Blog powered by Typepad

« "Land of the Free"? You're 'avin' a laugh! | Main | Thursday is 'Der Tag'! »

Tuesday, 31 July 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Accents? Is that Abhorson the Oregon farmer speaking?

Have a care, Sir! You are referring to a performance of mine still spoken of in hushed whispers!

DD

A bit of context please: the US is more or less a free country despite 3+ years of Obama.

In the west of the US, water rights are private property, there is a lively trade in such rights and, consequently, the courts are open to hear arguments about and rule on disputes concerning contravention of such rights. In my (limited) experience of such things, I once had a client who owned millions of cubic feet per year of Colorado River water: he was a very rich man!

This isn't Thames Water persecuting a householder for collecting rainwater in water butts. I suspect - although I don't know - that it's possible for Harrington to purchase said rights and avoid this dispute.

Now look here, Bongers, I can't let mere facts get in the way of a really good old grump! However, in the report it did say this:

"In his own case, he was issued permits in 2003 by the state that allowed him to do what he wished with the water on his own property. And although the state Water Resources Department saw no fault at first, they shortly after revoked that license and left Harrington to fight for another nine years."

Well. The Oregonian individual would be well-served by telling the Court he plans to set off fireworks 'n that's the reason he needs the rainwater.

Jes' temporarily mind.

Fireworks does wonders where individual 'n Courts in the US of A is concerned. (Oregon is a nice place David - but we do have a town with your name on it 'member.)

Of course, JK, how could I forget downtown Duff?

DD

Ah well, it's evident that the law and practice in Oregon is different from Colorado law in respect of water rights. However, there was a "treaty" between the various states of the South West USA concerning allocation of water rights

www.usbr.gov/lc/region/pao/pdfiles/crcompct.pdf

Oregon was not, it seems, a party to the compact since the Colorado River - which is one of (if not) the main source of water in the South West - flows ultimately into Mexico via Arizona/California.

Accordingly - and not for the first time - I'm probably talking (or, rather, writing) through my hat. This site

http://www.opb.org/programs/oregonstory/water/or_water/index.html

provides some background to the history of water resources in Oregon and, as you imply, water apparently belongs to and is allocated by the State of Oregon rather than being a free market. Hence the Oregon water authorities have the legal power (if not the moral one) to deal with Mr Harrington as they see fit: so not as dissimilar from Thames Water as I first thought.

Well, I understand if you are actually syphoning off water from creeks and streams but all he was doing was collecting rainwater as it fell into his own ponds!

The comments to this entry are closed.