "nah, we changed our mind.  Eff ewe, and take down your dams."

[Hawkmoon]

I believe that any government reversal of decision is much like attempting to prosecute an ex-post-facto legal situation.

He had hundreds of man hours in commercial equipment use, plumbing and pumping infrastructure and other investment tied up into a permitted behavior.  Then the goobermint comes along and says, "nah, we changed our mind.  Eff ewe, and take down your dams."

^^^ This.

A permit issued in error is nonetheless a permit. What if he had been issued a permit to build a house, and he built a house? If the county decided six or eight months later that they goofed and shouldn't have issued the permit, but the house was already finished -- what's he supposed to do, tear it down?

[makattak]

^^^ This.

A permit issued in error is nonetheless a permit. What if he had been issued a permit to build a house, and he built a house? If the county decided six or eight months later that they goofed and shouldn't have issued the permit, but the house was already finished -- what's he supposed to do, tear it down?

Yes. The government works that way.

[Hawkmoon]

I think I found him -- and it looks like his ponds are typical farm ponds, which is to say holes in the ground. It doesn't appear that he dammed any rivers or streams, and it doesn't even look like whatever runs into his ponds represents any significant diversion from runoff that flows toward a stream that's off scree to the right and runs roughly parallel to Crowfoot Road.



I think he's getting a bum rap.