Man goes to jail for collecting rain water

Hey Zak, this is the kind of thing I usually post! Good article. Yes, there are an enormous number of stupid, archaic, and simply rediculous laws on the books. And there will always be someone in the bureaucracy who is idiotic enough to enforce them. But the thing I took away from this article is that that this man is fighting it. There is always some American somewhere who is willing to fight back against power. That's why there is still hope for this country.

Bob

On the face of it, this sounds absurd. But this brief article and the one linked at the words "found guilty" in the fourth paragraph don't provide much depth, and water rights have been a contentious issue in many areas for a long time,

The articles indicate that in Oregon all water is publicly owned and that permits are required to divert or store it. It may sound ridiculous that a property owner is not allowed to collect rain water that falls on his own land. But any rain or snow melt that doesn't sink into the ground will flow downhill, collect into streams and rivers and, in Oregon, is publicly owned. Anyone who diverts water from its natural course or stores it privately is hoarding a public resource for personal use.

OK, so what's the big deal? One guy, three little reservoirs on 170 acres. And maybe that's not anything to worry about. But what if every land owner did so at the rate of one reservoir for every 55 or 60 acres? Then there could be a substantial reduction of water available for the public in the area as well as others downstream who also depend on it.

Maybe the Oregon laws involved are stupid or outdated. Maybe not.
Maybe this case was conducted in a clumsy or heavy handed way. Who knows?
But I never want to jump to conclusions based on limited information.

The old - and always dubious - "what if everyone did it" argument.
What if everyone collected rainwater?

Hi Zak

You’ll have to explain why the observation “what if everyone did it” is a dubious argument here? Step up and present your logic rather than just your off the cuff complaints. Sure if he didn’t live in a water catchment it may be unreasonable to demand he gets a permit for building some dams but that’s an argument for changing the law not for defying it. Many people rely on water collected from water catchments and if those living in the catchments don’t allow the water to reach the reservoir surely even you can see there may be problems?

Russell

Hi Zak

So you’re basic argument is that he should be free to flout the law because, in his personal judgement, it was OK to do so? Is that about what it boils down to? Is that really a rational position? I’ve heard sociopaths who believed that the law should not apply to them because their lifestyle was a rationally sustainable method of operating a society. Should they be able to flout the law too? Can we really leave it up to individuals to decide which laws they wish to abide by and which they don’t?

At this stage we don’t know if he’s in a water catchment – if he is his actions impact the lives of all of those who are dependent on the water that crosses his property. Remember the article said that he was collecting water and snow that fell on his land as well as water that ran across it. If a major river crosses his land he could be seriously cutting into the water available for his neighbours and downstream communities by building dams. That’s why there is a process of law to make sure that dams on private property will not unreasonably impact other people. But you believe that he should be able to do so regardless if in his mind own mind it’s OK.

If traffic lights are stopping people with miles of visibility at night on a deserted evening unreasonably then I agree that something is wrong. That’s a reason to change the traffic lights or the law not a reason to break the law because he personally and without all the information decided that he’d rather not abide by that law. Maybe they should program the lights to turn off at a certain hour. We have that in Australia where there are stop signs on some traffic light poles which are designed to replace the traffic lights when the lights are inactive. That would be a reasonable solution. Maybe this man doesn’t know that the blind midnight walkers club is coming the other way when he runs the red light, maybe he is justified in killing a few of them because it was dark and he could see car’s coming for miles but not a blind pedestrian, or maybe he should obey the law so he doesn’t need to get caught. Is a man more guilty when he fires a gun down main street and misses everyone at 12 noon than if he did exactly the same thing at 2am and accidentally killed the guy walking home from the pub at the far end? Laws are there for a reason, if they don’t make sense in a certain circumstance they should be changed, people should not just get to flout them because they personally feel that it should be OK.

Now don’t get me wrong here, I believe that the government and the laws should intrude on our lives as little as possible. For water rights anyone who lives away from catchment areas should be free to catch and use the rainwater that falls on their properties at will. They should be restricted to some extent in using rainwater that runs onto their properties from surrounding areas but in all cases the law should have as little to say about their activities as possible. We don’t know if this guy was in a catchment, we do know that he was collecting and using water that ran across his property as well as rainfall that fell onto it. The law should have something to say about his activities in either of those cases because his actions affect other people outside his property. His ownership of the land does not guarantee his ownership of the water that falls on or runs across it so he should, if he was an informed person, understand that it’s not his to do with as he wills before he starts building dams without permits to collect it. If his building of the dams was reasonable then he should have no problems obtaining the permits he needed. We had no problems with this process and our council are known to be truly painful to deal with.

Russell

Hi Zak

So your argument really is that he can flout the law just because he feels it should be ok. Of course most rational people understand that a society does not and can’t work like that. I’ve heard of some of the foolish laws that are technically in force in the US, there’s a comedy show I listen to where they make a point of laughing at them, and yes I’m sure that we have some of them here in Australia though not many as far as I’ve been able to find out. There’s one in the US in one state which says that if three or more Indians walk down the street together they can be considered a war party and you are free to shoot at them.

Such laws are baggage from the past when such laws may have made sense but that’s not what we are talking about here is it. This guy flouted the building code, a code that was there and in effect for good reason to protect the water supply of all those down stream of him. It wasn’t an archaic law that should not have had any force today, it was a law that should have existed and should have been obeyed because it protects real people from the real harm he could have done. Sure one person building a few dam’s without permits may not be a big issue but you can’t let people do that because if you did everyone would feel they should be allowed to build dams without permits then you really would have problems. The law must be enforced so that it will have its beneficial effects. Do you really want to live in an anarchist society?

Our country takes speeding and running red lights seriously. Many of our traffic lights have cameras attached so any car that does not obey them, even at 3am when the driver may think it is perfectly safe to do so, will be photographed and a fine sent in the mail. Likewise many of our roads have permanent speed cameras and we have mobile speed cameras all of these cameras also look up the registration status of the car and the license status of the registered owner. If you don’t abide by the laws here we have systems that will regularly send you a bill and a few points off your licence which will pretty soon mean you lose your licence. The statistics are clear, such efforts have significantly reduced our road toll so they are effective and they are accepted by most people here. Speeding used to be common here as it apparently is in you country but these measures have reduced it to very low levels and our road toll has dropped dramatically because if it. Do you see now why obeying the law is actually a good thing.

As for your comments on carrying a bleeding family member to hospital that would be a valid excuse to run red lights and even to speed within reason and such arguments can be presented to a court and the judge will probably let you off but the offence had still been committed and so it should be dealt with.

Yes most laws most of the time are not enforced but that does not mean people should not obey them. Most of the time I could speed and no one would notice but that does not make it a good idea, actually it turns out to be a very stupid and deadly idea as the statistics clearly show.

I suspect that you’d be surprized about how things work here, if every law was enforced all of the time most people here would not have to change their behaviour much to avoid getting into trouble. We don’t seem to have the number of silly laws that we see in the US and apparently in your country here. Isn’t that really a good argument for cleaning up the law books in your countries?

No your own judgment does not trump the law you just choose to flout the law and luck and hope that the traffic light wasn’t telling you to stop for a good reason, as I said the blind midnight walkers club about the cross the road in your path because they have the green walk light on.

Russell

Hi Zak

I agree that some laws should not exist and if they do they should be revoked. I mentioned the law in the US that said three Indians or more walking down the street constituted a war party and could be fired upon, that law should not exist, that law should be revoked.

Yes I believe it is reasonable to insist that people obey laws that they didn’t agree to, that’s how our system of justice works, that’s how our society works. Serial killers may not like the law that says killing is wrong but I’m not about to let them off just because they were not consulted about it and didn’t agree to it. If that’s the law of the society you live in and you don’t like it you are free to pick another society to live in that may suit you better but to continue to be part of this society you have to accept the law of that society.

Obviously there’s a choice whether or not we obey the laws, that’s why we have police and jails etc. Some people choose not to abide by the law and sometimes, far from always, they are caught, prosecuted and penalized for that and that’s how it should be. Just because you can get away with it does not mean that you should be allowed to it just shows that there are practical limits to how well the law is enforced.

If you truly believe that obeying laws should be a personal choice and if you ever visit Australia please make sure you tell me so I can keep well away from you!!

Back to the point of this thread, the law this guy broke was there for a very good reason, it was and should be enforced for the good of all. If he really had a need for those dams and if his having them was reasonable then there was a simple process he could have gone through to build them legally but he didn’t. The law existed for good reason, he knew it existed and he chose to disobey it and the law caught up with him as it should and now he’s screaming.

Russell

Hi Zak

Yes yes yes I understand that you feel he should be able to do what he likes on his land but that really is what we are discussing here. You can shout it from the roof tops but that won’t make it true.

Building codes etc are there for a reason. If this man’s land included a major river that fed the supply reservoir of a major city would you still say “his land, his water. He can do what he likes with it?” Remember the article stated that he was collecting water that flowed across his land as well as fell on it. Damming a major river just because it flowed across his land is not reasonable thus the building codes. If everyone in a water catchment damned every streamlet on their properties rivers would not form and the people of the city would die of thirst. Is that really what you want here? That is what uncontrolled building of damns such as this could lead to. It’s only that most people do abide by the law that the system works.

We don’t hear about potential serial killers who don’t kill because it’s against the law we only hear about those who do still kill. Before there were such laws many more people were killed at the hands of others. Do you really believe the law had nothing to do with that reduction?

Yes I’m taking the argument to the extreme but that is what we need to do here to understand exactly what it is that you are suggesting. Most people would not become serial killers even if it wasn’t illegal but some people would more than we have today. In the honest and considered opinions of some people killing others is a good thing. I disagree and the law supports me but your system does not give you that option. Why should we give your opinion that killing you is bad any more weight than the killer who thinks it’s good?

You claim it’s his land but the fact is there are strict limits to that. He does not own the mining rights to things found under his land, he does not own the airspace above his land, he does not have the right to dump poison all over his land, he can’t just clear fell his land at a whim etc. There are many things you can’t just do to ‘your land’ because it is not in the interests of the greater society that you form part of and your ownership of that land is conditional on you obeying the laws that give you that ownership including the planning laws that are applied to it. Those laws give you conditional ownership of that land not absolute ownership of that land. If you break the laws that control what you can do with your land you are breaking the code of law that gave you the ownership in the first place.

We have the same laws about pot here and I think the jury is still out on the detrimental effects of pot but from what I’ve read it’s probably no more harmful than alcohol with similar negative effects so I’m not sure why it should be illegal today.

But you are wrong to suggest that laws against pot are about social control and not about right and wrong. Drunk people cause problems in our society, many things happen that would not without it. Should I have to put up with being beaten up by a drunk guy for example? Should I have to pay the extra expense for his medical treatment when his liver packs it in due to his over consumption of alcohol? The questions are bigger than just how he feels about it because he shares this society with other people and his actions affect them. The same questions must be applied to any drug, what are the societal down sides? Are we willing to accept them or can we control them sufficiently?

I think we covered why it is reasonable to compel people to obey laws that they didn’t agree to. If I disagreed with the law that says I can’t just take your house how would you feel if you came home one day and found the locks changed and some burly men with machine guns guarding the front door? Is that really reasonable? Is that really a society you’d like to live in? How would you feel if they shot you on sight as a threat to their control of your house? Your system allows for this but would you like to live in that society?

LOL maybe you live in a different society to me but people with money end up in jail here regularly enough when they break the laws though they usually have less reason to do so than the poor. If you’re already rich why would you shoplift for instance? They may have better defence lawyers but the law here works most of the time.

In Australia if you speed you’ll get a $300 fine (more or less depending on how fast you were going) and a few points off your licence. 12 points and you automatically lose your licence. The points penalize the rich and the poor equally while the money is not such a big deal to rich people. Being a ‘millionaire’ you’ll have the funds to hire a driver but you still lose the convenience of just driving yourself around. And remember those traffic cameras look up your car’s rego and check your licence status each time you drive past one and you’ll have to be able to prove to a judge that you weren’t the guy in the picture when you appear in court for driving unlicensed. The drivers faces show up clearly in many of those pictures. Maybe in Europe the systems aren’t as good as here but here they work and the road toll is significantly lower because of it. Yes Red Light Cameras also take points off your licence. You only get to do that one twice then you lose your licence no matter how much money you have.

Yes he did hold a permit for a couple of months but he didn’t build the dams in that time. He claims the dams are for firefighting purposes but he’s got something like 52,000,000 litres of water stored up there. How much water do you need for firefighting? We’ve got a 100,000 litre tank and have read that people fighting the worse bush fires we’ve seen in years a few years ago needed upwards of 50,000 litres to successfully defend their houses. How many houses does he feel he needs to protect here? That’s enough to fight really bad bush fires in eucalypt forest for over 1000 homes.

What he actually has is a chunk of the water destined for Big Butte Creek, water from outside his property as well as water that falls on it, water that used to flow to that stream and on to the population centres below him before he came along, held on his property, stocked with fish and fitted it with the jetties and boats needed to catch them.

Russell

You are right, he really is the hallmark of a true American - all puffed-up libertarian rhetoric, no clue about politics, zero ability to enact meaningful political change in their favor.

It's been 70 years since the German population followed a leader in a bloody war of conquest.

It's been 10 years since the US population did the same.


If you want to play dirty, then so can I.