the point is that he doesn't own the rain. therefore, he has no right to prevent it from flowing downstream and he has no right to modify the eco-systems around his property. use of public resources needs to be determined collectively, not individually. that being said, the jail time is an unfortunate penalty; a little direct action in the form of blowing up his dam would have been preferable.
George Vasquez
100% correct. That asshole got off light.
deathtokoalas
well, like i say: it's a little ham-fisted to put somebody in a cage over something that can be easily resolved by activism.
Young Master Gandalf
Then tell me, who does own the rainwater that falls on your land????? imo everbody has the right to collect rainwater for use on their land. You Americans are really nuts. And you could even claim it's a gift from God, knowing most of you are Christians, so what's wrong by using Gods gift he gave you? If God didn't want him to use rainwater, he would not have let it fall down on his land.
deathtokoalas
it is because nobody owns it that it must be allowed to flow through.
i mean, putting out a coffee can or something is one thing. but, this guy is building a dam. he's not just collecting a bit of water falling on his property, he's expropriating it from miles around.
the right way to look at rainwater is that you take what you need and let the rest run by, so it's accessible to the other creatures (human or not) in the region that also require it. the theft in damming is from everybody, miles around.
there have been wars fought over this, when one country decides they want to dam water in such a way that prevents it from flowing into another country. and, for good reason. that's theft.
Young Master Gandalf
That was over 150 years ago, now there is water plenty. And the states don't own the rain. But I know, you Americans have stupid rules and laws. And imo this has nothing to do with collecting rainwater, it had to to with blocking rivers and streams of water, it was never about collecting rainwater, cause your neigbour could just do the same with the rain that falls on his land. It would be something else if he had blocked a river, a brook, a stream, a chanal, then you are right to imprison him, but for rainwater??????????????????
deathtokoalas
i was unaware that rainwater patterns changed that dramatically in 150 years. but, there are two contemporary examples of this: proposed dams on cataracts on the nile are creating tensions between ethiopia and egypt, and chinese engineering programs are upsetting the indians.
i'm a canadian. but, i believe these rules are set on a state-by-state basis and generally allow a certain level of collection for personal use.
we seem to agree that this is well beyond that.
it should be illegal just on the basis of affecting the wildlife in the region.
Young Master Gandalf
I live in the Netherlands and there is no law that prevents me from collecting rainwater for personal use. If I had some land, and want to make a pond or a small lake on that land, nobody can prevent me from doing just that. If however there would be a creek, or small brook on my land, then I'm prohibited to block that waterstream, imo those are two different things!! The example you give, is about the NILE, a natural river, and that's something complete different.
deathtokoalas
i'm not well read on dutch law. however, i would have to think that if there's enough water running through your land that you can dam it, then that qualifies as a stream.
that would be different from a free standing pond.
Young Master Gandalf
Just dig a hole in the ground, and wait for the rain to fill it up, there you have my free standing pond.
deathtokoalas
it's not quite that easy - it's going to evaporate, seep or spill over.
regardless, what he was doing was rerouting runoff from a broad area with pipes (you can see it in the video) and damming it. that run off would have found it's way into streams - and as you can see, it was a substantial amount. so, it's still not comparable.
the issue here is less in the collection of rainwater and more in how much he was collecting. it was clearly beyond any reasonable concept of personal use. i'm not sure how the netherlands interprets common law (i know you had an early parliament, but i suspect your law is probably based on civil law from years of spanish domination), but that's how english law works - it tries to determine behaviour relative to an abstract "reasonable person" and then rules based on that criteria.
turns out the roots of modern dutch law are napoleonic, rather than habsburg. good to know.
