Randi Rhodes Forums

At least in the West, the one thing that trumps property rights is water rights. Couple that with ignorance of the law and and arrogance from the self reliance myth, and you have the perfect storm for contard conPalining about gummint intrusion.

So it is with the conviction this week of Gary Harrington, an Eagle Point Oregon man that detained rain water and snow melt on his property without a permit. It was essentially a local story until it hit the AP wire, and then it became a national one with predictable pontification by conservatives upset by the erosion of their rights as seen through their eyes. The actual findings of the case don't matter.

It should come as no surprise that the comments following the story reposted at numerous sites are the main attraction. The CNSNews is particularly rich with almost 2000 comments. CNSNews is owned by the Media Research Center, a right wing propaganda machine that portrays itself as a counter to the liberal media.

While the case itself is worth discussion, I find it amazing how selective the commentators are in their criticisms proving once again contards are all for law and order as long as it doesn't affect them.

If conservatives are concerned about the commies taking over the government, they should crank up the way-back machine and talk to the citizens of Medford back in 1922. When they got tired of guppies and muddy water running from their faucets, they held an election authorizing the bonds to build an intake and 30 miles of buried pipe. Medford is not exactly the center of progressive thought in Oregon. It is, and historically has been, a conservative area. The economy is very dependent on agriculture and resource extraction. High quality water is a limited shared resource, and it is one thing they tend to rally around. They take water rights very seriously. There is no librul plot to take away constitutional rights. It's a conservative plot to deliver drinking water and irrigation water to the entire region.

I found Harrington v Water Resources Commission from 2007. His appeals were denied because of errors he made in responding in a timely manner to the orders from the commission to open the gates on his detention ponds. They ordered the gates opened in 2003. He appealed within 60 days. They reconsidered within 60 days but did not change their decision. He failed to appeal during the next 60 days making the order final. This has gone back and forth for ten years. He complies with the court order to open the gates on his three ponds, and then later closes them again starting a new action against him by the commission. This time he gets thirty days in jail plus a $1500 fine. His story goes national, and it becomes fodder for an overreaching government.

A little south of this area, it wasn't too many years ago that the Klamath tribe contested the water diversion used by the farmers stating it affected stream flow that, in turn, affected their fishing rights. Contards back then argued that water rights were preeminent, and could not be challenged. Now, it seems personal liberties are more important. Back then surface runoff did indeed accumulate behind flood gates, and those waters were important for the continued viability of a region. However, now surface runoff belongs to a property owner and does not contribute to a regional water system.

In researching this, I came across an article on OregonLive stating the state estimated Harrington's three ponds held 40 acre feet of water. That is approximately 13 million gallons. I have not found anything that shows how he intended to use the water. No one knows who or how the dams were built, and no one knows if he has the pumps and plumbing in place to use the ponds for fire suppression as he claims.

By comparison, a municipality of 35000 people can easily use 5 to 10 million gallons of water per day depending on the weather. The City of Medford has rights to 25mgd from the Black Butte watershed where Harrington's property is located. They also have rights to the Rogue River and a spring to serve their +135000 customers. So, he was detaining less than a half day supply to the region.

I think he should have studied Oregon Water Use Law list of exemptions more carefully. He could have raised cattle on his property and claimed the water was needed for his livestock.

Great topics and links. The ЯepubliKon Elite want redistribute everything to themselves, including water and the air we breath.

Guess what ЯepubliKon rank & file, you are not included, they will take your air & water too.

HA! That is almost word for word what the other side is saying about Liberals in Oregon on their boards. Angry White Guy is using the story as a springboard for all kinds of speculation. Very colorful. It's Obama. You know it.

But really, while I am not surprised at is the lack of understanding people have about the issue, I am surprised how the story captured the contarded mind. They have boiled it down to it's simplest elements - man against government - and are trying to make him a folk hero. Crazy.

Where were all these armchair land use lawyers ten years ago when he first got busted?

CNS News closed the discussion portion of the article this morning a few shy of 3000 responses. By comparison, most articles have less than ten. This one hit the target, and brought a lot of contards and libertytards out of their rocks. I'm sure their media people are all high fiving this morning looking at the site stats. With a few exceptions, it was an amazing display of ignorance, conflation, and false attribution. Elsewhere, you really don't want to read what angrywhiteguy has to say. Trust me on that. There isn't enough brain-kleen in this world. Ugh.

Sorry. I keep calling the Libertytard site angry white guy. It is angry white dude. AWG is personal blog that belongs to a plain vanilla conservative. AWD is bucking for the reasonable self absorbed serial killer demographic.

Well, I am convinced that some of the folks posting are really hired Heritage Foundation or some shit. They just repeat the talking points way to accurately. Just my opinion.

That being said, what about the property owner downstream from this guy? According to the angry white guys, don't they have any water rights?

I couldn't stand reading that site. It harshed my mellow too much. The stoopid, it burnz. They were a bunch of monkeys flinging poo on the wall. As bad as Dog Snot Diaries, CU, and USMilnet ever got.

As for downstream - that would be everybody in the water district. And apparently they don't matter in contard world logic. I got mine. You'll have to kill me to get yours if I don't kill you first. That seems to be the only thing they understand. Bunch of nuts.

While researching Harrington's case, I kept running across comments comparing him to the Sackett's of Idaho, and their victory over the EPA last January. Article after article kept rehashing how the EPA swooped in on this family, stopped them from building their dream home, and then refused to negotiate with them. If you read the conservative press, it was a clear cut case of a heavy handed government run amuck squashing the little guy with no avenue of recourse. it's our way or the highway. We don't care if you just bought that land in a development. It's a wetland. You can't build on it. Here's a citation. Fix it or face a fine.

How scary is that? Pretty damn scary.

So, how did a little land use case in Idaho get all the way to the SCOTUS? Great question - they had help from a lot of interested parties. And when you read the background to their dilemma, you get the hint that this did not happen out of thin air and without provocation. There was a reason Mr. Sackett was filling in the property before he started construction, and it wasn't because they didn't like the landscaping. Like Mr. Harrington, they refused to obtain all the permits required, and when offered an opportunity to apply retroactively, they declined. They went into this eyes open, and played dumb.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, their case, aided by large companies most affected by EPA decisions, may have hamstrung compliance orders, and may allow unabated reckless actions with no opportunity for review.

Link