Ah, yes, Fox News - always reliable! I'll post a link to an Oregon news site, but for those who don't want to read the whole thing, here's some of what they say:

In a press release about the charges OWRD (Oregon Water Resources Department) said that he had constructed two 10-foot dams and one 20-foot dam, and had enough water stored up to fill 20 Olympic-sized pools. He also constructed boat docks to run boats in the reservoirs and stocked them with fish for recreational fishing.

While it is legal to collect rainwater off of surfaces like roofs or tarps, property owners need to obtain permits before altering or collecting flowing bodies of water.

The state first identified Harrington's illegal water use more than ten years ago and initiated enforcement action to discontinue his illegal use of water.

The actual history of this story - including his agreeing to desist, and then resuming illicit diverting of the channels, is included on that site. No, Fox would probably not be interested in the details.

Here is a link that might be useful: the actual story

Hello Digginginthedirt,

Thank you for posting and sharing.

Truth, justice, and what is right does not come in the same color, and form for everyone because of our own bias, experiences, values, personal lens, conflict of interest, ego, and many other factors; so in my opinion it is always important to look at any issue from as many sides as available to get to as close to the truth as possible. Labeling, name calling, or sarcasm, in my opinion, doesn't help unearth the truth, but rather it narrows the lens in getting at the truth. Such communication often refocuses the attention away from the central issue, helping cloud the truth, while contributing to dissention, rather than a healthy respect for a difference of opinion.

I am pleased that New Hampshire is leading the way at educating Americans about the very ancient, lawful practice of Jury Nullification by jurors, as it has an equalizing affect on the power between the government and the people whom they govern. I think this recent legislation will help get more of the truth before the jury so they can make a more informed decision about who to convict and who not to convict as they take into consideration which laws are sound, and which laws are not for their community. Sometimes laws are not good laws. Sometimes laws hurt more than they help. I am wondering if this is what this Oregon Water Story is mostly about.

Water is essential to life. So I believe it is in all our best interest to understand if those who govern us, govern us with our best interest, or with theirs. Water is essential to life. This man had these ponds in his back yard for thirty-seven years. He had them there for several reasons. One of those reasons, as he explained in the interview, was for the purpose of fighting fire. And his ponds had been used by several agencies, throughout the years, to do exactly that according to this interview on Fox News.

What you refer to as the "Actual Story", isn't that really just the promoted version, the one sided, controlled fact story of the prosecutor, much like politicians who have their "talking points" so often done so that they can avoid issues that may blow up in their faces. Anyone who ever had a position of power, on any level, understands "talking points". It is a way to control the audience's perspective. The "Actual Story" does not touch upon the victim's side of the story. It does not talk about the history of these thirty-seven-year-old ponds, and other facts that the "Actual Story" ignores.

Does a small, local television show, such channel 13 in Oregon, have the funds, motivation, or the small town political freedom to do its own investigative reporting? Or, do local news television stations just picks up stories from the AP, or parrots what is told to them from "official sources", rather than bringing all sides to the public?

When one only hears one side of a story, it is easy to condemn anyone. So I would like to hear what his side of the story is. Just by watching this interview it brought a lot of questions up about the promoted "Actual Story". For instance, if this man said he had these ponds for thirty- seven years, I have to ask, why after twenty-seven years did it suddenly become a problem? What changed?

The young man, who in his youthful, inexperienced way tried to get some points across, made listening to him difficult, in my opinion. Yet, he still did bring up points to consider. He seemed to imply that the jury was not allowed to get all the pertinent facts. I think an investigative reporter telling the "Actual Story" would have included those pertinent facts.

This gentleman says he is going to keep fighting the issue. And yet the "Actual Story" didn't allow the audience to know exactly on what grounds he was going to fight it. This story intrigues me because of all the unknown issues, and the many ways this can affect all of us. If we, as the governed, are only allowed to make conclusions based on half the facts, and not all of the facts, how can we make choices that are in our best interest? I do not know all the facts. But the "Actual Story" that you shared obviously doesn't share all the facts. Why is that?

I think the young man raises an interesting point at the end of the interview. Why would it be ordered that the ponds be drained during fire season? Was that prudent, rational thinking in the best interest of that community? Those who govern often make mistakes for whatever reason. Water and food are essential to life itself. How many mistakes can we afford from those who govern us to make with these issues?

Water is essential to life. Water is essential to the growing of our food. As gardeners, water is a huge issue in keeping our gardens alive , healthy and producing. I wouldn't drain any of my ponds during growing season, much less fire season.... would you?

I am wondering why we are only being told half the story, in the "Actual Story" that you shared.