A rural Oregon man was sentenced Wednesday to 30 days in jail and over $1,500 in fines because he had three reservoirs on his property to collect and use rainwater.
Gary Harrington of Eagle Point, Ore., says he plans to appeal his conviction in Jackson County (Ore.) Circuit Court on nine misdemeanor charges under a 1925 law for having what state water managers called “three illegal reservoirs” on his property – and for filling the reservoirs with rainwater and snow runoff.
“The government is bullying,” Harrington told CNSNews.com in an interview Thursday.
“They’ve just gotten to be big bullies and if you just lay over and die and give up, that just makes them bigger bullies. So, we as Americans, we need to stand on our constitutional rights, on our rights as citizens and hang tough. This is a good country, we’ll prevail,” he said.
The court has given Harrington two weeks to report to the Jackson County Jail to begin serving his sentence.
If Oregon owns its rainwater and runoff, then the state should be fully liable for all damage from natural flooding.
I am not sure why this is even on junkscience.com. This appears to be a standard water rights case of the sort that has been going on in the American west for years, as well as places in the rest of the world with limited water. Building ponds and reservoirs that keep those with earlier rights on the water from getting the water they are entitled to is clearly illegal, and has been for decades, if not centuries. The law may not sound right to those of us living in areas with abundant water, but water rights cases have been going on for centuries.
Riparian rights. You cannot interfere with the flow of water to people downstream.
The defendant Harrington claimed, “Blah, blah, blah.”
The court sentenced him to 30 days and $1500.
I agree, Andrew. It seems pretty standard.
Andrew is correct. This type of thing goes on all the time in areas with limited water resources. Pretty much it’s a matter of who got the most favorable water rights law passed. Most people know that water rights are separate from property rights and there are laws governing usage.
Certainly, the headline is misleading.
On the other hand, if you want something more germaine, try this-
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/21/553551/ten-impacts-climate-change-is-worsening-climate-right-now/
Well, it’s germaine to the Junk Science focus of this website. It’s true junk!
This is not a standard water rights case….look deeper.
AFAIK it’s about the redefinition of rain and snowmelt and whether that is “diversion”. If it is then every runoff gutter is a “stream”.
Agreed, there is a significant difference between rainwater falling on your property and a stream or tributary. This is the classic difference between an area source and a point source.
Also, given the Significant-Nexus determination, yes pretty much every gutter runoff, drainage ditch, and minor culvert that eventually flows into navigable water IS a stream and Waters of the United States. The definition is so vague that at least it is until you can prove otherwise.
However, like it or not, he shot himself in the foot when he re-closed his reservoirs after a judge’s orders. The jail time is for contempt of court.
I’ll have to agree with the others, Barry.
If his sentence is for CoC then fair enough. I’d be a bit worried about State definition of streams as described. In Aus such a description would qualify roof gutters and downpipes connected to stormwater drainage as “streams” and here that would cause problems.
Though the state Water Resources Department initially approved his permits in 2003, the state – and a state court — ultimately reversed the decision.
After issuing permits, the state seems to have arbitrarily rescinded them! I am reminded of a CA case where Fish and Game came onto private land and cited a guy for fishing without a license on his own land in a pond he built stocked with fish he bought. They did so on the claim they controlled all fish.
Mike, they do.
Whiskey is for drinkin’
And water is for fighting over