A point that is at the heart of the disagreement as he claims he is not damming the streams themselves but runoff that would otherwise run into those streams. At which point do we determine it is diverting water from the stream(s)?
Again, provided the flow entering his land and exiting is unimpeded he can do what he wishes with the water that precipitates onto his property. If he's diverting run-off that originally fell on his property away form the stream I see no problem with that.
When did we go from a time when you purchased land with a stream because it was a useful resource to that stream being public jurisdiction? I don't know about your country but around here you can tour old settlements where someone would have local streams diverted for farming, mining, or even running a water mill. Seeing that we went from a time when owning property meant something to this kind of government bullying and you have to beg and pay money to do anything, and maybe be told you can't, on your own property is sad and depressing. This is just more of the kind of thing where I can't add on to my home without spending thousands in inspections just to get a 50/50 chance of being allowed to. It is ridiculous and is the complete opposite of the hope and vision that led to people spreading out west.
Because it's part of what makes a community exist, certain freedoms have to be lost to allow a community to function without conflict. One of those is certain limitation as to what you can do on your land. What you do to the stream can have massive affect on those downstream of you.
If you can withhold water from those down stream why can't you withhold light by building a large tower? Or withhold access by building a wall?
If you can't accept the pressures of a community then the solution is not to be in one, though that becomes harder and harder as even the most rural areas will now argue over a farmer introducing wind turbines that may spoil a view.
I grew up in an area where nearly everyone has an old well on their property, meaning there was a time when everyone diverted that water, and it was at a time when businesses literally relied on the water to power their equipment, like an old mill. Sorry, but I don't buy the community needing it excuse.
Wells are often fed by aquifers which are either very, very old or fed by local water sources. What limited domestic users might take from an aquifier is often negligible. But introduce a large industry or an increase in small users (as we see in the UK to circumnavigate house pipe bans) and you'll soon see the affect. In the UK atleast I believe the law will change on domestic wells (currently anything less than 4,000 gallons a day doesn't require a license).
If a farmer decides to sink a large or series of bore holes to water his crops and this lowers the water table to below the local domestic systems, is there not a need from the community?
Furthermore,
the reservoirs were as much as 37 years old and he was granted permits, after the Oregon law was pointed out to him, in 2003. If this was such an issue why was it ignored longer than I've been alive? I personally believe it shows the kind of change we have had in this country where we have gone from minimal government intrusion and a respect for personal property and privacy. What was once seen as perfectly acceptable is now a crime.
However, having read that extended article (thanks for the link) it very clearly states the Oregon law, and I whole heartedly disagree with it.
So in the circumstances of this man and Oregon law he is morally in the right and shouldn't be facing prosecution.
[EDIT]
3. No it doesn't. Everyone I know who has ever had a drink has never killed anyone in 20 years. It's not the alcohol killing anyone, it's stupid people who killed someone. Double their sentences too, lock them up.
And alcohol in terms of the damage to personal health?
I would argue neither are healthy for you, but why is one legal, and taxed and standardised, and the other not?
Something is wrong with a market (Auto Repair) that has developed a culture and prices such $75 hour or more for labor. Five people working on five vehicles EACH customer paying $75+ per hour? wtf? Why is every customer paying the hourly rate of multiple (even all) employees at the same time when only 1 or 2 will touch his car?
Then buy the tools and get the education and do it yourself. You have that option.
