America - The Official Thread

[GTsail]

I don't understand why you want to ignore the property laws in the State of Oregon.

The Oregon laws are pretty clear that whoever perfects their water rights first, gets first right to the same amount of water indefinitely. Subsequent water rights are all junior to this first claim.

What do you think about the following situation:

Let's say that Harrington was issued the three water permits, and that half of the water in his reservoirs comes from rain and half comes from water draining off the property right next to his that is a little higher, and that Harrington needs both sources of water to keep his reservoirs full and clean for his fish. For the next 10 years, things are great and Harrington is able to make a ton of money sponsoring Medford fishing tournaments.

Then let's say (after 10 years), his neighbor decides to collect all the water run-off from her property (more dams and reservoirs).

Harrington loses half his water supply and all his fish die, so he has to cancel all the fishing tournaments.

Under current Oregon law, the above shouldn't happen because the higher sloped neighbor doesn't have the right to prevent the surface water from leaving her property.

If we apply what I think you are recommending, Harrington would be out of luck, and would have no recourse but to go out of business.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't understand why you want to ignore the property laws in the State of Oregon.

I don't want to ignore them. I am saying they are unjust in a free society.

Let me say it again: Legal does not equal right.

The Oregon laws are pretty clear that whoever perfects their water rights first, gets first right to the same amount of water indefinitely. Subsequent water rights are all junior to this first claim.

Nice law considering it also says Oregon has first rights to all water.

What do you think about the following situation:

Let's say that Harrington was issued the three water permits, and that half of the water in his reservoirs comes from rain and half comes from water draining off the property right next to his that is a little higher, and that Harrington needs both sources of water to keep his reservoirs full and clean for his fish. For the next 10 years, things are great and Harrington is able to make a ton of money sponsoring Medford fishing tournaments.

Then let's say (after 10 years), his neighbor decides to collect all the water run-off from her property (more dams and reservoirs).

Harrington loses half his water supply and all his fish die, so he has to cancel all the fishing tournaments.

Um, OK.

Under current Oregon law, the above shouldn't happen because the higher sloped neighbor doesn't have the right to prevent the surface water from leaving her property.

Under current Oregon law neither of them have right to the water.

If we apply what I think you are recommending, Harrington would be out of luck, and would have no recourse but to go out of business.

Ignoring water displacement and that no reservoir can infinitely hold water without a drain/overflow release (At least last I checked every dam, no matter how big, I have ever seen has a spillway and locks), any intelligent businessman has recourse.

Now, let's try my scenario. Instead of Oregon snatching all water rights in 1925, lets pretend Medford is Medford Beverages Inc. and they lobbied to have Oregon water laws changed in 1925 (completely plausible as Coca Cola is 125 years old) to work exactly like they do now and it is Medford Beverages Inc. that is filing criminal charges against Harrington.

 

[GTsail]

....Greedy SOBs aren't they? If this were a corporation people would be crying water fowl. But hey government can do no wrong. The people who determine what is justice cannot commit an injustice.

Greedy?

Did you read the link to the Medford Water Commission: Medford WC and see what they did back in 1922-1925 in order to obtain clean water for the people that lived in the town? All these people were greedy for wanting clean water?

...
Under current Oregon law neither of them have right to the water.
.

Maybe my example is not clear, but in my example above, my intention was to say that Harrington has a water permit that allows him to fill his reservoirs so he has enough water for his fish.

GTsail

 

[GTsail]

....Now, let's try my scenario. Instead of Oregon snatching all water rights in 1925, lets pretend Medford is Medford Beverages Inc. and they lobbied to have Oregon water laws changed in 1925 (completely plausible as Coca Cola is 125 years old) to work exactly like they do now and it is Medford Beverages Inc. that is filing criminal charges against Harrington.

I'm not sure I fully understand your example.

Are you saying that Medford Beverages has the water permit to all the water in the Big Butte Watershed? And Harrington comes along and builds a few reservoirs and keeps some of this water for himself?

Under current Oregon law, Medford Beverages could take Harrington to court, and win, because Medford Beverages has first claim on the water in the Big Butte Watershed. Same outcome as with the town of Medford. In Oregon, the first to perfect the water right claim, has the right to the water.

Now, if what you are asking me is if I think that this is a restriction on new businesses (lets say that Harrington is Harrington Beverages and he wants to start a beverage business that uses a lot of water), then yes, I think that it is. However, this is how Oregon has decided to determine their water rights and its therefore the method we need to use to determine who has precedence over a scarse resource. Oregon has decided that it would rather give its water rights to the first Company/resident/farmer that requests the water permits, rather than to the last Company/resident/farmer that requests a water permit. They have decided to give priority to the residents who are already living in Oregon rather than to a new-comer.

If I missunderstand your question please explain it further.

Thanks,
GTsail

 

[Keef]

I don't understand why you want to ignore the property laws in the State of Oregon.

Because they're stupid. Property laws =/= property rights.

If Medford owns the rain then that means I can accuse them of trespassing, breaking and entering, vandalism, and probably even burglary when their water leaks through my roof and into my house and destroys my property. Everybody in the city can do that. I can file insurance claims for my house and car, as can everybody in the city, and we will get paid and our insurance companies will sue the city to get their money back, bankrupting the city, forcing a dissolution of the city government...

See how ridiculous that is? It is preposterous that anybody could ever own runoff, the same molecules of water which fell from the sky which means they own the rain, the same molecules which were evaporated from another source 500 miles away which...uh oh...lands us in a property rights dispute with the person who actually owned the water first.

But wait, wait. That person didn't even own the water first because of this clever thing called the water cycle which makes it impossible for anybody to own the rain.

But of course they'll argue that they only own it once it hits the ground, which brings us full circle back to the property rights dispute. If the water is their stuff then I don't want it on my land. Since rain comes in individual drops you could charge the city will billions upon billions of counts of trespassing, at least, not to mention numerous other property rights violations, resulting in thousands of years in jail...

Are you getting the idea of how ridiculous this is yet?

Property is a finite commodity. Nature is not, as it renews itself. Therefore, any person claims ownership of any natural resource which exists on their property. Do with it as you please. It's a funny thing how the idea of "property rights" is so simple and yet so versatile. If you do anything on your property which then effects somebody else's property, such as polluting your water which then runs onto their property, or polluting your air which then runs onto their property, that person is able to claim property rights violations and you are responsible for whatever violation you may have committed. This idea renders environmental protection laws totally pointless, because the basic idea already encompasses every imaginable type of property conflict. It renders you unable to pollute your water because it will run onto your neighbor's property (something the EPA has worked so fruitlessly to achieve), and it will make you unable to pollute your air because it will flow onto your neighbor's property (another thing the EPA wastes tons of money on aimlessly). Because rain naturally comes from one property and lands on another it is impossible to own it because property rights violations would be impossible to avoid.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, it's not quite as ridiculous as you make it sound keef. Easements often exist when you buy property - because that property has some contractual agreement in place with some other entity. So it makes perfect sense that two property owners could make an agreement whereby one owner had the rights to runoff from the property of the other. And then when the person who sold those rights sells their property, the new buyer has to purchase the property knowing that that easement exists and that the runoff rights are not included in the purchase.

For the city or state to get in the way and force this kind of agreement is obviously no good, but the concept of this agreement isn't out of bounds.

 

[FoolKiller]

Greedy?

For claiming rights to even rain runoff? Yes. I'll point out again, this would make my rain barrel illegal. The thing I use to water my garden with.

Technically, they could complain about kids splashing in mud puddles for polluting the drinking supply.

Did you read the link to the Medford Water Commission: Medford WC and see what they did back in 1922-1925 in order to obtain clean water for the people that lived in the town? All these people were greedy for wanting clean water?

I haven't read that until now. I see they also have a Willow Creek Dam and access to a completely different river system. They claim all rights to TWO watersheds!? Jesus Fracking Christ!

Wanting clean water isn't greedy, nor did I imply it, thanks. But asking for access to use water from a Big Butte doesn't require claiming to own water outside the river. Are you truly saying that claiming to have rights to all water in any form within a Big Butte watershed is justified?

Maybe my example is not clear, but in my example above, my intention was to say that Harrington has a water permit that allows him to fill his reservoirs so he has enough water for his fish.

Your example was perfectly clear. I was purposefully being obtuse to make a point. No one in Oregon can ask what if on a water question without being shut down by "the government owns it" before they can finish. The bureaucrats have 100% of the power in water rights. They can screw over anyone any time they like because that is the law. Too much power in the hands of professional a-holes. For all we know someone on city council is pissed at Harrington for hitting their cat with his car or something equally inane.

I'm not sure I fully understand your example.

It is really simple. I'm asking if a big corporation were treating Harrington this way because they paid off, I mean lobbied politicians in 1925 to grant them Big Butte watershed rights would you call it just, not legal, just?

Under current Oregon law,

You do realize my argument is that the law should be changed, right? I'm saying the law is wrong. Quoting the law at me repeatedly is a futile exercise. It would be like me trying to argue the Puerto Rico should be made a state and you start every rebuttal with, "But they aren't state." I get it. That's what I'm saying is wrong.

However, this is how Oregon has decided to determine their water rights and its therefore the method we need to use to determine who has precedence over a scarse resource.

Not arguing this point. Just quoting to emphasize my above statement.

I know the law. We interpret it the same. The judge ruled correctly based on the law.

But I think the law is a bad law. It is wrong. It is unjust. It gives the government near infinite control over property. It should be changed.

Just so you understand my point. The military draft is legal. I think it is wrong. Slavery was once legal. I think it was always wrong. A progressive tax system is legal. I think it is wrong. In Oregon self-serve gas stations are illegal. I think that is utterly ludicrous, but it suddenly explains a lot.

See how that works? I can disagree with the law. I can say it should be changed. I can work to bring about change. That is how we progress as a society.

They have decided to give priority to the residents who are already living in Oregon rather than to a new-comer.

There is a bit of comedy in calling a guy with a 37-year-old reservoir a newcomer. I also find it odd that they didn't miss the water (didn't you call it a scarce resource?) until he drew their attention to it by trying to obey the law. Oregon: Try to do the right thing and win a free stay at our luxury jailhouse resort.

 

[GTsail]

I have a Pacific island water example for everyone:

Lets say that there is a pacific island that gets purchased by Islander # 1.

The island looks like a donut, a ring of land circling a central lake of fresh water.

The first islander sub-divides the island into five equal parts and builds her house and a beverage plant (Medford Beverages) on one portion.

Since Medford Beverages only uses one-fifth of the water that falls on the island and drains into the lake each year, Islander # 1 decides to sell off the other four properties on the island.

Islander # 2 (Eagle Point Beverages) buys one-fifth of the island (the P&S Agreement says that Eagle Point Beverages has the water rights to 1/5 of the lake's water each year).

Islander # 3 (Salem Beverages) buys one-fifth of the island (the P&S Agreement says that Salem Beverages has the water rights to 1/5 of the lake's water each year).

Islander # 4 (Big Butte Beverages) buys one-fifth of the island (the P&S Agreement says that Big Butte Beverages has the water rights to 1/5 of the lake's water each year).

Islander # 5 (Harrington Beverages) buys the last fifth of the island (the P&S Agreement says that Harrington Beverages has the water rights to 1/5 of the lake's water each year).

Similar to Oregon's laws, the island's building laws prohibit the building of any structures (like dams or reservoirs) that would interfere with the natural flow of the rain water across the island and into the lake (the island doesn't get any snow, so snow melt is not a problem).

For the next ten years, everything is fine and all five beverage companies do swimmingly since the water on this island is just great for any and all beverages.

After ten years, Harrington Beverages decides to withdraw 2/5 of the lake's water since they purchased a beverage plant on another island and want to use the water from this island in the beverages that they are making in the plant on the second island.

Do you think that Harrington Beverage has the right to withdraw 2/5 of the lake's water for their beverage plants?

GTsail

 

[FoolKiller]

Do you think that Harrington Beverage has the right to withdraw 2/5 of the lake's water for their beverage plants?

No. He only owns 1/5. He signed a private contract saying he only purchased and had access to 1/5 and if he used more he would be stealing from other private property owners.

Perhaps I'm missing the connection between a private agreement between two consenting private citizens and a government regulation claiming rights to a naturally occurring resource on a private citizen's property.

 

[GTsail]

....No one in Oregon can ask what if on a water question without being shut down by "the government owns it" before they can finish. The bureaucrats have 100% of the power in water rights. They can screw over anyone any time they like because that is the law. Too much power in the hands of professional a-holes......

I think that the Federal Government owns about half the land in Oregon, so it often seems that the water discussions are about "Government water", but this is not always the case.

I have another example:

Lets say that Harrington is Harrington Beverages.

Lets say that back in 1898, the Perrier (the French water company), does some exploring in Oregon and they find that the water in the Big Butte Watershed is as good as the water in France. Perrier does some investigations into Oregon water laws and determines that Oregon bases its water rights on "first appropriation". Perrier says ok, and buys essentially the entire Big Butte Watershed (100,000 acres)(the land is very cheap since no one lives there except owls).

After a few years, Perrier sets up an American subsidiary called Harrington Beverages and begins bottling water from the Big Butte Watershed.

A few years later, in 1925, some settlers arrive and ask Harrington Beverages if they can purchase some property in the Big Butte Watershed and obtain some water rights to the BBW for drinking water for the settlers.

Harrington Beverages says yes, they will sell 50,000 acres to them, and according to Oregon laws, grant the settlers secondary water rights to the BBW, with the understanding that Harrington Beverages, as the initial holder of the water rights, can draw out 1 million gallons of water each year for their bottling plant.

The new settlers agree with this proviso since this is standard language for any Oregon real estate P&S agreement, and they figure that unless there is an extreme drought, the watershed is capable of supplying 2 million gallons of water each year, so there is plenty of water for all.

So the new settlers start building houses in a town they name Medford.

Everything goes swimmingly for the next 85 years. The Town of Medford grows considerably since their drinking water is the best in the land!

By 2011, the Town of Medford is using 1 million gallons of water from the BBW and Harrington Beverages is still using 1 million gallons of water from the BBW.

In 2012, there is a severe drought, and the Big Butte Watershed can only produce 1.8 million gallons of water.

The Town of Medford has a town meeting and everyone is of the opinion that the original water right agreement is null and void because the Town's settlers have been living in Oregon for 85 years, and therefore the water in the BB watershed should be shared equally between the property owners in the BB watershed (Harrington Beverages owns 50,000 acres and the Town of Milford owns 50,000 acres).

So the Town of Milford uses 900,000 gallons of water during 2012, leaving 900,000 gallons for Harrington Beverages.

Do you think that the Town of Medford has the right to use 900,000 gallons of water (or even more), or does Harrington Beverages still have the right to their full 1 million gallon share?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Leo0308]

Because they're stupid. Property laws =/= property rights.

If Medford owns the rain then that means I can accuse them of trespassing, breaking and entering, vandalism, and probably even burglary when their water leaks through my roof and into my house and destroys my property. Everybody in the city can do that. I can file insurance claims for my house and car, as can everybody in the city, and we will get paid and our insurance companies will sue the city to get their money back, bankrupting the city, forcing a dissolution of the city government...

See how ridiculous that is? It is preposterous that anybody could ever own runoff, the same molecules of water which fell from the sky which means they own the rain, the same molecules which were evaporated from another source 500 miles away which...uh oh...lands us in a property rights dispute with the person who actually owned the water first.

But wait, wait. That person didn't even own the water first because of this clever thing called the water cycle which makes it impossible for anybody to own the rain.

But of course they'll argue that they only own it once it hits the ground, which brings us full circle back to the property rights dispute. If the water is their stuff then I don't want it on my land. Since rain comes in individual drops you could charge the city will billions upon billions of counts of trespassing, at least, not to mention numerous other property rights violations, resulting in thousands of years in jail...

Are you getting the idea of how ridiculous this is yet?

Property is a finite commodity. Nature is not, as it renews itself. Therefore, any person claims ownership of any natural resource which exists on their property. Do with it as you please. It's a funny thing how the idea of "property rights" is so simple and yet so versatile. If you do anything on your property which then effects somebody else's property, such as polluting your water which then runs onto their property, or polluting your air which then runs onto their property, that person is able to claim property rights violations and you are responsible for whatever violation you may have committed. This idea renders environmental protection laws totally pointless, because the basic idea already encompasses every imaginable type of property conflict. It renders you unable to pollute your water because it will run onto your neighbor's property (something the EPA has worked so fruitlessly to achieve), and it will make you unable to pollute your air because it will flow onto your neighbor's property (another thing the EPA wastes tons of money on aimlessly). Because rain naturally comes from one property and lands on another it is impossible to own it because property rights violations would be impossible to avoid.

Now i get these videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyBRqSN5NnI

 

[ExigeEvan]

Do you think that the Town of Medford has the right to use 900,000 gallons of water (or even more), or does Harrington Beverages still have the right to their full 1 million gallon share?

Respectfully,
GTsail

They have no right to it. HB have the right to 1 million gallons, the town of Medford anything that remains.

In this case an agreement would probably be made with HB and Medford, but the town can't decide to null a contract and re-write the agreement without negotiation.

 

[FoolKiller]

Still don't see what private contracts have to do with government overreach, but OK.

Do you think that the Town of Medford has the right to use 900,000 gallons of water (or even more), or does Harrington Beverages still have the right to their full 1 million gallon share?

Harrington Beverages has the right to the full 1 million gallons. Medford does not have the right to unilaterally change a private contract they signed as one of two consenting entities. Contract changes must require both parties be in agreement.

Now, they can renegotiate the contract or come to a temporary agreement, but it is a legally binding private contract.

 

[GTsail]

Still don't see what private contracts have to do with government overreach...

Oregon's water rights apply to everyone, whether Government entities or private property owners. Most Oregon real estate contracts have a clause that says: "This agreement shall be construed, applied and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon", so anyone purchasing Oregon real estate, by signing these real estate contracts, is agreeing to be subject to Oregon's water rights laws.

The conflict between Harrington and the Town of Medford might be Government overreach or it might be Harrington overreach (or maybe a little of both).

Yes, I agree, within reason, I think that Harrington should be able to fill a small reservoir for some fishing, and the Town of Medford would probably have allowed this pursuant to their "primary" water rights (meaning that they could rescind this secondary use of the water in times of drought).

However, the problem arose when Harrington decided to expand the number of reservoirs, so maybe the Town felt that too much water was being impounded (or maybe they worried about the potential of a dam break and down-stream flooding). And since, as we both agree, the Town of Medford has the "right" under current Oregon law, to slow down this reservoir expansion, the Town decided to strictly enforce their water rights.

Oregon is not the only state that has this type of water rights conflicts. Its my understanding that the State of Washington uses "appropriative water rights" as well and its property owners often get into conflict with who can use the water and what kind of changes can be made to the property near the water sources.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Keef]

Have you ever considered the idea that some laws may be wrong and should be changed? You don't get them changed by abiding without protest.

 

[GTsail]

Have you ever considered the idea that some laws may be wrong and should be changed?

Yeah, I usually try to consider the impact of a law and whether it still makes sense to be enforced (not that I personally have much say in the matter).

Some laws are easier to evaluate than others (I'm thinking of the "Blue laws" --- no shopping on Sundays, for example).

Oregon's water laws have 150 years of in-place history and case law that makes them very hard to over-turn.

If Oregon decided to change the law, what would they change it to?

What about the in-place water rights that this might trample?

For example, in my Perrier/Harrington Beverages example. Would the new law take away HB's rights to the 1 million gallons of water in the BBW that they thought they had purchased and securred 100 years ago? I know you're not recommending that the Federal Government should come in and apportion the water rights however the Federal Government sees fit! HA!

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Keef]

Why would Oregon have to change it to anything else? Why can't they simply remove the law?

I also don't understand why your hypothetical questions the law as it would apply to a private company because that's not the issue at hand. The issue here is the government claim of the resource, and the institution of government is fundamentally different than the idea of private property.

But I'll give it a shot. Let's assume that the company claimed the watershed under the old law. Under the new law, or lack of it, they would not retain those rights unless they contracted an appropriate agreement with every land owner on whose land this water might exist. There's a clear difference between claiming a resource and offering fair compensation for it. One is In this case a clear violation of private property rights while the other is not.

 

[GTsail]

Why does Oregon have "first appropriation" water rights?

Because water is scarce in major portions of the State, and because early settlers in Oregon decided that this was the best method of apportioning a scarce resource between its citizens.

A simple take on this.....

The first settler arrives in Oregon, finds and buys a nice piece of property on a stream in a valley with a great view of Mt Hood.

Nature is communed with.....

A second settler arrives, and she also likes the view of Mt Hood, so she buys a piece of property just up-river from the first settler.

Nature is communed with.....

After a few years, the 2nd settler decides to plant some crops, so she diverts the entire stream into her fields for crop irrigation.

The first settler is none to pleased with this situation, since he no longer has any water flowing past his property for his own use.

Words are exchanged to no avail, so the 1st settler buys another piece of property, just up-river from the 2nd settler and peace is restored to the Hood Valley again.

The first settler, worried about the future, (and that a third settler might arrive and buy another piece of property just up-river from his new home), petitions the State of Oregon for a permanent solution to this problem.

The State of Oregon decides that "first appropriation" of water rights is the way to go. Ie, the first person to buy some property in Oregon is granted the rights to the same amount of water that flows across their property naturally (or they use for crops/irrigation/drinking/whatever). This water right is to be maintained/granted indefinitely. Subsequent settlers, are granted the right to water only after the 1st settler has received their original share/volume (as long as the natural water source can deliver the water).

So here we are, 100 years later.

Edited for some additional info:

Its not entirely fair of me to blame Oregon for dreaming up this "prior appropriation" method of determining their water rights. Its my understanding that they were just following the Colorado Doctrine. See link: Wikipedia on Colorado Doctrine

The Colorado Doctrine comes from two court cases that were instrumental in pushing the Western States to adopt "prior appropriation" as their water rights methology.

The first Colorado case was Yunker v Nichols in 1872, and the second Colorado case was Coffin v Left Hand Ditch Co in 1882.

Here's a link to the Left Hand Ditch case: Ditch Project case

There were even some dams involved!! Nice!

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

Anyone else thirsty?

 

[GTsail]

....The issue here is the government claim of the resource, and the institution of government is fundamentally different than the idea of private property.

It does not matter that Medford is a town. Oregon water laws would come to the same conclusion if Medford was Medford Beverages and they had the claim to the Big Butte Watershed, and Harrington started building reservoirs on his property.

.....Let's assume that the company claimed the watershed under the old law. Under the new law, or lack of it, they would not retain those rights unless they contracted an appropriate agreement with every land owner on whose land this water might exist. There's a clear difference between claiming a resource and offering fair compensation for it. One is In this case a clear violation of private property rights while the other is not.

Ok, this is the Perrier example. Lets assume that rain falls equally across the entire Big Butte watershed.

Under current Oregon law:
-------------------------
Harrington Beverages has the right to 1 million gallons of water from the BB watershed (the Town of Medford uses whatever remains which is usually another 1 million gallons).

In year 2012, there is a bit of a water drought, and only 1.8 millions gallons of rain fall into the BB watershed. Harrington Beverages claims 1 million gallons for their use, and the Town of Medford gets the remaining 800,000 gallons. If the town wants more, they need to buy it from Harrington Beverages (perhaps Harrington Beverages will sell it to them since they would make the same profit either way), or from somewhere else. Everyone is generally satisfied, though the Town of Medford is buying water, but this it due to a natural drought, and is not due to the actions of some other property owner, and the Town knew that this could happen because they have the secondary right to the water in the BB watershed.

On December 31, 2012 Oregon revokes all water rights.

Situation under no law:
----------------------
In the year 2013, there continues to be a drought, and only 1.8 million gallons of water fall into the BB watershed (Harrington Beverages owns 50,000 acres of the watershed, so half of the rain (900,000 gallons) falls on their property, and half of the rain falls on the Town's property. So Harrington Beverages can only bottle 900,000 gallons in 2013.

If Harrington Beverages wants another 100,000 gallons for its bottling plant, it must purchase this from the Town of Medford (or from another source altogether).

The Town of Medford is unlikely to sell any water whatsoever, since they are already short 100,000 gallons themselves.

So Harrington Beverages no longer has its 1 million gallon water source that it thought it paid for when it purchased its share of the BB watershed back in 1898 (or whenever), so its beverage sales suffer.

Do you think that the Harrington Beverage business has been harmed when Oregon revoked the water laws?

This situation could be even worse for HB if the rain doesn't fall evenly across the entire BB watershed, but happens to fall somewhat more on the Town's property.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[FoolKiller]

Oregon's water rights apply to everyone, whether Government entities or private property owners. Most Oregon real estate contracts have a clause that says: "This agreement shall be construed, applied and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon", so anyone purchasing Oregon real estate, by signing these real estate contracts, is agreeing to be subject to Oregon's water rights laws.

So, you left a detail out of your example, making it purely a private contract issue, and that makes me wrong for pointing it out how?

However, the problem arose when Harrington decided to expand the number of reservoirs, so maybe the Town felt that too much water was being impounded (or maybe they worried about the potential of a dam break and down-stream flooding). And since, as we both agree, the Town of Medford has the "right" under current Oregon law, to slow down this reservoir expansion, the Town decided to strictly enforce their water rights.

So instead of just denying the new permit they decided to be utter asshats and revoke his current permits? You are defending that?

Oregon is not the only state that has this type of water rights conflicts. Its my understanding that the State of Washington uses "appropriative water rights" as well and its property owners often get into conflict with who can use the water and what kind of changes can be made to the property near the water sources.

Well, if Washington State does it too...It's still not just. I don't even get your point here. "But they do it too" doesn't work for five year olds, it sure as hell doesn't work for government.

Some laws are easier to evaluate than others (I'm thinking of the "Blue laws" --- no shopping on Sundays, for example).

That's a law? I thought our alcohol restrictions on Sundays were bad.

Oregon's water laws have 150 years of in-place history and case law that makes them very hard to over-turn.

And? Slavery had over 100 years. Is this case law cases where someone was fined for violating the law and the court is restrained to rule on the violation within the construct of the law? Or were they direct lawsuits against the state challenging the law?

Here is how hard overturning a law is. 70 years ago Kentucky made it illegal to sell packaged liquor (basically anything stronger than beer) illegal to sell in standard grocery or convenience stores where food is primarily sold. Pharmacies were given an exemption as grocery was not their primary business. This protected pharmacies with attached convenient stores, often the primary grocery in a small town, from the growing trend of food-only stores. That law has been upheld through history and case law (where stores were charged with violating the law). But last year a grocery store and a coalition joined together and filed a legal challenge against the law. Two days ago that law was ruled to be unjust.

See how easy?

What will make the Oregon law hard to over turn is that it gives Oregon the right to all water in the state.

If Oregon decided to change the law, what would they change it to?

<Looks around the country> No clue.

What about the in-place water rights that this might trample?

You mean the legal rights trampling on property rights?



Sorry, I just had this flashback to the second half of Gone With the Wind. You know, just after the war when Scarlett was struggling because no one was there to take her orders and do things for her.

Anyway, back on topic. Medford would have to suck it up and deal. You know, like they did before 2003, when Harrington did the right thing.

But if we should feel sorry for people having the law changing their situation then we need to look back at how the reservoirs got ignored for 30+ years. This is the part where we both fully regret that you paraphrased the law instead of linking and quoting it.

Harrington's reservoirs were legal under the Oregon Water Act rules put in place in 1909 (when Oregon claimed all water in Oregon as owned by Oregon) in ORS 537.110. Why does Oregon have "first appropriation" water rights?[/quote]
Because they said they did in 1909. I already quoted the statute.

Because water is scarce in major portions of the State, and because early settlers in Oregon decided that this was the best method of apportioning a scarce resource between its citizens.

Well, Oregon can't be wrong, can they? But I get what you are saying. I've been disagreeing with the FCC over the exact same issue with airwaves since I got my telecommunications degree.

The first settler, worried about the future, (and that a third settler might arrive and buy another piece of property just up-river from his new home), petitions the State of Oregon for a permanent solution to this problem.

Ah, I see he grew up in this anti-bullying, let the government solve everything, I can't handle my own decisions generation. So, Oregon is what my daughter has to look forward to.

The State of Oregon decides that "first appropriation" of water rights is the way to go. Ie, the first person to buy some property in Oregon is granted the rights to the same amount of water that flows across their property naturally (or they use for crops/irrigation/drinking/whatever). This water right is to be maintained/granted indefinitely. Subsequent settlers, are granted the right to water only after the 1st settler has received their original share/volume (as long as the natural water source can deliver the water).

You missed the bit where Oregon claimed the water as theirs. Then they whispered to the settler, "But if you fill out the first permit application to be granted on that stream you have all the rights. It will only cost you $700 + $250 per cubic foot per second of flow + $400-$900 for permit recording. And if you actually store any of that water that is an additional $25 per acre-foot."
[url="http://cms.oregon.gov/owrd/pubs/docs/forms/fee_schedule_4_2012.pdf]Oregon Fees[/url]

Um, I think I want to change my answer for why Oregon has first appropriation water rights. I think I found the real answer.

$1100 minimum fee, plus flow rate fees, to use a stream on land I already own? Funk that. Farmer John can have it. I'll put an aquarium by my window.

[quote]So here we are, 100 years later.[/quote]
It's sad really.

[QUOTE="GTsail290"]In the year 2013, there continues to be a drought, and only 1.8 million gallons of water fall into the BB watershed (Harrington Beverages owns 50,000 acres of the watershed, so half of the rain (900,000 gallons) falls on their property, and half of the rain falls on the Town's property. So Harrington Beverages can only bottle 900,000 gallons in 2013.[/quote]
No. The sale of the land was contingent on Harrington getting...one...meellion...gallons, muahahahahah! (it's late)

But let's pretend they didn't make it based upon that contingency and Harrington is only using the million because they can under law and are allowing Medford the other million out of sheer politeness. Continue.

Do you think that the Harrington Beverage business has been harmed when Oregon revoked the water laws?

Rhett... if you go, where shall I go, what shall I do?

Sorry, I was thinking of Gone With the Wind again.
Yes, Harrington Beverages, in this newly revised scenario, is justly having their business harmed. Justly. It is called risk.

This situation could be even worse for HB if the rain doesn't fall evenly across the entire BB watershed, but happens to fall somewhat more on the Town's property.

<Looks at central US continent.>

And? Business has risks. If you are a business making money off unjust laws (I'm looking at you, eh, most of America) and that law is fixed it is your own fault.

Hey, let's go back in this thread and look at where I'm pissed because food prices are rising due to regulations forcing 40% of our grain crop to be sold for ethanol use and neither Obama or the EPA will put a one year hold on the regulation that I think shouldn't exist at all, even though there are probably some ethanol producing jobs out there.

Anyone else thirsty?

No. I am allowed to use a water barrel to water my garden without paying a fee of $725 for the right. So, I can drink all I want without my privately owned water company having a hissy fit over excessive usage.

Side note: It rained last night so my $45 water barrel is full again.




In other America news:

I woke up to these headlines first thing today:

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/health/world-smoking-study/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29"]Global Tobacco Study Calls for Policy Change
Global smoking pattern is 'alarming', says study

Did they run out of foods to regulate? Or maybe now that they have securely found they can do that the outright bans are coming, and how better to approach it, than the same way as before. I mean when you start making claims in the billions on possible deaths you could get water banned.

Or maybe they pushed too far and are getting called on it.
Activists to take on Capitol Hill: Lay off our milk, lemonade
I mean, clearly people don't want you attacking their kids for selling unregistered, unlicensed, unpermited, and potentially deadly lemonade. So maybe we should save the children again.

Attacking them didn't go over well. Who knew?

But, I cannot hate America completely when I read stories like this.
Russian punk band found guilty of &lsquo;hooliganism,&rsquo; given two-year jail sentence
Two-years for what seems to be the Russian equivalent of disturbing the peace. And for what would have likely been deemed a free speech protest in the US with all charges dropped.

God bless the USA, even if she does have a lot of ugly spots.j

 

[hawkeye122]

Are we still on the Water thing? Oregon isn't really useful. It is to California as Canada is to America- More or less, a joke.

 

[GTsail]

.....Emergency fire-fighting uses, which is the claim Harrington made and local fire officials agreed with.

Yeah, I see that Harrington has made this part of his argument. I doubt that this was the reason that Harrington wanted to increase the size of the 3rd reservoir, but it could have been a way for the Town to have reached an agreeable settlement with him. They could say that xxxx gallons would be useful for fire-fighting purposes and therefore allow a certain sized reservoir. If a few of his stocked fish get dumped on the next forest fire, well thats just the risk that they'll have to take

Are we still on the Water thing? Oregon isn't really useful. It is to California as Canada is to America- More or less, a joke.

I take your comments and since I've already (at some length) explained my thoughts, I'm happy to end my monopolization of the thread.


Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[FoolKiller]

I'd say we are locked in a "government should/shouldn't do this, because government" disagreement.

But if I may draw attention to another story regarding water and permits from a very, very different area of the country:

You need a permit to hand out water in 112 degree heat in Phoenix.

PHOENIX - The City of Phoenix could face a lawsuit if the city doesn&rsquo;t apologize to a Valley woman for telling her she could not hand out free bottled water to people in the summer heat.

Dana Crow-Smith said a City of Phoenix worker came up to her during the First Friday festival in downtown Phoenix last month and told her she was violating city code by handing out free water because she did not have a permit.

Crow-Smith and a group of others were there exercising their Christian beliefs by engaging people to talk about religion if they wanted.

The group brought several cases of bottled water to give away in the 112-degree heat, but said a Neighborhood Preservation Inspector told the group they had to stop handing out the water or would be cited.

&ldquo;It was really hot and yeah we wanted to show God's love and a small act of kindness is a great way to do that without shoving it down someone's throat,&rdquo; said Crow-Smith.

The Rutherford Institute , a non-profit civil liberties organization, stepped in to represent Crow-Smith and calls this is &ldquo;a violation of Crow-Smith's First Amendment right to freely exercise her religion, her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, as well as Arizona's Free Exercise of Religion Act.&rdquo;
"It is a sad day when local government officials prohibit Americans from such charitable acts as giving water to the thirsty in their city," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.

In a letter to the city , Whitehead demanded the City issue a formal, written apology to Crow-Smith, assure her no City officials will interfere in future with her distribution of water, and require City workers go through training on the proper enforcement of the City&rsquo;s code.

If not, a lawsuit could follow.

A city spokesperson was working on a statement but did not have one ready by the end of the business day Monday.

But Crow-Smith said she hopes to avoid a lawsuit and just wants to be able to hand out water.

&ldquo;But I don't think it's even about religious beliefs. I think anybody should be able to giveaway water on the sidewalk to anybody. It's hot and it's a nice thing to do,&rdquo; said Crow-Smith.

Neighborhood Preservation Inspector - sounded a bit like a stooge with too much power. I had to Google it, which led me to this site: http://phoenix.gov/nsd/programs/compliance/index.html

It is the Neighborhood Services Department's neighborhood code compliance page, otherwise known as where you go to make your neighbor's life hell by reporting him because he didn't mow this week or, God forbid, they put a sign up on the corner so people could find their garage sale.

My favorite part is that every page has a way to report a violation. And if you are really a nosey old hag of a neighbor, there's an app for that.

Anyway, I'm just establishing the environment Phoenix works in, one where they have no crime or unemployment apparently, and they encourage you to be the crabby old neighbor watching everyone with binoculars.

Back to the illegality of handing out water bottles. This page also has their response.
http://phoenix.gov/webcms/groups/in...preservation/documents/web_content/085513.pdf

First Friday Mobile Vending Issue Fact Sheet

Staff from the city&rsquo;s Neighborhood Services Department Preservation Division regularly attends First Friday events at the request of local, small businesses whose livelihood depends on community events, such as First Friday.

On Friday, July 6, 2012, staff came into contact with Ms. Dana Crow-Smith who was distributing religious materials and free water from a cooler on private property located at 919 N. First St. At no time did the city attempt to limit in any way Ms. Crow-Smith&rsquo;s communication of religious beliefs. Staff explained that water or food could not be given away unless they had a mobile vending license, which other vendors at the event have obtained.
According to Phoenix city code, a mobile vending operation means peddling, vending, selling, serving, displaying, offering for sale or giving away goods, wares or merchandise or food from either a mobile vending unit or a mobile food vending unit located on private property.

Ms. Crow-Smith debated with staff, stating that it was extremely hot outside and she could not deny anyone water. Staff did point out the nearby locations that allowed for the use with a permit. Ms. Crow-Smith indicated that she would stop giving out water.

City staff did not arrest or cite Ms. Crow-Smith, as it is standard practice to first educate residents to comply with the city code.

Later in the evening, staff observed that Ms. Crow-Smith was distributing free water from her cooler located partially on the sidewalk and on private property.

The city encourages Ms. Crow-Smith to fully and safely exercise her constitutional rights within the confines of the public sidewalk &ndash; a public forum. Distributing free water within the public sidewalk is allowed under the city&rsquo;s sidewalk vending ordinance.

Phoenix&rsquo;s city code exists to protect the safety and welfare of all residents. The city will continue to attend First Friday events to ensure attendees and vendors are in compliance to make for a safe environment.

I'm not sure about this sidewalk vs private property issue, as I'm unfamiliar with the city and if it required them moving locations. I bet they could have told her she needs to be on the sidewalk and been fine with it and avoided this whole thing. Of course, how an obstacle like a cooler blocking a walkway is "protecting the safety and welfare of all residents" is beyond me.

What is apparent is that this is a rule designed to protect legitimate businesses from unwanted competition. The recent kids' lemonade stand and hot dog cart controversies I mentioned in this thread stemmed from the same misguided protectionism. Protecting a business from competition does not help your town.

But the law is the law and this woman broke it. Yeah, I get that. She should have gotten a permit, as required by law.

10-162 Application fee; license fee; duration; renewal.

A. All applicants shall pay a nonrefundable application fee of three hundred fifty dollars.

B. A license fee of thirty dollars per calendar year shall be charged for a mobile vendor or mobile food vendor license.

C. All license fees provided for herein shall be prorated to the nearest month, provided that the minimum license fee shall be ten dollars.

D. Any license issued pursuant to this Article shall, unless otherwise provided for herein, expire and become null and void at the end of the calendar year in which the license is issued.

E. The annual renewal of any license provided for in this Article shall be made by payment of the appropriate fee as set forth in this section within thirty calendar days prior to the expiration of the license.

F. In addition to the fee required by Subsection A, the applicant shall pay the City Clerk the fee established by the Director of the Arizona Department of Public Safety for the processing of state noncriminal justice fingerprints. this fee shall be paid for each person, after the first, required to submit fingerprints pursuant to Section 10-163(A).

See, it only requires $360, minimum. That's a small price to pay to hand out free water at a public event.

But what is that section F on about with fingerprints and referring to 10-163(A)?

A. An applicant for a license shall file in person at the office of the City Clerk an application form as prescribed and provided by the City Clerk. The application form shall require the following information:

1. The full true name and any other names used in the preceding five years.

2. Current residence and telephone number.

3. Residence addresses for the previous three years and dates at each.

4. Mailing address for receipt of City notices.

5. Place and date of birth.

6. Height, weight, and color of hair and eyes.

7. Valid proof of age in the form of a current driver&rsquo;s license with picture, or other valid current identification document with photo issued by a governmental agency.

8. Driver&rsquo;s license number, if any.

9. The full true name, residence address, home telephone number, and driver&rsquo;s license number, if any, of the designated agent.

10. The full true name, residence address, home telephone number, and driver&rsquo;s license number, if any, of the manager.

11. The property address or Maricopa County parcel number of the site where the mobile vending unit will be located, the full true name of the property owner of the site, [and] the property owner&rsquo;s mailing address and telephone number.

12. A true and complete copy of the Maricopa County Department of Environmental Services permit required for a mobile vending operation if food items are to be sold.

13. Proof of authority to occupy the site for a mobile vending operation on the date of application, in two forms:

(a) A deed showing that the applicant is the owner of the site, or a copy of the current lease or notarized permission form from the property owner or agent for the location covered by the license showing that the applicant has been given permission to occupy the site for a mobile vending operation.

(b) Proof of the length of time the applicant has occupied the site listed on the current lease or notarized permission form.

14. The previous name and location of the mobile vending operation, if any.

15. The former owner of the mobile vending operation, if any.

16. The name under which the mobile vendor or mobile food vendor will be doing business.

17. A brief description of the nature of the mobile vending operation and the items to be sold, including whether the applicant will be selling food products.

18. A description of all vehicles to be used in the mobile vending operation, including the Arizona license plate number(s) and a true and complete copy of the current Arizona vehicle registration(s).

19. All felony and misdemeanor convictions of the applicant for the previous five years.

20. All notices or citations to the applicant for a violation of this Article for the previous five years.

21. All notices or citations to the applicant for a violation of the Zoning Ordinance for the previous five years.

22. Whether the applicant has ever had a mobile vendor license revoked or suspended, including the date and issuing authority for the suspension or revocation.

23. One complete set of fingerprints taken by a law enforcement agency.

24. Two identical, portrait, passport-quality photographs of the applicant, approximately two inches by two inches in size, taken within the preceding month.

25. The number of the privilege license issued to the applicant pursuant to chapter 14 of this Code, if a privilege license is required by this Code.

26. A plot plan showing compliance with all Zoning Ordinance requirements for mobile vendors, and with any distance requirements of this Article.

Good thing they don't ask for much. I'm surprised a DNA swab and body cavity check aren't required.


Side note: I have broken nearly half of their neighborhood ordinance laws while acting legally in Kentucky. But then, Kentucky has a law allowing you to sell any agriculture you produce yourself from the street side of your property. No inspections, no permits, no BS (unless it is for manure-based fertilizer). Around here you see signs to get everything from fresh tomatoes, beef, and milk to simple services like a haircut. Firewood? Guys have that. Fill dirt? Available for free from every home construction site. Garage sale? Hang the sign off the "Welcome to" sign at the city limits, and every stop sign or street sign between there and your home. You can even put balloons on it if you like.

Maybe I'll move to Phoenix. With this kind of time on their hands the crime rates must be near zero, the schools pure genius factories, and traffic never gets jammed.

 

[Sam48]

Since the Chemtrails thread was locked, I suppose this should be posted here given that it's an American issue (Or an American documentary). Maybe it would be better off in the Global Warming thread, but it's not really related to that either. Move if you wish.

Anyway, I'm not sure what I think about it, but it's quite interesting if you happen to have some time on your hands.

 

[hawkeye122]

Weather control? Then why is there more than 70,000 acres burned by my house?

 

[FoolKiller]

I had to turn it off after ten minutes. First, the director has himself being interviewed as a witness, but his title is even shown as filmmaker. Then his experts begin referring to their soil sample studies. They found chemicals in soil samples, thus it must be chemtrail spraying. No, you cannot claim that until you rule out all other possibilities. That is how science works. Then showing a known conspiracy site as your reference to stories about your "proof" doesn't help. If that is all it takes then Obama is Kenyan, 9/11 was an inside job, and the healthcare law really does have literal death panels.

And before someone tries to point out the experts are scientists; junk science comes from bad research.

 

[Keef]

"Even though they don't want to admit it, they depend on the United States of America to lead and to bring moral purpose to the globe."



@ 9:30

**** yeah.

 

[Keef]

While the Brits are busy talking about the pretty flowers in their gardens, in this thread we'll talk about how Texas is standing up to the UN who is wanting to "monitor" elections this November.

 

[Dennisch]

I believe it was a bit of a misunderstanding..

Then again, maybe not..

The US is part of the OSCE, so they will have to accept them.

I can't understand why Texas is being such a cry baby. The observers will do nothing but observe, like they do in every other election.