Oregon man serving prison sentence for collecting rainwater on his own property

[Robin]

More madness from authoritative, nonsensical, man-made laws:

Oregon man serving prison sentence for collecting rainwater on his own property

An Oregon landowner has been subjected to a 30-day prison sentence for what he says was a simple act of collecting rainwater on his own property. CNS News reports that Gary Harrington was convicted of nine misdemeanors and sentenced to 30 days in prison, as well as slapped with a $1,500 fine, for diverting snow runoff and rainwater into three reservoirs on his property, a move that local officials say violates an antiquated law governing personal water use.

Known as the "Rain Main," Harrington reportedly built the reservoirs, which hold some 13 million gallons of water, for his own personal use. One of the reservoirs he stocked with largemouth bass for leisure purposes, and when wildfires emerge in the area, he says the water from this and the other two reservoirs can be used for mitigatory purposes. In Harrington's mind, the operation is perfectly legal and a legitimate use of his own property.

But the state of Oregon disagrees, claiming that Harrington is actually diverting water intended for the Big Butte Creek watershed and its tributaries, which are governed by the nearby city of Medford, onto his own property. Some have even accused Harrington of hoarding natural resources that do not belong to him, insisting that he should instead allow water that runs onto his property to flow into the city's water coffers for redistribution.

"They issued me my permits," stated Harrington to CNS News about the legality of his water collection efforts. "I had my permits in hand and they retracted them just arbitrarily, basically. They took them back and said, 'No, you can't have them.' So I've been fighting it ever since."

Water controllers cite outdated 1920s law in pursuit of Harrington

State water managers, however, have cited a 1925 law that provisions exclusive ownership of all "core sources of water" by the city of Medford, not private landowners. They say Harrington's three water reservoirs are included under this provision, and that water flowing through his property belongs to the state.

But Harrington insists that his water collection efforts are legal, and that water stored on his property serves a primary purpose of dealing with frequent wildfires. Harrington also uses the water in his dwelling for non-potable purposes, similar to rain collection efforts that involve diverting water from roofs and other non-porous surfaces into barrels or storage tanks.

"I'm sacrificing my liberty so we can stand up as a country and stand for our liberty," Harrington announced before a small crowd gathered outside the Jackson County jail, prior to beginning his sentence.

Harrington had previously been fighting the state after being issued a three-year bench probation back in 2007. This probation mandated that Harrington close up his reservoirs and stop collecting water, which he shortly thereafter violated after reinstating the reservoirs. This, says the state, is the impetus behind Harrington's booking, and the reason why he was pursued so aggressively in this matter.

"Mr. Harrington has operated these three reservoirs in flagrant violation of Oregon law for more than a decade," stated Oregon Water Resources Department Deputy Director Tom Paul to the Medford Mail Tribune, as quoted by Mother Nature Network (MNN). "What we're after is compliance with Oregon water law, regardless of what the public thinks of Mr. Harrington."

According to CNS News, Harrington plans to fight his sentence tooth and nail, and has vowed not to "lay over and die." Doing so, he says, will allow the government bullies to become even bigger bullies, further threatening individual liberty in the state of Oregon.

[Octavusprime]

Every household should have the right to collect as much rain water that falls onto their land as they wish. The more clean freshwater reserves the better off we are. Pollution and drought have made getting clean drinkable water more and more expensive.

[TargeT]

I collected 30,000(ish) gallons last Sunday, it's mandatory for every house in the VI to have a cistern and water collection system; even if "city" water is available to them.

[Orion142]

Yes, it the God given right of any human to collect water if he so chooses. Who the hell do these Zionist Cabal controlled scum think they are to pass these unjust and ridiculous laws?

[TargeT]

Posted by Orion142 (here)
Yes, it the God given right of any human to collect water if he so chooses.

Hmm, that's a terrible argument.

"rights" do not exist, they are made up by humans, we shouldn't fall back on a fantasy as the reason why we want change.

[Christine]

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by Orion142 (here)
Yes, it the God given right of any human to collect water if he so chooses.

Hmm, that's a terrible argument.

"rights" do not exist, they are made up by humans, we shouldn't fall back on a fantasy as the reason why we want change.

Inalienable rights:

Not subject to sale or transfer; inseparable.

That which is inalienable cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another. The personal rights to life and liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States are inalienable. Similarly, various types of property are inalienable, such as rivers, streams, and highways.

And one might add rain water.

While I recognize that this term is defined within the man-made legal jargon I still feel that it does justice to an model of what we as humanity might agree to. There are divine laws, cosmic laws.. when man's laws follow those we may have justice.

The "implied" rightness of a cosmic law is that which is given from a natural source is not to be usurped by the greedy and corrupt .. it is up to us humans to decide where the line of justice lies. Quite a challenge to know that remains.

[gittarpikk]

Food for thought re: rights

if the entire planet (except for a 100'x100' square ) were owned by 'someone else, everyone else, govt...whatever )...and you owned the 100'x100' plat

and it was not enough to provide enough water or food for your existence... ...then is it your 'right' to take more as needed....

so what are rights?...who divides them?

do you now get a lawyer/judge and have it read you own everything that is in the middle of a 100'x100' plat you are centered in (moving eternally so you can conveniently move near whatever you need)... who gives that lawyer/judge any say so ?who says who owns what...and how it was attained..

...and who are 'we'... the owners...sez who?.... and who gave them the power to determine it...or is this a matter of individual belief...
....and are the ones who follow obliged to those rules/laws standards...sez who?

is a socialist utopia the answer..?...or maybe republic or democratic utopia the solution... we can clearly see the pitfalls of all those... but with the global overcrowding... something needs to be fixed and fast...

but that is only from a human perspective,,,what about the animals/plants/microorganizms...were really a tiny minority here

...we we do know the illuminati wants to remove 95% to make the dividing easier...maybe they cant count that high... I dunno

does this make any sense.... probably not

[wnlight]

It's just a tax. The citizenry or their reps voted in 1925 to take his rain water and sell it back to him for income to the city. He still gets all the water he needs, but has to pay. I do not mean to say that this is a nice predicament. The law could be changed if the citizens were agreeable.

I am not certain that life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and a drink of water are god-given. God seems to take all that away from millions of humans every year.

[Fairy Friend]

This Is interesting to me I had to think about how large is 13 million gallons of water, which isn't as big as you think because we are talking about to probably medium sized retention ponds and one large one for bass. We aren't even using the word lake here. I am curious to know when the permits were issued because if he is been having these ponds on his property for 10 years why is it an issue now? If it had an effect downstream on the ecosystem, than wouldn't that had been noticed right away? I can't believe that that would affect an entire river system and we have the headwaters of a river system on our property. What happens downstream can be an issue.

But the 1925 law is so that people don't divert entire creeks or river systems or dam them for their own personal use.

Somehow, I highly doubt that this one diversion of rain and snow water has severely affected the core water system. If on the other hand, he operated for 1 year and a dramatic notice was seen, then they may have right to question his Diversion of this water. Depending upon the water systems there could be 13 trillion gallons of water flowing through It in a year. And I doubt if this could even dent it, let alone be a core source of water for the water system.

13 million gallons of water just from rain and snow boggled my mind and I have to just meditate on that alone for a while. How long did it take him to collect it? How large is this property?

Is it me or does this seem to me like maybe more the solution to a lot of problems, not more problems. They should copy him not fight him. Don't large farming practices divert much more water than that? Retention ponds are built in developments all the time without affecting core water systems and that includes cities when they build roads and etc. I suspect he could probably have paid the $1500 fine. This is about the right thing to do.

[jake gittes]

As usual, Natural News doesn't provide enough facts in the story. If the guy was collecting water that rained straight down on his property, he should be allowed to collect it to his heart's content. However, if he is diverting water that would otherwise flow to others, they have a right to that water. It's like when someone upstream dams up a creek and you no longer have water. There are laws to protect people downstream. I'd like to know some more particulars on this case before blindly siding with either side, despite my natural inclination to side against the gummint and oppressive laws. Are they protecting other citizens or bottled water "interests?"

[Ellisa]

The problem can arise when the catching and/or diverting of water at the 'start' if the river could cut off the people further downstream. 1.3 million litres (or gallons) is a great deal of water and I would think would represent more than one season's water. I can understand why, in a time of drought especially, the authorities want to share the water as fairly as possible. One guy hogging so much may increase the hardship further down the river, where, as so many posters have called it) god-given water would have flowed for all of time until this guy came along. I do think a prison term is unfair though.

That said however, I am surprised that water collection of roof rum-off is not allowed to be collected. It can be used when potable water is not needed, and the storage system can be well monitored to make sure no one is taking more than their fair share.

[amor]

In my opinion, this is all about Agenda 21 and its Full Spectrum Dominance to kill us all off from starvation and thirst. Humans need to get together and put their foot in the appropriate backside - ALL TOGETHER. Of all places, Oregon where it almost never stops raining.

[Heartsong]

Two thirds of Oregon is desert - the eastern two thirds, east of the Cascades.

A good deal of the water in the western third is snow melt that naturally channels into creeks and rivers. This is where the water for wildlife, fish, and agriculture come from and yes, water for human use. If this man is trapping or containing water that seeps onto his property and it is more than he needs for his own purposes whatever they may be, he is indeed stealing from the forests, agriculture, wildlife, fish and other humans.

Perhaps you've read of the California Drought? The drought doesn't stop at the border. The forests are tinder dry. Ground water levels are lowering.

People who believe water is a take-all-you-can resource will be stopped by water rights laws that go back 150 years when people lived closer to the earth and new full well that the health of a community and it's land was based on a willingness to come to agreement over allocation of the available water.

In my mother's time, the 1930's they had Ditch Riders that monitored the irrigation ditch systems make sure each got an apportioned share. This was the depression. Life depended on water for livestock and crops. All they had was what they could grow or raise. It was life or death. Being a ditch rider was a dangerous job, people got desperate over water and then, like now, they had guns.

Owning land does not mean you have water rights or necessarily mineral rights, air space rights, nor do whatever you want with it rights. Oregon has some of the toughest land use laws in the nation. Water Rights as a subject is a legal specialty and varies by country and state.

[Pris]

Who 'owns' anything? Everything simply is. How arrogant are we to claim ownership over anything!

Obviously, no one 'owns' land. They may pretend to own it and then demand taxes for the use of it, but that's just the apex of megalomania.

Nothing has more 'value' than anything else.

Rights are 'invented' by people and are nonsense.

We all share needs (like the need for water). Money, barter, and trade are all tools of enslavement that come between us and what we need. It's too bad so many of us still haven't figured out that we're all in this together and it's about sharing everything equally.

This is a world of abundance.

[Ricker]

Pardon my ignorance folks but exactly how can someone "Own" Rain? If the local river flows into the next town aren't they now liable for runoff that wasn't theirs?
The whole thing seems rather silly

Ricker

[donk]

I'm with TargeT...it is silly and dangerous to assume "rights" exist anywhere outside your imagination. Better termed "ideals", ideas and standards we wish everyone would recognize and agree upon...

...but for free will.

That's the only "right" I have ever known.

The illusion of it, at least...I don't even assume FW is a "right"...or really exists.

[TargeT]

Posted by donk (here)
I'm with TargeT...it is silly and dangerous to assume "rights" exist anywhere outside your imagination. Better termed "ideals", ideas and standards we wish everyone would recognize and agree upon...

...but for free will.

That's the only "right" I have ever known.

The illusion of it, at least...I don't even assume FW is a "right"...or really exists.

I think FW does exist, but the setting that you can exercise your FW is often much more (often externally) limited than we desire.

and often choices made have external (often pointless) consequences attached to them (also by external forces).

[Flash]

Posted by Ricker (here)
Pardon my ignorance folks but exactly how can someone "Own" Rain? If the local river flows into the next town aren't they now liable for runoff that wasn't theirs?
The whole thing seems rather silly

Ricker

many placesand countries in the world have water shortage, and some countries divert water from their rivers through dams and down below Stream other countries get thirsty. Example, Turkey diverting Euphrate river by daming and Iraq being thirsty. War are fought over this.

This story in Oregon is just one example of what happens in countries where drought is severe. The earth is getting dryer, altogether, population bigger, this is only a start, those water fights. And Canada has lots of it, while America is thristy. I bet anything it wont matter in time to get Canadian water, the excuses will be there.

[Pam]

Although outrageous, I believe these kinds of incidents are stepping stones to the ultimate water grab. Believe me, corporations and governments watch cases like this very carefully. Lawyers can be hired to spend all of their time finding loopholes, or creating them to pave the path of making water a commodity. If there is little or no outcry of the masses the ante can be upped rather painlessly the next time. Water and oxygen are the ultimate control weapons.

[TargeT]

Posted by peterpam (here)
Although outrageous, I believe these kinds of incidents are stepping stones to the ultimate water grab. Believe me, corporations and governments watch cases like this very carefully. Lawyers can be hired to spend all of their time finding loopholes, or creating them to pave the path of making water a commodity. If there is little or no outcry of the masses the ante can be upped rather painlessly the next time. Water and oxygen are the ultimate control weapons.

OR, this could just be one more subject that will help to awaken humanity to how it wants to live, and how being controlled by a few is not ideal.

I see all these traditionally "negative" slanted topics as positive stressors that will force "awakening" on those who are not actively perusing it.

Posted by Flash (here)
The earth is getting dryer, altogether, population bigger, this is only a start, those water fights. And Canada has lots of it, while America is thristy. I bet anything it wont matter in time to get Canadian water, the excuses will be there.

America is thirsty? where?

The earth is getting dryer? how?