9 ms·

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 rai

by zz0rr 4y ago

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

tejtm 4y ago
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.
- hosh 4y ago
  The only state where that became law like that is Colorado, and they have removed most of that restriction. And here's the kicker: you're not going to harvest enough water in a barrel to water your yard. It's like an enduring folk myth that, "rainwater harvesting" means storing it in a barrel. While it helps, the best place to harvest rainwater for your yard is your yard. That means: - Using variations of elevation and natural basins to sink the water in. Many design patterns for this. Brad Lancaster pioneered things like "curb cuts" in Tuscon, transforming his neighborhood. The city of Tuscon started using some of these methods on city projects. - Encourage the growth of living soil, which will sink and store water within the land - Which means, don't kill off the fungi and soil bacteria. Plants don't directly mine the minerals in the soil so much as exchange complex sugars with fungi and soil. Those fungi also form complex networks that connect plants together to distribute nutrients. When someone kills of the fungi and bacteria, and then tries to feed the plants directly with fertilizer, then then plants are not as resilient to drought - Which means, it is better to grow something other than grass, or at least have other areas that are more biodiverse. A look through r/nolawns and you can have beautiful yards that are not necesssarily just a lawn That video about these ponds is not about "claiming more than your share of the watershed to scerw those downstream". Percolation ponds are meant to slow down water and recharging ground water, and when taken together with a sound permaculture design, they end up providing more water downstream, particularly in times of drought, and heat conditions. Beavers used to do this all across the US, which is why they get a special mention in the video. (https://www.npr.org/2022/04/05/1090992348/beavers-can-teach-researchers-a-thing-or-two-about-improving-wildfire-resistance https://www.npr.org/2022/04/05/1090992348/beavers-can-teach-...)
  - hosh 4y ago
    If anyone is interested, Andrew Millison and others are putting together the Permaculture Water Summit in Oct. https://permaculturesummit.online/ https://permaculturesummit.online/? (Millison is the guy doing the interview in the video the OP linnked)
- goodpoint 4y ago
  > You can't claim more than your share of a watershed to screw those downstream Yet the same principle is never applied to resources diamonds, gold or minerals. Or oil, gas and water when it comes to whole countries. The contrast is striking.
  - DoreenMichele 4y ago
    Water history has two different historical standards: 1. First come, first served. 2. Don't screw the people downstream. From what I gather, different places typically use one or the other standard. In California, both tests are part of the law, which makes things complicated. A lot of water law in California was hashed out historically in Fresno County.
jonhohle 4y ago
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 4y ago
  Eventually all streams and rivers get fed from the rainwater in their catchment area, so catching/collecting rainwater does have downstream effects.
  - jonsen 4y ago
    You can't hold it indefinitely. Eventually you will have to pass it on. When the process settles you will just induce a delay.
    - tmnvix 4y ago
      You can capture it and export it in produce though. It's not just a delay.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_capture> I'd written up the Stockton, TX, case at Reddit: <https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5w1zw3/rule_of_capture_fort_stockton_texas_groundwater/ https://old.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://www.texasobserver.org/playing-by-the-rule/> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18005310 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby>. I was interested in the other elements discussed above.
fswd 4y ago
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?
- thelittleone 4y ago
  Wow. As someone living outside of the US this is quite shocking.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
    They're being hyperbolic. There are illegal grow operations in southern Oregon, but not on the scale he's implying, and there absolutely is enforcement. The illegal grow ops also don't use any form of large scale irrigation that would impact other water users substantially. They grow in natural areas with an attempt to conceal the patch of plants from airborne surveys. Reading that comment you'd think southern Oregon was like Sinaloa Mexico where mass scale plantations operate openly. That's a totally incorrect portrayal.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
      Since this got downvotes quick, I'll just elaborate that over the years I've had a pretty diverse friend group, and while it's not my world, I know several people who worked seasonally on these grow ops doing trimming. One of them got caught in a DEA raid. I'm not just blowing empty wind here, as well as my other claims can be trivially verified with a little googling (particularly that there is enforcement).
    - sarkastineer 4y ago
aaron695 4y ago
hosh 4y ago
The host of that video is Andrew Millison, who is deeply involved in permaculture design, and has a lecture series with the University of Oregon. Permaculture design is a fairly involved design process, so if you think this video is about "just plop down a pond!", you missed a lot of the main ideas. For context: - Millison's lecture on different pond designs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AadLCOqalFk - Related is the design for slope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McopD04XP3s - Keep in mind, you actually start with site analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XNiacRhzuM (starting from the global and coming down to the local, and then moving on to sector, zone, and slope analysis, all _before_ figuring out the placement of water harvesting structures) Instead of thinking about these ponds as "ponds", these are really one form of water harvesting structures in permaculture design. And there are many kinds of water harvesting structures, each with its own tradeoffs, and how the work holistically together with other considerations such as microclimates (or even creating microclimates), sun, rain, wind patterns, and how they work with the inhabitants (both human and otherwise). These ponds are not created for just irrigation. It's more sophisticated than that. The ones in the video are created as percolation ponds, and intended to recharge ground water. The idea is to slow water down and circulate it within the site before letting it flow on. The water held in percolation ponds are intended to be leaky. By redirecting flow laterally, the water is distributed across a larger area. It isn't just about water, but also about regenerating the soil in such a way that it is able to absorb and retain more water and nutrients, while cooling and regulating the local area, forming a microclimate. Counter-intuitively, more water becomes bio-available downstream rather than less. Beavers used to do this across North America, and many of the permaculture patterns for managing water has analogs to what the beavers naturally do. It's the modern irrigation practices which maximizes water usage without really considering how soil health plays a huge role in retaining water makes it less efficient in water usage. So we end up with water wars and the inability to grow crops during drought conditions. We fight over water rights when it is our land and water management practices that causes much of the problems in the first place. Millison has a video series about what people in India are doing to regenerate wastelands that receive very little water fall. The general problem are the same -- monsoon season water running through the landscape too fast, eroding soil, which means less crops, and setting off a pattern of rural migrations. When villages are able to slow down the water flow, they were able to grow more crops. Many of the water harvesting structures built at the higher elevation slow water enough down where the downstream areas became more abundant.

by zz0rr 4y ago

tejtm 4y ago

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.

hosh 4y ago
The only state where that became law like that is Colorado, and they have removed most of that restriction. And here's the kicker: you're not going to harvest enough water in a barrel to water your yard. It's like an enduring folk myth that, "rainwater harvesting" means storing it in a barrel. While it helps, the best place to harvest rainwater for your yard is your yard. That means: - Using variations of elevation and natural basins to sink the water in. Many design patterns for this. Brad Lancaster pioneered things like "curb cuts" in Tuscon, transforming his neighborhood. The city of Tuscon started using some of these methods on city projects. - Encourage the growth of living soil, which will sink and store water within the land - Which means, don't kill off the fungi and soil bacteria. Plants don't directly mine the minerals in the soil so much as exchange complex sugars with fungi and soil. Those fungi also form complex networks that connect plants together to distribute nutrients. When someone kills of the fungi and bacteria, and then tries to feed the plants directly with fertilizer, then then plants are not as resilient to drought - Which means, it is better to grow something other than grass, or at least have other areas that are more biodiverse. A look through r/nolawns and you can have beautiful yards that are not necesssarily just a lawn That video about these ponds is not about "claiming more than your share of the watershed to scerw those downstream". Percolation ponds are meant to slow down water and recharging ground water, and when taken together with a sound permaculture design, they end up providing more water downstream, particularly in times of drought, and heat conditions. Beavers used to do this all across the US, which is why they get a special mention in the video. (https://www.npr.org/2022/04/05/1090992348/beavers-can-teach-researchers-a-thing-or-two-about-improving-wildfire-resistance https://www.npr.org/2022/04/05/1090992348/beavers-can-teach-...)
- hosh 4y ago
  If anyone is interested, Andrew Millison and others are putting together the Permaculture Water Summit in Oct. https://permaculturesummit.online/ https://permaculturesummit.online/? (Millison is the guy doing the interview in the video the OP linnked)
goodpoint 4y ago
> You can't claim more than your share of a watershed to screw those downstream Yet the same principle is never applied to resources diamonds, gold or minerals. Or oil, gas and water when it comes to whole countries. The contrast is striking.
- DoreenMichele 4y ago
  Water history has two different historical standards: 1. First come, first served. 2. Don't screw the people downstream. From what I gather, different places typically use one or the other standard. In California, both tests are part of the law, which makes things complicated. A lot of water law in California was hashed out historically in Fresno County.

jonhohle 4y ago

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 4y ago
Eventually all streams and rivers get fed from the rainwater in their catchment area, so catching/collecting rainwater does have downstream effects.
- jonsen 4y ago
  You can't hold it indefinitely. Eventually you will have to pass it on. When the process settles you will just induce a delay.
  - tmnvix 4y ago
    You can capture it and export it in produce though. It's not just a delay.
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_capture> I'd written up the Stockton, TX, case at Reddit: <https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/5w1zw3/rule_of_capture_fort_stockton_texas_groundwater/ https://old.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://www.texasobserver.org/playing-by-the-rule/> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18005310 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby>. I was interested in the other elements discussed above.

fswd 4y ago

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?

thelittleone 4y ago
Wow. As someone living outside of the US this is quite shocking.
- jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
  They're being hyperbolic. There are illegal grow operations in southern Oregon, but not on the scale he's implying, and there absolutely is enforcement. The illegal grow ops also don't use any form of large scale irrigation that would impact other water users substantially. They grow in natural areas with an attempt to conceal the patch of plants from airborne surveys. Reading that comment you'd think southern Oregon was like Sinaloa Mexico where mass scale plantations operate openly. That's a totally incorrect portrayal.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
    Since this got downvotes quick, I'll just elaborate that over the years I've had a pretty diverse friend group, and while it's not my world, I know several people who worked seasonally on these grow ops doing trimming. One of them got caught in a DEA raid. I'm not just blowing empty wind here, as well as my other claims can be trivially verified with a little googling (particularly that there is enforcement).
  - sarkastineer 4y ago

aaron695 4y ago

hosh 4y ago

The host of that video is Andrew Millison, who is deeply involved in permaculture design, and has a lecture series with the University of Oregon. Permaculture design is a fairly involved design process, so if you think this video is about "just plop down a pond!", you missed a lot of the main ideas. For context: - Millison's lecture on different pond designs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AadLCOqalFk - Related is the design for slope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McopD04XP3s - Keep in mind, you actually start with site analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XNiacRhzuM (starting from the global and coming down to the local, and then moving on to sector, zone, and slope analysis, all _before_ figuring out the placement of water harvesting structures) Instead of thinking about these ponds as "ponds", these are really one form of water harvesting structures in permaculture design. And there are many kinds of water harvesting structures, each with its own tradeoffs, and how the work holistically together with other considerations such as microclimates (or even creating microclimates), sun, rain, wind patterns, and how they work with the inhabitants (both human and otherwise). These ponds are not created for just irrigation. It's more sophisticated than that. The ones in the video are created as percolation ponds, and intended to recharge ground water. The idea is to slow water down and circulate it within the site before letting it flow on. The water held in percolation ponds are intended to be leaky. By redirecting flow laterally, the water is distributed across a larger area. It isn't just about water, but also about regenerating the soil in such a way that it is able to absorb and retain more water and nutrients, while cooling and regulating the local area, forming a microclimate. Counter-intuitively, more water becomes bio-available downstream rather than less. Beavers used to do this across North America, and many of the permaculture patterns for managing water has analogs to what the beavers naturally do. It's the modern irrigation practices which maximizes water usage without really considering how soil health plays a huge role in retaining water makes it less efficient in water usage. So we end up with water wars and the inability to grow crops during drought conditions. We fight over water rights when it is our land and water management practices that causes much of the problems in the first place. Millison has a video series about what people in India are doing to regenerate wastelands that receive very little water fall. The general problem are the same -- monsoon season water running through the landscape too fast, eroding soil, which means less crops, and setting off a pattern of rural migrations. When villages are able to slow down the water flow, they were able to grow more crops. Many of the water harvesting structures built at the higher elevation slow water enough down where the downstream areas became more abundant.