[HN Gopher] Water Wizard of Oregon - Permaculture Water Systems ... ___________________________________________________________________ Water Wizard of Oregon - Permaculture Water Systems of the Seven Seeds Farm Author : lioeters Score : 50 points Date : 2022-08-28 18:08 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (yewtu.be) (TXT) w3m dump (yewtu.be) | zz0rr wrote: | I like this sort of thing but in Oregon (and I think most places) | you can't just create a lake and use it for irrigation without | permission. even collecting rainwater is considered use of a | public resource and needs permission outside of very narrow | bounds. I know someone who was able to get permission for a mid- | stream lake but even then it's not unlimited, it only applied to | X acres for Y purpose and could be restricted in dry years. | | so the video maybe shouldn't be a message about "just plop down a | pond!" - it should be more about how to navigate local water | rights to actually get permission. and I think this should be | something that should be permitted more frequently, I think it's | usually a good use of the public resource, but that's where it | has to start | jonhohle wrote: | I don't understand the justification for not allowing the | collection of rain water on private property. If airspace is | owned by the owner, what claim does the state have to any water | that falls? Why limit to water and not sun or wind? | | Water rights from streams and rivers make sense, since there | are obvious, literal downstream effects. | | In Arizona, where aquifers are continually at risk, there are | no state laws against water collection. | WJW wrote: | Eventually all streams and rivers get fed from the rainwater | in their catchment area, so catching/collecting rainwater | does have downstream effects. | jonsen wrote: | You can't hold it indefinitely. Eventually you will have to | pass it on. When the process settles you will just induce a | delay. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | The airspace is _not_ owned by the land owner, certainly not | above a relatively low height. Since the rain originates | outside the owner-controlled slice of airspace, there 's an | argument that they do not have the right to control it. | dredmorbius wrote: | There's an interesting (and in my view very poorly grounded | in factual basis) common law (caselaw) doctrine called | _Rule of Capture_ which applies in at least some | jurisdictions concerning various "wild and migratory" | resources, including both wild animals and mineral | resources, with notable case history involving both | groundwater (see Pecos County Water District #1 vs Clayton | Williams et al (1954), concerning Stockton, TX) and | petroleum and natural gas. | | <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_capture> | | I'd written up the Stockton, TX, case at Reddit: <https://o | ld.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5w1zw3/rule_of...> | | I'd submitted an article some years back that's one of the | few I've found even discussing the principle: | | <https://www.texasobserver.org/playing-by-the-rule/> | | <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18005310> | | What's fascinating to me are a few elements of this rule: | | - It's effectively an argument from ignorance, with a key | element being that the behaviours of these resources is not | _and cannot_ be known. Increasingly, both premises are now | false, but significant case law still stands. One specific | being a Texas Supreme Court ruling, _Houston & Texas | Central Railroad Co. v. East_ (1904). I've been unable to | acquire a copy of this and would very much like to do so. | | - The principle has _exceedingly_ interesting implications | over just what "property" is, and where property rights | emerge. Given the centrality of this principle to virtually | our entire present economic system and technological | civilisation, this seems ... important. | | - There's been some movement against Rule of Capture, and | in particular, the concepts of unitised production | (concerning oil and gas in Texas) and "certificates of | clearance" (instituted by the US Department of Interior | under Harold Ikes), both in or around 1931. National | producers (notably Saudi Arabia) have instituted their own | novel solution through a family-owned / nationalised oil | industry But so far as I'm aware, the principle still | stands as valid caselaw. | | And, incidentally, you're correct on the airspace issue, | see US v. Causby (1946) | <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby>. I | was interested in the other elements discussed above. | jcrawfordor wrote: | The streams and rivers are charged by rainfall. If stream and | river water is property of the state, the rainwater must be | as well, otherwise owners of well-placed property can greatly | diminish the downstream flow of rivers through strategic | earthworks. This isn't a theoretical problem, it has happened | fairly regularly in high-rainfall areas. The legislation in | Oregon is a result of past practices by ranchers who would | dam the lower watersheds of their property and eliminate | streams. | | The concern here is much less in southwestern states like | Arizona because rainfall is only an extremely small portion | of aquifer charging. Most water entering this region is the | result of snow and snowmelt in further north states, so you | can't really change much through control of precipitation... | consider, for example, that Arizona has had a very unusually | wet monsoon season this summer, but this has had basically no | effect on Lake Meade. The total rainfall in Arizona is a tiny | portion of river and reservoir volume. | | Broadly speaking, water in Arizona and New Mexico is the | result of precipitation in Colorado and Wyoming. Water in | Oregon is mostly the result of precipitation in Oregon | (excepting the major Columbia river system which involves | BC). | tejtm wrote: | I have heard this this gets spun into; "it is illegal have a | rain barrel fed off your roof for your yard" (it is not) | | Where the intent is closer to; You can't claim more than your | share of a watershed to screw those downstream. | aaron695 wrote: | fswd wrote: | He did say he had irrigation rights to the stream, which isn't | impossible but unusual in that area. (They won't give them | anymore). For a pond, you do have to apply. I think it's is | $700 for the pond application and additional $1500 in regular | fees. But here's the kicker, it takes two to three years to get | it.. You're better off just doing it and ignoring the | regulators in this area. Reason is, there are 20,000 illegal | marijuana grow sites surrounding this guy and absolutely no | effective enforcement. The only enforcement is against people | who register for water rights and follow the rules. If the drug | cartel steals your water rights, they won't even pick up the | phone. | | What's up with no plants in the ground? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-28 23:00 UTC)