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
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.
I have been experimenting more with this sort of civil disobedience, if you will. For example, I like to walk and I have been frustrated by the terrible walking infrastructure around where I live. Lately I've been trying just walking through private property, making my own path while being careful to avoid eroding land, stepping on decorative plants, etc. It makes me feel alive again to be able to make my own way by ignoring what I see as unjust laws in a system that I had no say in creating.
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.
I have a home on 10+ acres of forested land in Josephine county about 20 miles north of this farm. The owner is not being hyperbolic about illegal grow operations.
Just a quick perusal of google satellite imagery shows quite a few operations in the area around seven seeds and the Applegate valley (look for long runs of hoop structures).
It is true that the number of operating illegal grows has recently dropped dramatically since legalization in Oregon (mostly because it is hard to make enough money versus large legal growers).
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).
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-...)
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.
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.
I'm not commenting on "permaculture bad" or anything like that. I've studied it and it's very interesting and I do think it's a good use of our water. That said, in the western us, you're going to have to start with trying to get water rights. It may be impossible to do this depending on your water district's situation and current management, so the rights themselves are more interesting to me than swales or whatever.
I can dig microswales and basins, following the terrain that is already there and no one will really notice, especially if I level it with mulch. It won't look like it's a water harvesting structure. There's a lot more than just swales.
Something even as simple as a waffle pattern on flat ground for a garden or a crop is not something that would trigger fights about water rights.
In Arizona, water gets washed away into these storm pipes. Curb cuts are one pattern to fill a basin from water that would already be draining away on surface streets. It's done so that when the basin is full, the backpressure lets the water continue going down the street. That didn't trigger things about water rights in Tuscon.
Even swales that are created as small length trenches on uplands slow down water. I don't think people downstream are going to notice, other than perhaps, they are somehow getting more water for their use with less variability.
Water rights may be more interesting to you; I used to work for a legaltech startup, and while I didn't encounter water rights, I know that stuff like that can get complicated fast. However, for me, these permaculture design patterns are practical, in use, and solve the underlying problems that water rights badly try to solve. And maybe that is also because I'm sympathetic to those practicing guerilla gardening.
Sure, but the dude in the video was talking about over a million gallons. Are you operating on that scale? If you are, kudos for working in legaltech but also playing fast and loose in your leisure time.
It would be interesting to see if they got a permit for it.
The other thing is that, if the water design helps increase available water downstream, then the downstream water right holders who are able to fully fill their tanks have no reason to demand shutdown upstream (assuming the downstream has senior rights)
50 feet is a pretty long. As a cube that would be close to 5 stories tall.
I think the point you are trying to make is water volumes get big fast and the point I was making to GP was if you are gonna be messing around with large volumes of water please get some permits so you don't flood your neighbors.
Yeah, the most surprising thing was it is only 25,000 bathtubs - once could conceive of easily adding storage area to land that was 25,000 depressions, assuming the land was a few sq miles.
I think you bring up a good point, if you are planning to create any kind of system greater than 4 acre feet of water, it is imperative to get the permits and do the planning as the consequences of flooding and pond / reservoir failure are very real.
Also, one thing land owners don't usually check into is the wildlife risk created by changes to wetland or riparian areas. South-Western Oregon has several species of concern like the Northwestern Pond Turtle - https://www.oregonconservationstrategy.org/strategy-species/...
Currently, Josephine and Jackson county are very amenable to creation of fire suppression reservoirs because of wild fire risk. There are a bunch of requirements for those types fo reservoir, but they can greatly accelerate the permitting process.
All that said, if you are creating ponds < 4 acre feet of water, a lot of people just build it and get a permit post construction (if they get reported or care) as the process does take so long, and in Oregon the permitting after the fact process is/was very lenient.
As another commenter said, if you are cutting swales, creating small reservoirs to feed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%BCgelkultur style structures (i.e. less than .1 acre feet of water), most permitting bodies rarely ever know or care.
In most cases, you are far more likely to get code / enforcement attention if you run afoul of your neighbors and they report you.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
You might be surprised to learn that all fresh water was in fact rain on someones property. Rainfall is the water in streams and rivers. I'm not sure what logic allows illegal use of rainwater but doesn't allow illegal use of lake water.
Anyone interested in reading more, I highly recommend reading Brad Lancaster’s work on Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands and Beyond. He has a great introductory TED Talk too. I just finished Vol 1 of his book and started Vol 2 today. I can’t recommend his stuff enough.
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