Oregon's 'Rain Man' Begins Serving Sentence For Rainwater Theft...

[8537]

I'm onna' divert a few billion gallons from the Mighty Missisipp in order to turn southern Ontario into the world's largest waterpark.

All you barges, shipping companies and ferry providers can just suck mah balls! It's my water, dude. I took it.

 

[G.T.]

I'm onna' divert a few billion gallons from the Mighty Missisipp in order to turn southern Ontario into the world's largest waterpark.

All you barges, shipping companies and ferry providers can just suck mah balls! It's my water, dude. I took it.

You need to simplify for the dope to understand that you're not a Nazi.

 

[martybegan]

Purchasing property comes with laws and stipulations, and you are free to evaluate and not buy after studying such things.

All he needed was a permit, but he skirted it at the risk of others in his 'hood. Grimy, imo.

A lot of times when it comes to something like this, a "permit" will not be given. Is there any record of him trying to get a permit and the state's authority denying him?

I get why out west water is regulated, but I am curious to see if the whole permitting thing is just a defacto ban on any water retention, or do they actually issue permits.

It's good to be curious - but reserve judgement until said curiousity is fulfilled.

It seems perfectly reasonable, at face value, to require a permit for something that would necessarily effect the rest of the populace dependant on said water-source.

Permits seem reasonable, as long as they are actually issued.

 

[paulitician]

What comes next after the 'War on Rainwater-Collectors?' The 'War on Breathing?' Stay tuned.

 

[G.T.]

What comes next after the 'War on Rainwater-Collectors?' The 'War on Breathing?' Stay tuned.

He wasn't collecting rainwater, you asinine buttclown.

He was diverting a public channel, and using it for personal recreational use. The permit is required because he can disrupt commerce (hello? liberty) of all other properties that the channel runs through.

If this were legal with no permits, like 8537 said above dummy, it would be perfectly fine to just create damns on your property that would flood all surrounding areas. The permits make perfect sense, ya dope.

 

[8537]

I'm onna' divert a few billion gallons from the Mighty Missisipp in order to turn southern Ontario into the world's largest waterpark.

All you barges, shipping companies and ferry providers can just suck mah balls! It's my water, dude. I took it.

You need to simplify for the dope to understand that you're not a Nazi.

If I go thru with my plan, think of all the money we'll save when we don't have to repair bridges south of St Louis!

Genius. They should fucking subsidize my water park with some of the savings from the bridge repair budget.

 

[freedombecki]

No private property rights in Oregon? hm. noted.

 

[Ravi]

A lot of times when it comes to something like this, a "permit" will not be given. Is there any record of him trying to get a permit and the state's authority denying him?

I get why out west water is regulated, but I am curious to see if the whole permitting thing is just a defacto ban on any water retention, or do they actually issue permits.

It's good to be curious - but reserve judgement until said curiousity is fulfilled.

It seems perfectly reasonable, at face value, to require a permit for something that would necessarily effect the rest of the populace dependant on said water-source.

Permits seem reasonable, as long as they are actually issued.

Water Resources Department Water Rights

Tells you how to apply for a permit and contains a link to public notices about permits applied for....the guy tried to skirt the state law and had to pay a small price for it.

I am willing to bet he is one of those "personal responsibility" types.

 

[G.T.]

No private property rights in Oregon? hm. noted.

Rights end where they interfere with the Liberty of others.

 

[Ravi]

No private property rights in Oregon? hm. noted.

Oh, my....it looks like you live in a "police state" as well.

Who Owns the Waters in Texas?

 

[paulitician]

No private property rights in Oregon? hm. noted.

Oh, my....it looks like you live in a "police state" as well.

Who Owns the Waters in Texas?

Yes, continue on Goose Stepping. You're absolutely great at it.

 

[Douger]

I did something similar down here.Difference is I own the mountain and source springs of the river and all the way to the end where it meets a lake. MY fucking river !

 

[martybegan]

It's good to be curious - but reserve judgement until said curiousity is fulfilled.

It seems perfectly reasonable, at face value, to require a permit for something that would necessarily effect the rest of the populace dependant on said water-source.

Permits seem reasonable, as long as they are actually issued.

Water Resources Department Water Rights

Tells you how to apply for a permit and contains a link to public notices about permits applied for....the guy tried to skirt the state law and had to pay a small price for it.

I am willing to bet he is one of those "personal responsibility" types.

I am starting to suspect that as well. He probably wanted to overdo something and got told no.

One thing I dont like is that you have to go out and pay for a certified person to do all this. If the state wants to own the water they should provide the inspection and calculations required if you want to use water on your own property.

 

[Ravi]

Permits seem reasonable, as long as they are actually issued.

Water Resources Department Water Rights

Tells you how to apply for a permit and contains a link to public notices about permits applied for....the guy tried to skirt the state law and had to pay a small price for it.

I am willing to bet he is one of those "personal responsibility" types.

I am starting to suspect that as well. He probably wanted to overdo something and got told no.

One thing I dont like is that you have to go out and pay for a certified person to do all this. If the state wants to own the water they should provide the inspection and calculations required if you want to use water on your own property.

Good point. They could raise taxes and make everyone living in the state pay for it instead of the property owner that is going to reap the benefit.

 

[paulitician]

Maybe Big Brother could just impose Eminent Domain and seize this evil-doer's property? Boy, i know just the thought of that excites all the Goose Steppers here. What a country. What a country.

 

[martybegan]

Water Resources Department Water Rights

Tells you how to apply for a permit and contains a link to public notices about permits applied for....the guy tried to skirt the state law and had to pay a small price for it.

I am willing to bet he is one of those "personal responsibility" types.

I am starting to suspect that as well. He probably wanted to overdo something and got told no.

One thing I dont like is that you have to go out and pay for a certified person to do all this. If the state wants to own the water they should provide the inspection and calculations required if you want to use water on your own property.

Good point. They could raise taxes and make everyone living in the state pay for it instead of the property owner that is going to reap the benefit.

Thats a valid point, but the people of the state are reaping the benefit of owning water that falls on a persons property and/or flows through it. In effect they are getting free use of water off of someone else's property, less of course the cost the water companys charge.

 

[Ravi]

I am starting to suspect that as well. He probably wanted to overdo something and got told no.

One thing I dont like is that you have to go out and pay for a certified person to do all this. If the state wants to own the water they should provide the inspection and calculations required if you want to use water on your own property.

Good point. They could raise taxes and make everyone living in the state pay for it instead of the property owner that is going to reap the benefit.

Thats a valid point, but the people of the state are reaping the benefit of owning water that falls on a persons property and/or flows through it. In effect they are getting free use of water off of someone else's property, less of course the cost the water companys charge.

I'm not seeing how the state benefits from the free use of water. The water use is (supposedly) managed by the state for the benefit of the state's population. This isn't a business it is a state.

 

[G.T.]

Maybe Big Brother could just impose Eminent Domain and seize this evil-doer's property? Boy, i know just the thought of that excites all the Goose Steppers here. What a country. What a country.

the only one goosestepping, is you goosestepping the fact that you're talking absolute nonsense, stupidity actually.

Even Ron Paul understands that certain things are restricted if they interfere with everyone else's liberty.

if you don't understand how that even applies - go back to school.

 

[8537]

I am starting to suspect that as well. He probably wanted to overdo something and got told no.

One thing I dont like is that you have to go out and pay for a certified person to do all this. If the state wants to own the water they should provide the inspection and calculations required if you want to use water on your own property.

Good point. They could raise taxes and make everyone living in the state pay for it instead of the property owner that is going to reap the benefit.

Thats a valid point, but the people of the state are reaping the benefit of owning water that falls on a persons property and/or flows through it. In effect they are getting free use of water off of someone else's property, less of course the cost the water companys charge.

Perhaps I'm missing something but it seems analogous to building codes and zoning rights. When a house needs a certificate of occupancy it's not the town's responsibility to fund the inspection and ensure compliance - it's the landowners job. Afterall, they built the house / diverted the water.

But I'm not sure that analogy is airtight

 

[Katzndogz]

All water belongs to the government. That means the government owns your piss. If you pee in a cup instead of the public sewer you have committed water diversion and it's the same as building a dam to divert the Colorado river.