But, I get your point. If your definition of diverting a watershed tributary is correct, then it is indeed ridiculous.
That's the point. Why does one man need 13million gallons of water? That could be used but many other people. Doesn't matter if its his land or not. That's like saying he had an illegal dog fighting setup but it's ok because it's on his land.
You guys dont see anything wrong with one individual hoarding millions of gallons of water that would otherwise go to the state's water supply? What if more people started doing the same thing on their land and suddenly you had to pay exponentially more for your water bill? Everyone on this site would be demonizing the selfish fat cat water hoarders, not defending their rights.
Should people that build ponds like that, and allow rain water to fill them, also be sent to jail? Should we ban ponds? I really don't think your hypothetical situation is a valid concern.
thats exactly the problem. you can build reservoirs and ponds but he did it illegally. he's hoarding a natural resource.
Where would this water have gone if he didn't put it in a pond? Into the ground then back into the water cycle, which is exactly what it's doing, just in a smaller area. This is nothing like dog fighting. If anything, he's doing the county a favor if there was a fire on his property. Plus he can have friends and shit over to fish and have a good time.
The problem with what your saying is simply this example: If I own 170 acres in Alaska and its covered in snow, ie, frozen water and that water equates to millions of gallons, should I be fined 1500 dollars and put in jail for 30 days for keeping that much water on my land? At what point does it end? The guy apparently lives in the middle of nowhere in Oregon. He's not hoarding water, it's raining and he's digging a hole. He didn't do any of this without permits, they were just granted and revoked, ie, they changed their minds. The articles say the water belongs to the public, is he not part of the public and if it belongs to the public, why should we have to pay for it? They're essentially selling me my own water after adding chemicals I don't want or need. The argument the politicians are making is that the water is publically owned, then when the public supports this guys right to keep a lake on his land in the middle of nowhere, the politicians say they don't care what the public thinks. Wtf? We're the public! If you can't see the corruption and over reaching here and the political bs I don't know what else to say. I think I've made some fair points, but I'll leave the rest to you all, as I'm just repeating what's been said. Of course the amount of water he has is excessive, but that water came from the sky and nobody owns it. This is another example of politics over reaching. 3,000,000 / 170 = 17,670 (averaged) gallons per acre. excessive? Hell yeah, but nobody cares, except these politicans who are punishing the fact that this man won't submit to their power.
what do you mean where would it have gone? thats a stupid question that doesnt help your point, it would have gone through the water cycle but since he's collecting it the water isnt cycling as much as it natural would. he's not just collecting rain water, he has channeling systems that pull water from the melting snow on hills.
I also forgot to add that the dude has some pretty good reasoning behind why he's keeping the water. Those of you from California or places where forest fires burn uncontrolled know that 13 million gallons to put out 170 acres actually disappears pretty quickly. If he didn't have that water and there was a fire, he'd be left to the mercy of mother nature and the fire dept, who'd probably have to get their water from somewhere else....
I have 2 ponds on my place that stay dry because the state controls the water level of a marsh that's 2 miles away. I can apply for dragline permits to deepen them, but the state would probably deny it since the marsh is a conservation area. If I went ahead and did it I would prolly be paying huge fines and restoring the ponds....
That's not for him to decide. We have elected officials who have departments in order to best surmise where resources of any kind go. In this case it's water. He was catching mountain ice shed and by extension, was diverting it. He was diverting watershed tributaries (small rivers) from a Government privileged watershed. Stop waving your constitutions around as if it means you have the right to do anything on your property. You don't. He's built artificial dams, this isn't just a hole in the ground that as luck would have it has collected a whopping 13million gallons of water. He's built it himself for this very purpose of water hoarding. He's not allowed to do that and needs permits. He had them at one point but they were revoked due to this suspicion of diverting water sources. Quite a right thing to do. He was given notice to stop the diversion which he failed to do. When they re-investigated him, in 2007, they found out how much water he really had and prosecuted him (to which he plead guilty), ordering him to release his dams. He has failed to do so. So now, nine years later, they give him 30 days jail time and a $1500 fine and all you all can do is jump to his defence. It's not even a harsh punishment. He deserved it 100%
Read my last point to get a bunch of counterpoints to most of this quote that I'm using right now. If you owned a property of 170 acres in Alaska and it had frozen ice covering it, I'm sure that when you gained the deed to the property you would have a discussion with the previous land owner of how the water would be handled. If there were permits already in place and the like. There's also the fact that the Government gives out warnings before going to prosecution or fines. As was the case in the very article that we're all arguing about, he received warnings for four years before they prosecuted. I don't think 'ice' would be considered water flow anyway. I'm willing to be corrected on that one point though. You're all creating these hypothetical situations where the answers are very simple, but you're unable to think of them yourselves. The term 'publicly owned' is a legal term, not a colloquial one. Don't get the two confused. For something to be deemed 'public' it is by definition the property of the state. If you go to a public swimming pool, that doesn't mean you can start taking the water out of it in order to go and fill your own swimming pool since it's public. It belongs to someone. If a school is public, it doesn't mean you can go into their library and start taking books (without a card, of course) and keeping them since it's public. I hope I don't need any more examples. The water also didn't just come from the sky, I'll refer you back to my most previous post. You also didn't get your maths right. It's 13, 000, 000, not 3, 000, 000. So it's 76470 gallons per acre. You said 17,000 was excessive, what the hell is this then?
He was given a permit, then was revoked, so he decided to continue breaking the law knowingly? Sounds more like he was trying to defy the law on principal. His efforts would have been better used to fight the system, challenge the laws, get involved politically. But he thought "fuck it, they denied my permits, i'm not doing anything wrong, i will keep doing it anyway. These Fire Signs should be a good alibi." Now he's in jail, and a bunch of stoners got their nuts in a ball over govt control and monopolizing resources. Not to mention he channeled 13 million gallons of water that would have been naturally a part of the cycle and water table, but it's not sitting stored on his land because he dun like the government and their laws. Not to mention the impact that has on wild life, the the land, vegetation. He also built dams, which is not legal to do, and could have massive impacts on wildlife and the natural order of things, while at the same time posing a risk to the community if the dam fails, flooding the local systems with thousands and thousands of gallons of water. Not sure why everyone is getting all "anti-govt: because of this guy. Sounds like he's massively at fault. Sure he prob. siphoned off some water they could have utilized for sale, but there are many other factors, laws, and ordinances broken.
As always the voice of reason, Sheldon. This seems like a very soft news story which was beefed up by a journalist with no better stories to report.