[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)