Oregon Criminalizes Permaculture; Claims State Ownership Over All Rainwater - Ponds And Swales Restricted - Jail Time For Violators

[knucklehead bob]

By Mike Adams, NaturalNews Editor

July 29 - There's nothing more refreshing than standing in a cool, summertime rain shower. Or bathing in the warm sunlight on a crisp spring day. Or inhaling the cool autumn air, fresh with the scent of turning leaves and pine needles. These things -- rainwater, sunlight, air...

 

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036615_Oregon_rainwater_permaculture.html

[AmishRnot4ganja]

Another sensationalized, taken out of context diatribe by the right wing "freedom lovers". Water laws have been in effect for hundreds of years because greedy, insensitive farmers and ranchers don't care whether or not their neighbors downstream get any water. It is the governments job to protect consumers from those who would do them harm.

[MightyMightyMezz]

Another sensationalized, taken out of context diatribe by the right wing "freedom lovers". Water laws have been in effect for hundreds of years because greedy, insensitive farmers and ranchers don't care whether or not their neighbors downstream get any water. It is the governments job to protect consumers from those who would do them harm.

 

In your opinion should Gary Harrington be allowed to keep his ponds?

[Restorium2]

In your opinion should Gary Harrington be allowed to keep his ponds?

I have ponds the state says I can't fill in. Your state regulates the water. In Michigan it is the DEQ. They have comprehensive rules that govern this. We all have to follow the same rules, so yes, it's fair. Follow the rules or be fined.

[cristinew]

catching a bucket of rainwater for your tomatoes and getting a fine or jail time goes too far..AS NESTLES SUK OUR WELLS DRY,

[Restorium2]

catching a bucket of rainwater for your tomatoes and getting a fine or jail time goes too far..AS NESTLES SUK OUR WELLS DRY,

But that's not what they are talking about.

 

It's the same here. You ask if you can make a pond. They decide whether they will give you a permit. Then they study what your pond is doing to the area around the pond. If it is damaging the ecosystem then you need to fill it in. They explain this to you when they issue the permit for the pond. They even tell you that you may not have the right to fill it in after it stands for some time. It's the same thing as the law that dictates that you can't flood your neighbor either. It all makes sense when you know the details...that they leave out to make it a story. Amish was dead on. This is much 'to do' to make a story supporting an agenda.

[GanjaWarrior]

I have ponds the state says I can't fill in. Your state regulates the water. In Michigan it is the DEQ. They have comprehensive rules that govern this. We all have to follow the same rules, so yes, it's fair. Follow the rules or be fined.

 

filling in the pond isnt the same...if u would like to start a thread we could discuss that. making use of the water on your property is not the same as filling it in so there is no water.

[Restorium2]

filling in the pond isnt the same...if u would like to start a thread we could discuss that. making use of the water on your property is not the same as filling it in so there is no water.

Filling in the pond IS what it's about. Read it. You do not understand the permit process. He asked if he could dig the pond. They said yes, but we need to study it for a few years. They told him there was a good chance he would have to fill it in. Then they told him he needed to fill it in. No surprises if you understand the process and the details.

[MightyMightyMezz]

 

I have ponds the state says I can't fill in. Your state regulates the water. In Michigan it is the DEQ. They have comprehensive rules that govern this. We all have to follow the same rules, so yes, it's fair. Follow the rules or be fined.

 

Put another way, do you think the rule forcing the owner to destroy his ponds is a good one?

[cristinew]

The story is about the government owns your water , and they give it to big businesses like Nestles Pure Life water..and we get nothing in return, but a wilted tomato plant starving for a little drink,

[cristinew]

Communities Speak Out: Nestle, Stop Stealing Our Water ...

 

What's Nestle doing with the water in Michigan,

[Restorium2]

Put another way, do you think the rule forcing the owner to destroy his ponds is a good one?

When you put it in context of what actually happens with all ponds, then yes. Newly dug ponds can damage the watershed so they have to be studied. They give you a permit and tell you that you may have to fill it in. They also tell you that it just might be that you can't ever fill it in. They are good rules when you completely understand that they protect the environment by studying the effects. The story leaves out a lot of important details.

[Restorium2]

The story is about the government owns your water , and they give it to big businesses like Nestles Pure Life water..and we get nothing in return, but a wilted tomato plant starving for a little drink,

If you want it to read that way. If you understand what everyone has to do when they dig a pond you understand this guy was just having to follow the rules. Nothing more.

[cristinew]

I understand the poor must follow the rules,, but Nestle can suk all our wells dry

[Restorium2]

I understand the poor must follow the rules,, but Nestle can suk all our wells dry

Now that's a different story entirely. I would have to research that particular situation to understand it. I will have to spend some time looking into it it to even have a comment about the Nestle thing. It doesn't help anyone to post without researching it first. At first glance it doesn't seem to involve a pond.

[AmishRnot4ganja]

In your opinion should Gary Harrington be allowed to keep his ponds?

 

I really don't know enough about Gary Harrington and his situation to make any judgements, but I do know that water laws were established to protect everyone not just individuals who want to have a pond. Someone has to protect the rights of people downstream. We have decided to give that power to our government.

[Restorium2]

Now that's a different story entirely. I would have to research that particular situation to understand it. I will have to spend some time looking into it it to even have a comment about the Nestle thing. It doesn't help anyone to post without researching it first. At first glance it doesn't seem to involve a pond.

 

EDIT to add; The guy isn't poor.

[GanjaWarrior]

I really don't know enough about Gary Harrington and his situation to make any judgements, but I do know that water laws were established to protect everyone not just individuals who want to have a pond. Someone has to protect the rights of people downstream. We have decided to give that power to our government.

 

we never decided any such thing...nor is that power granted by any constitutional issues.... no one is protecting anyone's rights here.... he legally built a pond now they claim to own it.... there is no down stream its a pond he made on his property. nope your confused..... and no this isnt a right wing thing.... this is about nature and individual rights.... those every eroding rights.

[Restorium2]

we never decided any such thing...nor is that power granted by any constitutional issues.... no one is protecting anyone's rights here.... he legally built a pond now they claim to own it.... there is no down stream its a pond he made on his property. nope your confused..... and no this isnt a right wing thing.... this is about nature and individual rights.... those every eroding rights.

Again, you don't understand the pond permit. When he applied for the permit he knew this could happen. It's for the environment, not the government. No one claims to own his pond.

[GanjaWarrior]

Again, you don't understand the pond permit. When he applied for the permit he knew this could happen. It's for the environment, not the government. No one claims to own his pond.

 

i understand fine, i just might not understand what your reading into the story...i only have the facts to go on....

[AmishRnot4ganja]

we never decided any such thing...nor is that power granted by any constitutional issues.... no one is protecting anyone's rights here.... he legally built a pond now they claim to own it.... there is no down stream its a pond he made on his property. nope your confused..... and no this isnt a right wing thing.... this is about nature and individual rights.... those every eroding rights.

 

By "we" I mean the people of the USA, through our elected representatives, have decided that protecting downstream water rights is a function of our government. Water rights, per se, are not covered in the constitution, but the general idea of the right of the people to regulate water supplies is. Nature and individual rights are a fine thing to espouse, but what happens when your rights to do your own individual thing impinges on my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Government is (or should be) all about not letting one person trample on the rights of another.

 

For example: I have a septic tank cleaning company and I want to dump the effluent in my back yard instead of paying the rotten, no good government to dump it in an approved waste reclamation facility. Now lets also say that you live next door to me. Would you be OK with me dumping a load of shite in my backyard just to promote the idea of individual rights and nature?

[AmishRnot4ganja]

we never decided any such thing...nor is that power granted by any constitutional issues.... no one is protecting anyone's rights here.... he legally built a pond now they claim to own it.... there is no down stream its a pond he made on his property. nope your confused..... and no this isnt a right wing thing.... this is about nature and individual rights.... those every eroding rights.

 

 

Re: the "downstream" definition: Every stream begins with rain or snow melt runoff. So even if you are at the head of the stream or anywhere along its course, what you do to the stream/runoff affects everyone downstream. It may be OK for the person at the head of the stream to tinkle in it, but probably everyone downstream would object. So the moral of the story here is: If you want to pollute, buy all the property downstream. Which brings us to the issue of the "right wing thing". The right wingers who are financing all this "freedom" and :"individual rights" poppycock want to be able to do whatever they want to the environment and to the people who work for them. They want "right to work" laws so they will not have to pay a decent wage to their employees who they see as an asset like the machines in their business. They want to dissolve the EPA so that they can pollute at will. This is all fine and good for corporations, but how about the people "downstream" from the corporations?

[GanjaWarrior]

Re: the "downstream" definition: Every stream begins with rain or snow melt runoff. So even if you are at the head of the stream or anywhere along its course, what you do to the stream/runoff affects everyone downstream. It may be OK for the person at the head of the stream to tinkle in it, but probably everyone downstream would object. So the moral of the story here is: If you want to pollute, buy all the property downstream. Which brings us to the issue of the "right wing thing". The right wingers who are financing all this "freedom" and :"individual rights" poppycock want to be able to do whatever they want to the environment and to the people who work for them. They want "right to work" laws so they will not have to pay a decent wage to their employees who they see as an asset like the machines in their business. They want to dissolve the EPA so that they can pollute at will. This is all fine and good for corporations, but how about the people "downstream" from the corporations?

 

 

wow on we on the same subject?....in this one "down stream "means at some other place cuz this guy dug a pond...and in michigan we know a pond is not a stream. no where in this story is this man accused of polluting? what left wing spin tank did you get this stuff from....

[AmishRnot4ganja]

wow on we on the same subject?....in this one "down stream "means at some other place cuz this guy dug a pond...and in michigan we know a pond is not a stream. no where in this story is this man accused of polluting? what left wing spin tank did you get this stuff from....

 

If you read the story you will see that this guy formed these ponds from runoff - runoff that would have gone unimpeded into the stream. He impeded the flow of runoff into the stream. The "natural" flow of the runoff was altered and he let his farm animals pollute the ponds as well. Do you really believe that individuals should be able alter the water system to suit their own personal needs at the expense of others? By the way, you didn't let me know if I could dump human waste next door to you.

[AmishRnot4ganja]

Rain water runoff from farms (animal waste and fertilizer) has caused, and is still causing I suppose, serious problems in lakes and streams. All the fertilizer has choked lakes and streams with very hearty and happy weeds. I think that the "left wing tree huggers" have given up on the environment. We may have passed the point of no return with the environment. I blame this on the people who can't or won't understand man's relationship to nature and the devastating effects of our mismanagement of resources. But the right wing Bible thumpers can take refuge in the fact that God (Nature) will indeed punish us for our transgressions. The irony of this is that their attitudes are the very thing that is setting us all up for Natures punishment.