I guess Oregon owns all our water, too. Perhaps I should drain my pond before I get arrested. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oregon-man-sentenced-30-days-jail-collecting-rainwater-his-property
yeah, because conservatives have never increased the size of government (coughcoughyouarefuckingblindifyoudontseethatcoughcoughtransvaginalultrasoundcoughcough)
Liberals have always wanted more government. Conservatives are called conservatives because, originally, they were supposed to want less government. Of course, the people who are now in control of the Republican party are just as bad as the Democrats, they just have a different belief system.
I like how you're continuing the myth. under what group did the government expand the most? Reagan. Bush. Bush. After a while, you're gonna have to admit that saying that "conservatives want a smaller government" isn't actually true, since they haven't wanted that, or acted upon it, for decades.
Yeah.... I'm talking anti-federalists old buddy. The core principles of what the Democratic Republican party was founded on. Reagan was just the beginning of the neocon movement imo. A huge government spender, but really why are we talking presidents? I'm talking company lines. Conservative didn't always mean "morally conservative" as it does now. The liberals have always wanted more government though. Right back to when the Federalists wanted a federal bank and a larger full-time military.
You make a fair and excellent point. President George W. Bush wanted a government just big enough to fit into your bedroom. Let's also not forget that under his Administration, we got that ridiculous Medicare Prescription Part B. Reagan tried to "starve the beast", but the beast would not die. He also crumbled in the face of strong opposition to shrink government; instead he and his bureaucrats expanded it. There are three primary wings of today's Republican party, who are not exclusive to one another: the social conservatives, the military hawks and the limited government folks. The GOP has had plenty of candidates from the first two and precious little of the last. It's my hope the Tea Party becomes the force within the Republican Party to nominate a presidential candidate who proposes a truly limited government.
It will never happen. Those politicians do not get the financial support that is required to win over the populace. It also doesn't help that there isn't a single captivating candidate that inspires people. It seems like all the GOP guys are stiff, old, white guys. For the GOP to really change, they'd need a young idealist. Someone who can motivate the young of America and create a grass roots similar to Obama. I just don't see it happening.
Getting back to the thread... If he really is diverting a runoff stream that is a legal distributary then he needs to stop. If he is simply collecting rainwater then the state is wrong.
The Oregonian had an article on the situation and he was blocking streams that flowed into the river. Also, the blockages were 10-20ft tall dams and he has been cited two other previous times for this same exact issue. The guy is an idiot and deserved jail time.
I'll buy that the state owns the rights to the rivers. I don't see how they can possibly state that collecting rainwater is under the purview of the state.
The issue here isn't the collection of rainwater, it's the blockage of feeder streams (which are often fed by rainwater) that are tributaries of the Rogue River. The author of the article conveniently fails to mention the size of the dams and displays a complete lack of basic understanding of how watershed's work.
relevant? It is legal to collect rainwater from your gutters and downspouts. But he is doing something different. I don't think he should given any trouble beyond a fine and break his dam, personally.
