Nanny State Alert: Man goes to jail for drinking rain water

posted at 10:41 am on August 10, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

You just can’t make this stuff up. A man in Oregon is currently in jail serving a thirty day term – along with a $1500 fine – for collecting rainwater and snow melt on his own property for drinking and household use. You think I’m kidding? I’m not.

Gary Harrington, the Oregon man convicted of collecting rainwater and snow runoff on his rural property surrendered Wednesday morning to begin serving his 30-day, jail sentence in Medford, Ore.

“I’m sacrificing my liberty so we can stand up as a country and stand for our liberty,” Harrington told a small crowd of people gathered outside of the Jackson County (Ore.) Jail.

Harrington was found guilty two weeks ago of breaking a 1925 law for having, what state water managers called “three illegal reservoirs” on his property. He was convicted of nine misdemeanors, sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined over $1500 for collecting rainwater and snow runoff on his property.

There’s simply not much more to say about this one. Let this be a lesson to everyone about keeping an eye on who you elect to public office and the policies they put in place once they are there. The law in question here may date back nearly a century, but it certainly could have have been taken off the books long before now if the political will existed to do so. The fact that it’s still being enforced demonstrates that it isn’t some ancient anomaly hanging around as a joke. And given the current, regulation heavy environment in Washington, seeing such laws passed in other places isn’t quite so far fetched as you may think.

Still, Mr. Harrington’s story caught me off guard. This one simply defies reason.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

SWalker on August 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Thank you, SWalker. That was very useful. It highlights the fact that Mr Harrington was in compliance with the law as he understood it, based on the advice of government officials, and that the jury was never given the specifics on that. To convict him, the state agency had to assume interpretations of law that had never been held before. The juty was apparently not given an opportunity to hear the history of longstanding interpretations.

This IS a big deal, and it appears that Harrington has an excellent basis for appeal.

The fact that government is ruling on something it has ruled on before doesn’t mean that the latest ruling is basede on a valid interpretation of the law.

This is a very dangerous area, because plenty of people will assume that since government has regulated X for a long time, any new developments with the regulation of X must be proper. Leftist big-government types rely on that sense to extend their span of control through the regulatory agencies (and now and then, faulty decisions in court).

Every American is who is suspicious and concerned about the incrementally new actions of regulatory agencies is doing a great service to his country. Merely accepting new regulatory interpretations, on the theory that we have chartered government to regulate X anyway, is the behavior of sheep.

J.E. Dyer on August 10, 2012 at 2:21 PM

SWalker on August 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM

1. A jury of his peers rejected that legal argument and convicted him.
2. Is there a reason that you needed to post a full 12 page legal brief rather than a link to it?

AngusMc on August 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Whats next, a ban on collecting F@$@ING sun-light? State and local government has and has had way too much authority. This nonsense has to stop.

TX-96 on August 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM

1. A jury of his peers rejected that legal argument and convicted him.
2. Is there a reason that you needed to post a full 12 page legal brief rather than a link to it?

AngusMc on August 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Apparently you missed the part were some pertinent evidence was excluded and the jury wasn’t able to see. BTW: Still waiting for you to correct some grammar errors on the 2nd page. After all, you have taken on the responsibility and it is an important job!

Conservative4Ever on August 10, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Which isn’t the case here.

Conservative4Ever on August 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Yes and no.
Noting the other posts on this thread, it is apparently not entirely clearcut as to exactly what relly happened in this case.
There are a lot of conflicting reports and opinions about this one.

dentarthurdent on August 10, 2012 at 2:32 PM

I don’t know if he got screwed or not but the government sure didn’t mind helping themselves when needed. Very confusing issue.

[Cindy Munford on August 10, 2012 at 1:13 PM]

What you need to keep in mind, Cindy, is that the term government is not appropriate as you use it here. There are likely several different governments, and, wrt to the fire departments maybe others, different agencies associated with this case. The fire departments might not even be government agencies.

And despite of the Federal government’s effort to enforce some federal laws and, as a result, creating SEQRA to coordinate these efforts, which in turn helped to create a standard for various departments and agencies at various levels of government to coordinate on their interests, a lot of the time it just doesn’t happen. And the more rural you get the more it doesn’t happen. That’s not a slap at rural government. Often the larger agencies ignore the rural notices often for the similar reasons rural don’t send the notices — among them, thinking it’s not needed in this particular case, or that the issue is not significant.

Aside from all that, though, yeah, Harrington probably got screwed.

Dusty on August 10, 2012 at 2:32 PM

AngusMc on August 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM

It is people like you who scare me. Your beliefs allow tyranny to grow into a fascist state. I won’t even touch your grammar corrections that meld into your other beliefs of Statist governments.

Conservative4Ever on August 10, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Yes and no.
Noting the other posts on this thread, it is apparently not entirely clearcut as to exactly what relly happened in this case.
There are a lot of conflicting reports and opinions about this one.

dentarthurdent on August 10, 2012 at 2:32 PM

It is clear cut that it was “diffused water” He also had permits that stated so. You want to ignore that part because you think government can do no wrong. You scare me also.

Conservative4Ever on August 10, 2012 at 2:35 PM

SWalker on August 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Gary’s lawyer is doing exactly what he must, muddy the waters to create public outrage. This case is exactly where it belongs, in the state courts. You didn’t need to paste the whole thing. Most of us know how to click a link. All you did was demonstrate that Gary’s lawyer is using a shotgun approach to his defense. Good for him. Gary is still gettin’ his 3 hots and a cot from Andy and Aunt Bee for opening the West Nile Amusement Park without a permit. No doubt he’ll go right back to it after he’s released. He just better hope that by that time one of his neighbors doesn’t claim that “discernible injury” or his lawyer will have to start all over.

Leonard210 on August 10, 2012 at 2:35 PM

It is people like you who scare me. Your beliefs allow tyranny to grow into a fascist state. I won’t even touch your grammar corrections that meld into your other beliefs of Statist governments.

Conservative4Ever on August 10, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Trial by jury is fascism. Got it. Your tinfoil is peeling up at one corner.

AngusMc on August 10, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Trial by jury grammar corrections is fascism. Got it.

AngusMc on August 10, 2012 at 2:37 PM

FIFY

Conservative4Ever on August 10, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Trial by jury grammar corrections is fascism. Got it.

AngusMc on August 10, 2012 at 2:37 PM

FIFY

Conservative4Ever on August 10, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Lol, that the best you can dish out little boy?
If someone calls me an “idiot” and at the same time misspells their attack, then, yes I find that pretty damn funny.

AngusMc on August 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Lol, that the best you can dish out little boy?
AngusMc on August 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Boy? Who you calling boy? Even my boy isn’t a boy anymore. He’s been a man for awhile now. Unlike you. Only “idiots” go around and correct others grammar on a blog.

Conservative4Ever on August 10, 2012 at 2:46 PM

It is people like you who scare me. Your beliefs allow tyranny to grow into a fascist state. I won’t even touch your grammar corrections that meld into your other beliefs of Statist governments.

Conservative4Ever on August 10, 2012 at 2:34 PM

There you go. We have a winner! It was indeed the “domino effect” that was supposed to outrage us in this article. Gary’s West Nile Water Park ‘N’ Fishin’ Extravaganza leads directly to brown shirts and death squads. If they can take away Gary’s water, they can take away your little baby.

Lol, that the best you can dish out little boy?
If someone calls me an “idiot” and at the same time misspells their attack, then, yes I find that pretty damn funny.

AngusMc on August 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM

How dare you sir. Don’t you realize that this is hugh and series.

Leonard210 on August 10, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Boy? Who you calling boy?

Conservative4Ever on August 10, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Excuse the confusion. If you are really a grown-up, try acting like one.

AngusMc on August 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Excuse the confusion. If you are really a grown-up, try acting like one.

AngusMc on August 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Using your standards of what a man is….no thanks. I don’t wear skirts.

Conservative4Ever on August 10, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Only “idiots” go around and correct others grammar on a blog.

Did AngusMc start that? Well then yes, Conservative4Ever, you are right. AngusMc, you’re an idiot for correcting grandma on a blog. You may be right about Gary, but you don’t get points for policing usage.

Leonard210 on August 10, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Did AngusMc start that? Well then yes, Conservative4Ever, you are right. AngusMc, you’re an idiot for correcting grandma on a blog. You may be right about Gary, but you don’t get points for policing usage.

Leonard210 on August 10, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Earlier in the thread someone wrote “Your an idiot.” I responded that, when calling someone an idiot, that person should first know the difference between “your” and “you’re” and that they should look up “irony” in the dictionary. Context, context, context.

AngusMc on August 10, 2012 at 3:03 PM

AngusMc on August 10, 2012 at 3:03 PM

You seem hurt, when another calls you an “idiot” then you turn around and call another “little boy?” That in context seems you enjoy name calling but cry when one calls you a name. You want me to grow up?

Conservative4Ever on August 10, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Using your standards of what a man is….no thanks. I don’t wear skirts.

Conservative4Ever on August 10, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Ain’t nothing wrong with wearin’ a kilt. The Captain and his crew gotta breathe.

AngusMc on August 10, 2012 at 3:08 PM

You seem hurt, when another calls you an “idiot” then you turn around and call another “little boy?”

Conservative4Ever on August 10, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Quite the contrary. I find it highly amusing.

AngusMc on August 10, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Ain’t nothing wrong with wearin’ a kilt. The Captain and his crew gotta breathe.

AngusMc on August 10, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Ok this made me laugh. The Irish in me says I’d rather go nude to let them breath and laugh at those Scottish boys covering up in shame of their “Captain and his crew.”

Conservative4Ever on August 10, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Quite the contrary. I find it highly amusing.

AngusMc on August 10, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Of course you find your name calling amusing.

Conservative4Ever on August 10, 2012 at 3:14 PM

SWalker on August 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM

LOL! Linky? ; )

Bmore on August 10, 2012 at 3:16 PM

J.E. Dyer on August 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM

They could wear a helmet!

Cindy Munford on August 10, 2012 at 1:53 PM

And some of those little rubber things they keep insisting we take for free.

Bmore on August 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Context, context, context.

AngusMc on August 10, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Sorry. I should have stayed out of it. Damn you fingers! :-)

Leonard210 on August 10, 2012 at 3:26 PM

How far away can we be from being charged a water use fee when it rains?

BobMbx on August 10, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Already happened in Colorado Springs – they tried a few years to hit us with a “stormwater drainage fee” that was based on the square footage of your property. Determined in court to be an illegal tax, so it was removed.

dentarthurdent on August 10, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Current law in Houston, TX as of July 2011. We are assessed either $0.026 or $0.034 per sf of “impervious cover” depending on whether you have open ditches or storm sewers in front of your house. They are trying to collect $400 million/year to cover unsold bonds that were peddled to get the spent pension fund caught up.

I will say if we can’t bounce this liberal lesbian mermaid from office I’ll be heading out to the ‘burbs. Anybody looking to move here better beware that it is becoming another Austin as far as city administration. Almost 100% moonbat.

DanMan on August 10, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Several articles state that he’s diverting water from channels that cross his land. Unless they originate and terminate on his land, that water which feeds the streams, creeks and rivers, didn’t all originate on his land and he doesn’t have a legal claim to it just because it crosses his land.

I know this is confusing to many people who don’t live in the west but screwing with the natural flow of water, even in the form of rain and snowmelt is a big no-no. In New Mexico, it can result in physical harm.

Wendya on August 10, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Actually Oregon struck a major blow against deeded water rights about 10 years ago. They got a court decision to quit allowing water to go to a number of ranchers and farmers who had deeded water rights going back to the mid 1800′s. California then followed Oregon’s lead in it’s Snail Darter suit.

chemman on August 10, 2012 at 12:34 PM

If you mean what they’ve done to the Klamath ranchers, yeah that was insane. They had national park cops armed guarding the water pipes if I recall correctly.

http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/aboutus/about%20us.htm

Given how bad the fire season is down there this summer, if they drain Harrington’s ponds, its the height of stupidity for that alone.

I have no love for the state water people or those officals in Jackson county. Like all bureaucrats and politicians they care about only the power they have and those who can influence them. My folks down there, not far from Eagle Point had to sue and raise holy hell with the county and the state to get them to actually do their jobs for water rights and safety (and got mostly no where leading to lawsuit against the developer and a lying real estate agent). That was for just a private well system for a subdivision that was not set up correctly. The original developer however, was an old fart who had pull with local government.

oryguncon on August 10, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Several articles state that he’s diverting water from channels that cross his land. Unless they originate and terminate on his land, that water which feeds the streams, creeks and rivers, didn’t all originate on his land and he doesn’t have a legal claim to it just because it crosses his land.

I know this is confusing to many people who don’t live in the west but screwing with the natural flow of water, even in the form of rain and snowmelt is a big no-no. In New Mexico, it can result in physical harm.

Wendya on August 10, 2012 at 3:32 PM

You scare me also. Looking for articles that support statist government. Try reading the ones that disagree with the governments position. You might see more clearly.

Conservative4Ever on August 10, 2012 at 3:34 PM

You scare me also. Looking for articles that support statist government. Try reading the ones that disagree with the governments position. You might see more clearly.

Conservative4Ever on August 10, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Try living in a semi-arid region where your ability to turn on the tap and get a glass of water depends on enforcement of water laws.

You really don’t get it.

Wendya on August 10, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Dusty on August 10, 2012 at 2:32 PM

I’d use someone’s swimming pool in an emergency. I’m not taking one side or the other because I just don’t know enough but I’m not going to get annoyed with people either. There is enough history of governmental overreach to make anyone skeptical. Add to the habit of not enforcing existing laws for whatever reason (immigration/votes) and you have real lack of trust with your constituents on all levels.

Cindy Munford on August 10, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Bmore on August 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Yes, I am sure they would be very helpful.

Cindy Munford on August 10, 2012 at 3:41 PM

You really don’t get it.

Wendya on August 10, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Oh I get it. What you are missing is a different viewpoint. But by all means lay down for statist governments. They are always right when you only look at their point of view.

Conservative4Ever on August 10, 2012 at 3:51 PM

This one simply defies reason.

Consider the source.

They are promoting the collection of rainwater here in Indiana to use in gardens, watering the lawn, etc. Maybe ours is cleaner? Nah.

IrishEyes on August 10, 2012 at 3:58 PM

We had a guy, passed now, who insisted that the city/state had no right to impose unreasonable restrictions on the operation of his hotel business and refused to install a fire sprinkler system. He was a “libertarian” cause celebre for a time. He was also an a-hole and a creepy little man who left his hotel vacant until after his death rather than comply.

He made no impact on laws requiring automatic fire suppression systems in hotels.

Gary’s West Nile Swampland Preserve won’t change anything except maybe to make guys like Jazz and Conservative4Ever look like brainless reactionaries.

Leonard210 on August 10, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Try living in a semi-arid region where your ability to turn on the tap and get a glass of water depends on enforcement of water laws.

You really don’t get it.

Wendya on August 10, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Try living on a flood plain in the tropics where we get 50″ of rain annually, design our storm sewers for 2 year storms and intentionally use our roads as reservoirs during heavy events and then being charged for the impact your 60 year old driveway causes to flooding when it sits 6″ below said 100 year flood level.

From what I can see so far I’m siding with the guy fighting the ordinance on this one.

DanMan on August 10, 2012 at 4:06 PM

75 years ago people commonly used a sistern as a source for drinking water. My grandmother died of typhoid drinking water from a sistern. Rat paddled around in the water. Way nasty. It’s pur nanny statism from a time when people died from ignorance. Same thing with vaccinations. You could argue it’s the individuals right to refuse a vaccine, and that’s fine and good until it results in a epidemic. I’m not saying which is right or wrong, just pointing out where some of these laws came from.

pc on August 10, 2012 at 5:10 PM

pc on August 10, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Considering this has nothing to do with strawmen, your point is lost to irrevelancy

Conservative4Ever on August 10, 2012 at 5:20 PM

75 years ago people commonly used a sistern as a source for drinking water. My grandmother died of typhoid drinking water from a sistern. Rat paddled around in the water. Way nasty. It’s pur nanny statism from a time when people died from ignorance. Same thing with vaccinations.

pc on August 10, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Exactly pc, and that’s what I believe some of us are trying to point out. Libertarianism is a temporary philosophy that leaks into Conservatism anytime someone decides they have a right to something regardless how adversely it affects someone else. We elect people to protect us from one another. Always been that way, always will be.

Fail to protect people from idiots, and you move toward fascism and anarchy, not the other way around. As a Federalist, I insist that all this sort of haggling take place at the State level. Why? So we can fire the idiots if they allow it to get “out of hand”. And I define “out of hand” as any group of individuals who allow States rights to be usurped by the Federal government.

If the state has overstepped in this guy’s case, shame on the state. The citizens of Oregon should rise up and throw the bums out. The problem is, for every guy that says, I have a right to build a water park whenever and wherever, there are 100 who would prefer that he not be allowed to create a Waco-style West Nile water park. And since this guy doesn’t give a damn, the citizens, through their elected representatives have appealed.

Leonard210 on August 10, 2012 at 5:37 PM

At what point does water falling on my property belong to someone else?

First lets crank up the scale to make the point. Given an area where all the rain for the year falls from November to May (typical for many areas of the West). Imagine all of the property owners in a county collected all of the rain water that fell on their property. A farmer with 2000 acres collects, lets say, 4000 acre feet if they got 24 inches of rain that year. All the surrounding property owners do the same thing. Now all the wells in all the towns of the county go dry because the water level in the aquifer dropped because no rain water entered the aquifers. The aquifer goes dry. Not only that, it STAYS dry because no rain ever gets into the aquifer. All the towns and associated businesses and jobs die.

crosspatch on August 10, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Oh, and 24 inches a year is a lot of rain for many areas of the west. The central valley of California averages less than 18 inches a year. Compare that to an average 40 inches of rain per year in the Washington DC area. And the central valley gets NO rain, on average, from May until November. The entire summer is blue skies.

crosspatch on August 10, 2012 at 6:01 PM

I don’t think the writers of the law would have considered a bucket on a guy’s backyard to be a reservoir.

SoulGlo on August 10, 2012 at 6:01 PM

If you are trying to grow a crop in 110 degree weather and it hasn’t rained in 3 months, you need that aquifer and the runoff stored in the reservoirs. If everyone caught their rain and snowfall, central California would die.

crosspatch on August 10, 2012 at 6:02 PM

don’t think the writers of the law would have considered a bucket on a guy’s backyard to be a reservoir.

SoulGlo on August 10, 2012 at 6:01 PM

He didn’t have a bucket. And then you start having to split hairs about exactly how much water one is allowed to store.

crosspatch on August 10, 2012 at 6:04 PM

The aquifer goes dry. Not only that, it STAYS dry because no rain ever gets into the aquifer. All the towns and associated businesses and jobs die.

crosspatch on August 10, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Stop it! Stop it! Stop it! This guy (Gary) is a Patriot and the Statist fascists are trying to deprive him of rights that, once surrendered, will mean the death of the Republic and ultimately the death of us all. /sarc

Of course that’s not what’s happening here, but it’s what this article is supposed to elicit in us. It worked on Con4Ever (who I secretly think is Jazz) but I’m pleased to see that many others, as yourself, weren’t taken in.

Leonard210 on August 10, 2012 at 6:07 PM

1. A jury of his peers rejected that legal argument and convicted him.
2. Is there a reason that you needed to post a full 12 page legal brief rather than a link to it?

AngusMc on August 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Apparently you missed the part were some pertinent evidence was excluded and the jury wasn’t able to see. BTW: Still waiting for you to correct some grammar errors on the 2nd page. After all, you have taken on the responsibility and it is an important job!

Conservative4Ever on August 10, 2012 at 2:27 PM

A very important job indeed: http://writeortakeanap.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/correct-punctuation-can-save-a-persons-life.jpg?w=

davidk on August 10, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Living in the West, we’re used to strict water use laws we’ve, had them since statehood. Water is far more scarce here and every drop is accounted for. Rain barrels are illegal, we have a tax on the amount of hard surfaces we have on our properties (they contribute to runoff), and watering restrictions for gardens are common, even in non-drought years.

Farmers and cities downstream count on water and there are complex ownership rights that go along with that. Our water doesn’t appear out of nowhere, it’s mainly from rain and snowmelt so those sources are already claimed.

It may sound an appalling joke to those of you for whom water is always around you, but it’s part of living here in the semi-arid west. Kind of like the book Dune. We don’t have big lakes and rivers, those of you living in the mid-West with rivers like the Missouri and Mississippi would laugh at our South Platte and Arkansas, rivers you can wade across most of the year. We also depend on aquifers that are being quickly depleted of their ancient water because of rapid population growth. As I was growing up, I always knew that I didn’t want to live in certain places, like Arapahoe and Douglas counties, because they didn’t have solid water rights. Cities in those counties like Aurora and Castle Rock have to negotiate with places like Alamosa for water which also makes their water more expensive.

I do find it a bit strange that they have those kind of water rights laws in a much wetter place like Oregon though.

Common Sense on August 10, 2012 at 7:58 PM

I do find it a bit strange that they have those kind of water rights laws in a much wetter place like Oregon though.

Common Sense on August 10, 2012 at 7:58 PM

The eastern two-thirds of Washington and Oregon both have a very dry climate much like Idaho and Nevada, which they border.

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/btv/images/us_pcpn.png

AngusMc on August 10, 2012 at 8:38 PM

5 minutes of googling and 5 more with google maps shows the 3 ponds in question. A topo map check shows that he is in a basin, there is no way for the water to be running anywhere, nor can you see evidence of a stream leading to river and lakes that are miles away. The water would simply spread out in the basin and enter the aquifer if there is one… Which it is going to do from the ponds anyway.

Snowblind on August 11, 2012 at 12:43 AM

5 minutes of googling and 5 more with google maps shows the 3 ponds in question. A topo map check shows that he is in a basin, there is no way for the water to be running anywhere, nor can you see evidence of a stream leading to river and lakes that are miles away. The water would simply spread out in the basin and enter the aquifer if there is one… Which it is going to do from the ponds anyway.

Snowblind on August 11, 2012 at 12:43 AM

Let me see then. 11 years, 3 losses in court and you solved the whole thing with 5 minutes of Googling. You are amazing. Get the States Attorney on the phone. Oh, and make sure you post those results for the defendant. I’m sure he never thought of Google as a defense.

Leonard210 on August 11, 2012 at 1:46 AM

Leonard, that was exactly his defense, the water is rainwater or snowmelt that starts on his property and goes nowhere.

The topographical map backs that story up and the laws quoted seem to allow for what he is doing. The prosecution and sentencing are a miscarriage of justice.

The fact you did not know that was his defense shows you did not Read The Fine Article.

Now go figure where he lives and show me how water escapes off his property and to the river, or how it enters his property from any stream or river and enters his ponds. The ponds are surrounded on all sides by roads, there are no streams entering them.

Don’t worry, I can wait…

Snowblind on August 11, 2012 at 3:22 AM

I’m not sure what the “Fine” article is. I’ve read several accounts and the entire “defense” from his website. You are providing no facts, not even any links to your research or the “Fine” article.

I have no idea how you can mount a defense with a 5 minute Google search. You’d have to assume that no one in Oregon has an aerial map.

If the state is wrong, they should pay for prosecuting this man and false imprisonment. Every member of the water board should lose their jobs, their pensions, and receive a big fine. Scorched earth so no official of the State of Oregon will ever mount this kind of witch hunt again.

If, however, this guy is just a grandstanding nimrod who has done everything he can to thumb his nose at reasonably considered laws for 11 years, then paying $1500 and spending 30 days with Andy & Otis is more than appropriate.

Leonard210 on August 11, 2012 at 10:36 AM

You mean it defies your reason, Jazz. Which I guess translates into laziness concerning research.

However, I am glad to see that your campaign to convince some of the people that the state and it’s laws would be better served by uniformed Google readers is going well.

Observation on August 11, 2012 at 2:37 PM

So if the precipitation belongs to the State and falls as snow, is the State obligated to come and remove it?

Over50 on August 11, 2012 at 11:41 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3