Man Sentenced to 30 Days in Jail -- for Collecting Rainwater on His Property

page: 1
27
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
This is just an parody of the UN water regulations they're trying to pass. The laws have been going thru left and right over access rights. A steaming shovelful of incompetent government bringing this country to it's knees. They'll claim ownership over ponds because rain filled those ponds next. Technically, that's what they just did here. A 1 finger salute to the wisdom of our elected officials. Back to the UN attempt to have sole authority of water. I heard a lot of people saying it was all hype about the extent of that authority. You're seeing a preview here.
**** 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.****
CNS News
edit on 27-7-2012 by GoldenRuled because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT:



a man. went outside.


put out a bucket. to catch water that was FALLING OUT OF THE SKY.



oh no what a terrorist send him to jail hurry before he hurts another drop!!!!!!!




SURELY THE POLICE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING BETTER TO DO THAN TAKE SOMEONES FREEDOM AWAY FOR DOING SOMETHING THAT IS A HUMAN RIGHT!! SOMETHING UNALIENABLE TO EVERY HUMAN BEING!


how dare these sickos get away with this. collecting water. "oh yea just send him to jail hes bad"




RAGE


edit on 27-7-2012 by SoymilkAlaska because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-7-2012 by SoymilkAlaska because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SoymilkAlaska
 
Not quite that simple. Appears there are two Oregon laws at point here, and he's actually got a series of dams on the property stopping rain & snowmelt runoff from getting back into the water supply (which as far as I can tell from quick review, could affect more runoff just than what generates on his land).

I'm a little mixed on this one, need to look further into it. Will be interesting to keep an eye on.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 

As an Oregon resident, I heard about this some time ago and thought it was just crazy. I could think of no other reason than they want us dependent on their goods, not our own or nature's. But the reasoning is because if everyone did this, it would disrupt the natural ebb and flow of water supply to the land itself, including streams and wetlands. Seems like a stretch, but I can see a little sense in that. I am still suspicious though, because to me there is middle ground, in that collecting rainwater on a small personal level should be okay, but if an industry started up, or larger setups were designed, maybe that would affect the natural ecosystems.

Peace,
spec



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


hmmmm...


peace.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


These dams also have practical applications, and more often the reasons are for preventing land erosion. I have family using similar methods.
edit on 27-7-2012 by GoldenRuled because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 

As an Oregon resident, I heard about this some time ago and thought it was just crazy. I could think of no other reason than they want us dependent on their goods, not our own or nature's. But the reasoning is because if everyone did this, it would disrupt the natural ebb and flow of water supply to the land itself, including streams and wetlands. Seems like a stretch, but I can see a little sense in that. I am still suspicious though, because to me there is middle ground, in that collecting rainwater on a small personal level should be okay, but if an industry started up, or larger setups were designed, maybe that would affect the natural ecosystems.

Peace,
spec


I thought the economy was doing steadily well in Oregon.

Why are they resorting to this unless the man on the property is disrupting waterflow in a major way?



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 



I thought the economy was doing steadily well in Oregon.

We have some of the highest unemployment in the country right now, between 9 and 12%(Douglas county is the highest)
What I think is strange is the state considers rain water the same as rives and stream, which logically makes a little sense, but the 55 gallon barrel gutter collecting systems should be allowed imo. Now in this specific case the guy had 3 reservoirs, so I could see an issue with this. However,if the public owns the water, then shouldn't they be entitled to a balanced amount of a little rainfall?
edit on 27-7-2012 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


This should not even be happening! The man owns his land; and the water was supplied by nature. Everything should be fine.

That fact that it isn't; just shows to me the increasing greed of TPTB; and their demanding need to show off their power in society.

However their 1925 law...is the reason this man is in trouble.

Link to law: www.oregonlaws.org...



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good

Why are they resorting to this unless the man on the property is disrupting waterflow in a major way?


Well this is the claim being made against him. From the OP source:




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.


Apparently this is something this guy has been fighting for years. At one point he had permits and a state court reversed those permits.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by SoymilkAlaska
 
Not quite that simple. Appears there are two Oregon laws at point here, and he's actually got a series of dams on the property stopping rain & snowmelt runoff from getting back into the water supply (which as far as I can tell from quick review, could affect more runoff just than what generates on his land).

I'm a little mixed on this one, need to look further into it. Will be interesting to keep an eye on.


Good point.



.According to Oregon water laws, all water is publicly owned. Therefore, anyone who wants to store any type of water on their property must first obtain a permit from state water managers.

Harrington said he applied for three permits to legally house reservoirs for storm and snow water runoff on his property. One of the “reservoirs” had been on his property for 37 years, he said..



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
See USA is worse than North Korea .People do not have fundamental right to resource of water. They have to pay for it.This is not so in North Korea. Thank NDAA for this.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SoymilkAlaska
 


Well, I recall a story from not too long ago where the FBI arrested a woman for selling rabbits on her front lawn. They called it "unregulated transactions." I just think it's funny how the same government that deregulated the spit out of corporate industries can then turn to us and tell us that we can't sell our own goods and services without regulation. It's absolute hypocrisy. I think the name of the game is to transfer power from the people over to the corporate entity. They remove the restrictions from corporations and then place them on us. One hell of a switcheroo eh?



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


No, that's a sorry official excuse. Unless he builds something so big that he dries up the aquafer all by him self then there could a problem. Those politiciens have gone comppletely mad.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenRuled
reply to post by Praetorius
 


These dams also have practical applications, and more often the reasons are for preventing land erosion. I have family using similar methods.

I don't doubt it, but it's nothing I'm very familiar with.

I will say on this case, though, that I think any water coming down directly on his land should be his if he can capture it. Now, any streams or runoff not originating on his land I can understand there being a dispute over if he's preventing the normal outflow, and I don't think he's got claim to it based on how I (would like to, at least) see this law.

Otherwise...what, the local government is going to start suing everyone because their property is absorbing publicly-owned water?



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


Again, ;most of you are missing the point. The government is following the UN's lead with its Agenda 21 policies that removes private ownership of most natural things. Right now, it is starting with water in any of its mediums. Next, according to an understanding of Agenda 21, it will be private ownership and what you can and cannot do with it which goes way beyond typical zoning laws and regs. It's the NWO, folks, get used to it. The "greener" the place: state, country, county, city or regulated area, the more it will come to roost there.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Yep, this is what happens when you have to get permission to do something from a government. That's why we have Constitutional rights that cannot be taken away, because they did not originate with a government. Water is (apparently) not considered an enumerated right, so

“They issued me my permits. 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,” Harrington told CNSNews.com.
Source: cnsnews.com...

The government giveth and the government taketh away. And this principle goes far far beyond just water... freedom of all sorts, if granted by a government, is subject to be taken away just as easily as this man's water was taken away

The government giveth and the government taketh away.


The case, he said, is centered on a 1925 law which states that the city of Medford holds exclusive rights to “all core sources of water” in the Big Butte Creek watershed and its tributaries.
Source: cnsnews.com...

Ah, yes, the old law that was supposed to help all the people to keep the evil people from taking the precious water... now used to keep all people from taking water from *drum roll* the government.

Watch, learn, understand. There is a larger lesson here.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenRuled
reply to post by Praetorius
 


These dams also have practical applications, and more often the reasons are for preventing land erosion. I have family using similar methods.
edit on 27-7-2012 by GoldenRuled because: (no reason given)


If you are damming water that is sourced off property, doesn't that require a permit or permissions or both?



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Hi water watchers.

You can do researches on Coke and/or Pepsi and/or Nestle. . .
. . .some of them is/are emptying lakes, near small towns,
WHILE A DROUGHT IS ACTIVE, and nobody, "up there" is doing
anything against them ! ! !

And that is only for bottled water !!?? !!!!!!! No urgency there !!!!!!!
And the peoples in the towns are "imposeing rationing" themselves,
to save their water, and the GREEDY big one$ DO NOT CARE ! !

Blue skies.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


There was another case here recently, I think a couple of months ago...In Utah. The man had roof gutters and collected the rain in barrels for his garden.

Bechtal corp went into south america and became sole owner of the water rights there too. People are arrested for getting rain water out of the street, because they didn't have enough money to pay for it.

In the heirarchy of law, the top is "Natural Law" and such suits can be done under natural law, and won. Under any other law, corporate legislated laws etc, you are fighting a loosing battle. Simply because the corporation wrote those laws for their own use, not ours.





top topics
 
27
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join