13
80

[–] myvoicefromhell 13 points 80 points (+93|-13) ago 

This is the kind of law that validates jury nullification.

32
51

[–] bob3333 32 points 51 points (+83|-32) ago  (edited ago)

This is the kind of law that validates jury nullification.

Until you realize this is a guy who is building 20-foot tall dams on his property, not some guy collecting rain in barrels. Seriously, check your facts first. What's the difference between an SJW assuming everything is a racist/sexist conspiracy and a right wing nut assuming everything is a government conspiracy? Nothing.

9
40

[–] Simpleusername 9 points 40 points (+49|-9) ago 

Until you realize the guy is fighting a privately owned government backed watershed grant and he never once diverted any tributaries but merely collected rain that fell on his private property. Instead of paying a group of nepotist for rural farm irrigation, he chose to collect water. Of course that fact is missing from your shitlink shitpost. *Snopes *is as much a joke as your understanding of the situation. **Nothing **is an accurate depiction your contribution to this subject.

17
15

[–] LetItBurn 17 points 15 points (+32|-17) ago 

So your okay with the federal government claiming ownership of the rain that falls on the earth from the sky. As long as water continued to flow there would be no problem, you have no right to tell any person who they can do with their property unless it directly damages you. This means you have no legal standing unless you can prove financial damage.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] myvoicefromhell 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I read the article. My opinion is based on the facts from the article. I'm not a journalist. Since when are readers held accountable for facts presented in news articles? That being said, I'm sure there are building codes that are already in place to prevent these kinds of structures from being built without permits. Oh, and just to be clear, which did you call me; a racist/sexist SJW or a right wing conspiracy nut?

6
3

[–] luckyguy 6 points 3 points (+9|-6) ago 

At least it was a slap on the wrist. We need more slap on the wrist judgments so that we can appeal these laws without 10 year sentences being on the line. We need more things like this to be 5 day judgments.

2
19

[–] 3978891? 2 points 19 points (+21|-2) ago 

30 days in jail would ruin me. Job, gone. Career over. House risking foreclosure. Family hungry. For collecting rain water.

I don't see how that is a slap on the wrist is all.

6
18

[–] dryitmat 6 points 18 points (+24|-6) ago 

This shouldnt be a crime at all. A man has the right to collect rain that falls in his property.

0
2

[–] geovoat 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

That's actually a very good point.

2
36

[–] JeepGuy79 2 points 36 points (+38|-2) ago 

If nestle can't have it....no one will

[–] [deleted] 2 points 15 points (+17|-2) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] 3986477? 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

When you say "they" are you referring to Oregon state? I want to know so I can avoid living in such a ridiculous place.

0
1

[–] geovoat 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Lol. This made me laugh in the same way a dying man laughs at a joke about the noose.

14
35

[–] 3978380? 14 points 35 points (+49|-14) ago 

"Collecting Rainwater" is not really the best way to describe the thirteen million gallons that he "collected."

Biased reporting sometimes tends to leave out the minor details that give a more complete picture.

[–] [deleted] 12 points 39 points (+51|-12) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

5
10

[–] myriadic 5 points 10 points (+15|-5) ago  (edited ago)

nowhere in the article does it say anything about a "pond". In fact, it says that he built them in a river that provided drinking water for a town. That's illegal, as it should be.

"Collecting rainwater" is just what he's claiming for his defence.

1
0

[–] MountainVista 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

while they basically give it away to companies like nestle.

Ain't that the truth. Drought in CA and Nestle is siphoning off spring water to sell it.

4
1

[–] 3978940? 4 points 1 points (+5|-4) ago 

It is rain water still, right? It rains and this guy uses the sky-water however he wants? I'm not a rain water expert but I don't see the harm unless he is using the water to torture people...

3
9

[–] Dietter 3 points 9 points (+12|-3) ago  (edited ago)

He's bypassing the water authority, think of all the profits the government would loose if everyone used rain water instead of the government supplied and taxed source. Same reason states are applying fee's to solar panels.

0
3

[–] binky 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

It is rain water still, right?

Not if you listen to the prosecutor's allegations.

1
1

[–] myriadic 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Read the article. He put dams in a river that provides water for a nearby town. He's only claiming it was for "rainwater" but you don't "collect rainwater" by putting a dam in a river.

2
-1

[–] JamesRussell 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

haha you Americans crack me up, "illicit rainwater" and "Big Butte Creek"

What's the argument against rain collecting over there anyway?

[–] [deleted] 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

1
28

[–] Kar98 1 points 28 points (+29|-1) ago 

Harrington constructed dams to block a tributary to the Big Butte

That's a bit different than collecting run-off from your roof in a barrel. Which btw is illegal in Colorado.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/03/20/colorado-may-end-its-unique-ban-on-rain-barrels

Water rights management is a complex subject west of the Mississippi ;)

1
7

[–] myriadic 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

Oh look, one of the few people who read the article before crying about how the government thinks they own the clouds.

0
2

[–] binky 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

That's bullshit. If I lived there I wouldn't use barrels, though. Just some really big water pipes.

[–] [deleted] 9 points 14 points (+23|-9) ago 

[Deleted]

2
27

[–] ForgotMyName 2 points 27 points (+29|-2) ago 

But the article says this -

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.

So, yeah, apparently collecting rain water is illegal, collecting any water from any source without a permit there is illegal. Which is completely insane, but that appears to be the situation here.

[–] [deleted] 4 points 12 points (+16|-4) ago 

[Deleted]

2
8

[–] ilikenwf 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago 

How dare you take the king's water, king's animals, or king's wood without permission!

1
-1

[–] SoloPoloVision 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

From another article:

The bigger story here is that rainwater collection is indeed kosher in Oregon, provided that you’re capturing it from an artificial, impervious surface such as a rooftop with the assistance of rainwater barrels. But an extensive reservoir set-up complete with 10- and 20-foot-tall dams is verboten without the proper, state-issued water-right permits

0
5

[–] LetItBurn 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

What if I told you just because it's printed on paper doesn't make it law. If it is unconstitutional or nullified by jury it doesn't matter.

0
8

[–] Amateur_Wizard 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Hold on.

This guy goes to jail or whatever for 30 days for collecting rainwater... it does not matter the amount.

But nestle can cause MASSIVE droughts and keep sucking water long after the permits have expired for literally fractions of a penny per thousand gallons?

2
2

[–] Kar98 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

He wasn't collecting rainwater. He was building dams, diverting streams and building his very own reservoir.

4
0

[–] W3a53l 4 points 0 points (+4|-4) ago 

Nestle didn't cause the drought bro.. come back to reality.

0
5

[–] Laurentius_the_pyro 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

No they just greatly escalated it's severity.

4
5

[–] CatNamedJava 4 points 5 points (+9|-4) ago 

Water rights are seperate from property rights. Thst water is taken out of the watersystem and can deprive others of thier rights down stream

2
3

[–] scrotums 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

Lot of shortsighted people in this thread.

Would you really want to live in a place where this is legal? Everyone would build dams on their property and the rivers that the public uses for drinking, irrigation, and electricity would run dry. There's a reason these laws exist.

1
3

[–] CatNamedJava 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

I had a professor who would be a expert witness for the yearly lawsuit by kansas against colordo for not letting enough water into kansas. Yoy dont fuck with people water rights

0
4

[–] retsopertidder 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

"News" from 2012.

load more comments ▼ (22 remaining)