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.