While his property rights argument garners some sympathy, in the West, they say water is for fighting.
Personally, I wouldn't want to be downstream from a home made dam. Do you know why he has not applied for a permit(s)?

Give the government enough time and they will start charging for the amount of rainfall you receive per month lol.

Heck I wanted to put another attached garage on my house. I had a two car, but then wanted a 3rd bay. They said my house wasn't large enough for a 3 car garage. I was only allowed to have 900 SQfeet of garage/storage/barn space.

My house is 2,490 SQfeet. They said in order to have a 3rd bay, my house would have to be at least 2500 sqfeet. I got around it by making an "office" in the back of the new garage which put my house over 2500 sqfeet.

The moral of the story is that they have to many stupid rules. The way I see it is that it's your land you should be able to do what you want on it within certain limitations.

Politely let me say the limitation is messing with the water supply. Imagine if big government did not protect Arizona and their "right" to water from the Colorado or some other river. No one could live there which might actually be better for the country but still.

The news report has a sensational aspect to it but I do gather that:
a) He constructed at least one 20' high earth dam with no apparent engineering expertise or mention of liability insurance.
b) The article fails to mention the total size of the upstream basin he is collecting water from (or its current ownership)
c) No comment regarding the impact on downstream stream flow (environmental, fish habitat, etc., or on users w/permits)
d) Has he stocked his ponds with non-native fish that have negative downstream implications if they escape?
e) Why has he not applied for a permit? If he has, what were the grounds for denial?

Property rights are a great idea on very large acreages in a sparsely populated region when essentially, any negative impacts of your actions are only going to be experienced by yourself.

The reality is that, for the most part, what we do on our own property will have off-site impacts that affects the property rights of others. If a minimum standard is not enforced, everything deteriorates to the lowest common denominator (ie. if Gary can hoard water flowing through his land, I will too, and so will John, Harry, Bob, etc.).

Someone mentioned on that message board I gave the url to that one Senator is talking about charging people who own private water wells for the water they use. If they think they can come on someone's land and tell people, who have been held responsible for paying the expensive costs of owning and maintaining a private well for decades or more, and they think they are going to come and tell them they have to pay them for the water usage? No way!

I am sure as heck not going to have someone come on my land and ask me to tell them how much water I use. They can kiss my @ss.

Having said that what this guy is doing is flat out wrong, and 30 days in jail is not going to do anything to change that.

About a month ago our local town board had a meeting, and a resident stood up and said she thought we ought to develop a water system, and she was promptly shut down. I wanted to clobber her! lol Basically they said to her that we have a balanced budget and it's going to stay that way. Why anyone would ever want more opportunities to give the gov't more of their money each month is beyond me. I like having my well. It's worth the costs to not have to answer to anyone or write a check each month for water.

If everyone remained sensible, regulation of private wells is completely unnecessary....that is until someone starts drawing a disproportionate amount of water and drops the water table enough that the neighbors now need to drill deeper wells. The responsible users then get fed up because at the end of the day, being a responsible water user is pointless. Happens frequently with golf courses and quarry operators screwing over their neighbors.

This guy must have made things really obvious. The whole neighborhood must have seen him digging things up. Its only illegal if you get caught...remember that. He needs more trees to block out those nosy neighbors. Water rights is whats going to bring this country down one day I can clearly see it.

This man isn't diverting any streams or waterways. Nobody it appears actually researched what his situation is before commenting. He isn't stopping any waterflow from adjacent properties. He did apply for a permit and it was granted, and then the authorities 'changed their minds'. He doesn't live on any suburban or urban property. He owns nearly two hundred acres. An acre pond on farmland is no big deal, and it doesn't take an engineer to doze and dam one. His situation came to light because he did try to do the right thing and apply for a permit, and when it was rescinded went ahead and built it anyway. This is oregon, not the arid west.

I am really curious as to why his permit was given, and then yanked. Whether the reason for the reversal of permission was legitimate and sound. Of course they never go there with the media.

"I am sure as heck not going to have someone come on my land and ask me to tell them how much water I use. They can kiss my @ss." Well, they do and if you want your well for anything other than personal use, you comply. I had an irrigation well dug for my greenhouses and the county has my well log, they know the flow and they ask and you have to tell them what your consumption is. I am OK with that. It's a given if it's used for irrigation, a well like that has the potential for massive useage. I never used gross amounts, but I was honest in my maximum useage estimates.

It has been found in some studies in Europe that rain water collection for personal use is environmentally positive and encouraged in countries like England. It decreases use of main water, and main water is highly treated, and expensive to produce and that also frees up supplies to those totally dependent on main water.

Water is a huge issue in the west, and it will only get bigger with time. Its a nice idea to say "what falls on my land is mine" but it doesn't work that way. Its a community resource and is policed as such.

I don't see how he'll win this, at least not without screwing up everyone else's water rights. Which, might be a good thing which could prevent even more people from moving into an area which can't support them.

Oh, and as far as the point made of "This is Oregon, not the arid west", its inland southwestern Oregon. This area is semi-arid in the valleys with less than 20" of annual precipitation. Just about all of it falls in the cold half of the year, with virtually none during the warm half. While not perhaps as big a deal as, say, Las Vegas, its still a significant issue... especially when larger cities to the south continue to look north for increasing water consumption.

Also, as far as wells go... there are places in the west where water use has caused the water table to drop many hundreds of feet (and continues to drop). Think that has caused problems for people? You betchya! Besides having to dig new wells, the land is actually subsiding in some areas, damaging infrastructure.

You might think that what you are doing will have no effect on anyone else, but you'd be surprised many times, especially when it comes to water in the west.

"....encouraged in countries like England." Just to point out that our situation is very different. It is true we are encouraged to use rainwater from our gutters and downpipes by collecting it in water butts for use on our gardens. But bear in mind that most of us have very small properties (average size of UK garden aka 'yard' is 1/8th acre) and we have ample rainfall. We are talking about a few gallons of water, not acres of ponds. If you live on a larger property, e.g. a farm, you definitely cannot go around excavating ponds or building dams and reservoirs without permission. We require planning permission for any construction work. The rules may be annoying to individuals but are necessary in a small crowded country where what my neighbour does can have an immediate effect on my life.

I understand the points about wells and drops in the water table, subsidence and run off and watersheds. I also know about the highly regulated planning and permits required in Europe. What I am saying is that some of the restrictions concerning water and waste are archaic, and not founded in good science and just accepted rigidly and those in power are resistant to accept new data. This is especially true in smaller municipalities.

The man about which this article is written is playing on public sentiment. I also understand that. There is new data on rain collection and I'm not talking about a few water butts. I'm talking cisterns and they are being trialed in some municipalities in England to see how it impacts water availability. They are also being required in some newer U.S. housing developments. We are using pure, treated water to do things like flush toilets and water gardens, and it's wasteful when run-off can accomplish the same thing. This isn't the same scenario as a one acre pond, but it means looking at the issue without the old prejudices and that was where I was headed. A pond this size on 170 acres is not unusual and it has little to no impact on adjacent properties if it did not involve running streams or diversion of water which could move off property. I'm just saying I would be curious as to why the permit was granted and then pulled.

Anyone ever read about the Johnstown Flood? The reservoir that caused it was illegally built on private property.

calliope - I understand your points. More sophisticated rainwater harvesting is beginning to be explored here, which is great, but it is unusual so far and it has to be done in accordance with water safety and building regulations, not by DIYers cobbling together their own systems. The majority of homes in the UK do not have metered water, but pay a flat rate based on the size of the house, so unfortunately there is little incentive to save it on financial grounds, which would give RWH greater impetus.

I'm not at all opposed to some common sense concerning water supplies, it's a resource badly abused and wasted. I have springs and a well on my property, and we seldom face a shortage, but having your own water system deinitely makes one appreciate the finite nature of the resource, and I conserve it whether I need to or not.

Yes, the Johnstown flood was caused by a dam failure owned by private interests. But we are talking a resevoir MILES long and wide, in a narrow river valley, and built originally by the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This acre pond might sound huge to an urban dweller, but it's a not so untypical farm pond. An acre pond is not huge, we had one every bit this big on the family farm, and two additional. There are many rural areas where building such isn't even permit regulated. I'm not defending the man or his actions. It was illegal to proceed but he did. I'm just saying on that amount of land, an acre pond spontaneously draining would probably not impact an adjoining property at all, and probably poses less risk than a swimming pool in an urban area. And he has stated no streams or other tangeable waterways were involved in the water accumulation. I have spring overflow which drains into a public waterway, via a 'run', to a stream, to a river. I am careful not to have any exotic fish in my pond, or plant any exotic weeds, nor release any type of substance into the water.

Calliope, I understand what you are saying, but did you know that an acre-foot of water weighs 2.7 million pounds? (One acre, one foot deep.) Let's say something happens when the pond is 3/4 full. You're going to have 25 million pounds of water or more going downhill. How steep the valley is will determine the speed, but just the mass of the water will move stuff. It will travel a long way and move lots of things.

Like I say, I don't want my upstream neighbor building no 20ft deep pond with only a bulldozer and his own sense of what is right and what is wrong. This man gets precious little sympathy from me.

The lesson here is if you like and want to build ponds, move to a state you actually can and don't have to worry about unobtainable permits.

Here is a link that might be useful: {{gwi:407585}}

......or stay where you are, communicate with the folks in the agencie(s) responsible for permitting such, and enjoy your pond. That's what I did and I also allowed "them" to help pay for the construction.

+oM

Yeah, but if you were there, you would be enjoying your dry ground rather than pond....

Out west government rules on water usage protect property values by keeping the land viable. It is an artificial big government thing which is lowering property values in the rust belt back east which can more naturally and economically support a higher population density.

Wherever you live if you believe the regulations are wrong then time to educate folks and vote. I argue all the time about the welfare flood plain developments out in West St Louis and St Charles which get built at future liability instead of using other empty land. Oh, and don't get me started on rebuilding that liability New Orleans is. Must be no other dirt left in America to put houses on.

The small government debate is foolish here if the fella uses electricity. After all, I don't like the look of them lines running through my property to his, but can I stop them? No, fishing pond guy uses big government to enforce this right of way of the utilities so we are back in a debate about good and bad regulations.

You gotta watch out for the small government "Its my land and my water" folks. They complain and beg for help all the time.

Here if I run my drain off into their land complain, complain complain to the government.

Out west when my arid land friends stop water flow into their property complain complain complain and sue.

Or worse if the golf course out in Phoenix starts draining the aquifer and me and a few neighbors go over with pitch forks talking about the needs of the many the golf course small governmenters beg the government for law enforcement help.

So its just plum best if we use a system to enforce some rules.

Yes, I am full aware of how much water weighs. This man is not stopping water flow, this pond (and that is all it is) does not involve running water. It is 'collected' rain water, not run-off. This does not involve a valley or damming a stream. The governement has every right at every level to regulate public waterways and those tributaries (no matter how small) feeding into a watershed. It may very well be excavated into a dug site with a low berm. It may even be located in a valley. The article does not address that. The government is TELLING him to breach the berm and let it drain. Obviously that means it will not flood anybody else's property. It's a pond, not a particulary large one and not a lake dammed up from a running water source. Too much is being conjectured by an article with extremely limited information. If he had not collected it, the water most likely would have perc-ed into the soil and/or evaporated without ever impacting any other property.

Wisconsin Tom is right. He should have educated the local powers as to environmental impact and worked toward obtaining the proper permits. I see nothing at all implied that this isn't a legal permit issue and not a safety issue. Farm ponds are constructed all the time all over the country, and usually done by the farmers themselves, not hired 'experts'. They are pretty much no brainers and the biggest issues are overflow and outlet issues. The whole crux of this is 'why' the authorities pulled his issued permit and that is not addressed.

"If he had not collected it, the water most likely would have perc-ed into the soil and/or evaporated without ever impacting any other property."

Not exactly true, since the fact this water is sitting on the surface, instead of having percolated into the ground water and/or another water body, means that that much water has been taken away from said ground water or water body.

*popcorn, peanuts, funny little hats*

Come on folks, he wasn't jailed for collecting rainwater, he was jailed for being a shite a pi$&ing off the judge.

My biggest pet peeve...

since when does being educated mean you agree with me?

and the downfall of western civilization will be chewing gum.