permaculture

[Cory Brennan <cory8570@yahoo.com>]

Does anybody know what the downstream impacts actually were or what the 
specific concerns are in that particular location? Has there been adverse 
impacts from damming in that watershed? He had dams there for a while; were 
they doing any actual damage that was documented? (I understand that 
sometimes it's hard to document until it is "too late" and much damage has 
been done) 

Sometimes, things get personal and the law uses its leverage to get even with 
someone. Was anything like that happening here, I wonder? This guy went to 
jail for doing this. That seems a bit extreme, but I read that he had 
continued to ignore attempts to get him to stop.What would shut down the 
rumor line on this faster than anything would be if there was some specifics 
on the damage those lakes could do or were doing to that specific area. 

K 
 



________________________________
 From: Frances and David <fdnokes@hotmail.com>
To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org> 
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: [permaculture] this business of rain water
 
Excellent reply, Tony!
I recall the discussion but wasn't sure how to find it.
Thanks for reiterating and embellishing these points.
The thing that struck me about this was that it is an obvious need of people 
to protect their communal water supply.
There would be a lot of concern if that was challenged!  So, this was 
barking up the wrong tree as if just for the sake of barking.
Definitely a candidate for the nomer 'fear mongering'.
Can I quote you? With or without credit?
Thanks again.
Be well.
Frances

-----Original Message----- 
From: Toby Hemenway
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 11:59 AM
To: permaculture
Subject: Re: [permaculture] this business of rain water



On Oct 26, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Frances and David wrote:

> http://worldtruth.tv/oregon-claims-state-ownership-over-all-rainwater/
> it’s coming up again
> and I’m wondering
> is this really as scary as it is made to look?

Not to worry. Do some Googling about this  if you want to get the facts. The 
guy was illegally and unwisely diverting and damming streams, not catching 
rain. A couple of paranoid "government is always evil" bloggers completely 
distorted what had happened. Most of what is in this article is untrue: for 
example, if you pave an area over a certain small size (varies by county), 
you must mitigate the runoff, get a permit, and deal properly with its 
impact on stream flow, contrary to what the article says. And the quoted 
state official does not say they own the rain or own the water, he says they 
regulate how water is handled by landowners--which means once it hits the 
ground and enters the surface and groundwater cycles. Big difference.

Oregon allows rainwater harvesting without a permit in most circumstances. 
Once rain lands on the ground it is considered a common, regulated 
resource--like forests on public land--and cannot be held in quantity 
without a permit (garden ponds excepted), though it can be drained or sunk 
with swales without a permit in many cases. Overland flow (not rain!) cannot 
diverted from downstream--and from other users, and fish, and 
wetlands--without having your system okayed, which makes sense to me. Too 
many badly designed ponds have done too much damage to watercourses and 
wildlife, hence they tightened the permit process a while back.

Toby
http://patternliteracy.com

_______________________________________________
permaculture mailing list
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
subscribe/unsubscribe|user config|list info:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
message archives:  http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture/
Google message archive search:
site: lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [searchstring]
Avant Geared  http://www.avantgeared.com 

_______________________________________________
permaculture mailing list
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
subscribe/unsubscribe|user config|list info:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
message archives:  http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture/
Google message archive search:
site: lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [searchstring]
Avant Geared  http://www.avantgeared.com
>From toby@patternliteracy.com  Sat Oct 27 19:55:05 2012
Return-Path: <toby@patternliteracy.com>
X-Original-To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 20217)
        id ADF93E93B4; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:55:05 -0400 (EDT)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on 
mailman1.ibiblio.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
        RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C06D2E9340
        for <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:55:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [172.16.42.5] (c-76-102-58-203.hsd1.ca.comcast.net
        [76.102.58.203])
        by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus1) with ESMTP (Nemesis)
        id 0MDzRn-1TcwOr0Tz5-00HNg2; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:54:59 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
From: Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>
In-Reply-To: <1351379988.23486.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 16:54:57 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7F9E25FB-C30C-49CC-827B-73B3981C53C6@patternliteracy.com>
References: <SNT133-ds18CD7E04B038F9038FBB12B17D0@phx.gbl>
        <99632F43-0FFF-41E7-93B4-F961BEA0563C@patternliteracy.com>
        <SNT133-ds3B9371AE09F51EAA3D146B17D0@phx.gbl>
        <1351379988.23486.YahooMailNeo@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:pne8KqeDJ4PStNdczb58r96YJh4VelRHBgiq9hLAm1B
        mCSup2kvnEYqp7PqJiXFKr0K5OpKDC8rnsWBaMIEnrFVjEHf1F
        E8AzZsDRrf0sPyXFMi4OH3M8TAA5bUoEaM1fju+9vWGxd7TRTS
        vYqmE4ibu3t51VkNa2r8e3810tXwUMku+kxlQTLpJ+u4/wST2L
        P1J3CrhllGdgSiyc5NyIErzafzlz1aVNwtehmrVregHhx2Fz8g
        81vRRCmjcWNw/blHOraGlWEUM12TABOgPz962+BtHfRq5gU8d8
        0UZUnckXHLW/Q2t5kRLQFmlfP94BDUucIn+dDmpSw3Rn1C33q1
        sQ8z80Ka1/8iS7S5CWvpZpi6EiyRg0kK1ebmBy6cJlsjXni61U
        JOCZWfoCL+q0HhrOipXd2eQbR5rZUUnkzwSubject: Re: [permaculture] this 
business of rain water
X-BeenThere: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Id: permaculture <permaculture.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture>,
        <mailto:permaculture-request@lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture>
List-Post: <mailto:permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa@lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture>,
        <mailto:permaculture-request@lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 23:55:05 -0000

On Oct 27, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Cory Brennan wrote:

> Does anybody know what the downstream impacts actually were or what the 
> specific concerns are in that particular location? 

I think the issue was more that he was violating the water rights of 
downstream landowners and reducing streamflow, which will affect fish and 
wildlife. He was impounding significant quantities of surface runoff and 
using it to irrigate, which means some of it will evaporate and some of it 
will not return to the drainages it was taken from for some time or distance. 
I don't think the regulators have the manpower to assess harm; they just 
investigate violations of the law. It would be nice, I agree, if the 
regulators could look at every case, assess whether there was actual harm or 
even significant streamflow alteration, and then decide whether to issue a 
citation. And I know that sometimes that happens. But mostly it's "you've 
been warned of your code violation, you didn't stop, so we're gonna bust 
you." When I lived in Oregon I saw some really stupid ponds and failed dams, 
and saw people taking lots of water illegally that was going to cause harm 
downstream, so there is some justification for a flat policy.

Water rights in the US West have been a fighting issue since the Old World 
got here (and maybe before that). It comes with a history of murder, 
vandalism, house-burnings, and corruption. The state got involved to 
eliminate vigilantism and apply the rules more even-handedly rather than let 
the most powerful owners get all the water (though that still happens), and 
they're serious about it. So anyone dumb enough to repeatedly, willfully 
violate water rights--like that guy--is being very pattern illiterate (and 
I'll bet he pissed off some neighbor). 

I'd love to be able to put in ponds without an onerous permit process, but 
the former free-for-all didn't work, so we're stuck with the typical, 
bureaucratic solution, if you can call it that. If we don't act wisely, we 
end up with rules.

Toby
http://patternliteracy.com


> 
> Has there been adverse impacts from damming in that watershed? He had dams 
> there for a while; were they doing any actual damage that was documented? 
> (I understand that sometimes it's hard to document until it is "too late" 
> and much damage has been done) 
> 
> Sometimes, things get personal and the law uses its leverage to get even 
> with someone. Was anything like that happening here, I wonder? This guy 
> went to jail for doing this. That seems a bit extreme, but I read that he 
> had continued to ignore attempts to get him to stop.What would shut down 
> the rumor line on this faster than anything would be if there was some 
> specifics on the damage those lakes could do or were doing to that specific 
> area. 
> 
> K 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Frances and David <fdnokes@hotmail.com>
> To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org> 
> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 3:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [permaculture] this business of rain water
> 
> Excellent reply, Tony!
> I recall the discussion but wasn't sure how to find it.
> Thanks for reiterating and embellishing these points.
> The thing that struck me about this was that it is an obvious need of 
> people 
> to protect their communal water supply.
> There would be a lot of concern if that was challenged!  So, this was 
> barking up the wrong tree as if just for the sake of barking.
> Definitely a candidate for the nomer 'fear mongering'.
> Can I quote you? With or without credit?
> Thanks again.
> Be well.
> Frances
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Toby Hemenway
> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 11:59 AM
> To: permaculture
> Subject: Re: [permaculture] this business of rain water
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 26, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Frances and David wrote:
> 
>> http://worldtruth.tv/oregon-claims-state-ownership-over-all-rainwater/
>> it�s coming up again
>> and I�m wondering
>> is this really as scary as it is made to look?
> 
> Not to worry. Do some Googling about this  if you want to get the facts. 
> The 
> guy was illegally and unwisely diverting and damming streams, not catching 
> rain. A couple of paranoid "government is always evil" bloggers completely 
> distorted what had happened. Most of what is in this article is untrue: for 
> example, if you pave an area over a certain small size (varies by county), 
> you must mitigate the runoff, get a permit, and deal properly with its 
> impact on stream flow, contrary to what the article says. And the quoted 
> state official does not say they own the rain or own the water, he says 
> they 
> regulate how water is handled by landowners--which means once it hits the 
> ground and enters the surface and groundwater cycles. Big difference.
> 
> Oregon allows rainwater harvesting without a permit in most circumstances. 
> Once rain lands on the ground it is considered a common, regulated 
> resource--like forests on public land--and cannot be held in quantity 
> without a permit (garden ponds excepted), though it can be drained or sunk 
> with swales without a permit in many cases. Overland flow (not rain!) 
> cannot 
> diverted from downstream--and from other users, and fish, and 
> wetlands--without having your system okayed, which makes sense to me. Too 
> many badly designed ponds have done too much damage to watercourses and 
> wildlife, hence they tightened the permit process a while back.
> 
> Toby
> http://patternliteracy.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> subscribe/unsubscribe|user config|list info:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> message archives:  https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture/
> Google message archive search:
> site: lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [searchstring]
> Avant Geared  http://www.avantgeared.com 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> subscribe/unsubscribe|user config|list info:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> message archives:  https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture/
> Google message archive search:
> site: lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [searchstring]
> Avant Geared  http://www.avantgeared.com
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> subscribe/unsubscribe|user config|list info:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> message archives:  https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture/
> Google message archive search:
> site: lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [searchstring]
> Avant Geared  http://www.avantgeared.com