The debate over the size and purpose of government is a centuries old one. It asks certain fundamental questions about its very nature; namely, to what extent does the government have the power to force citizens into compliance with its regulatory apparatus? While theoretical in nature for those willing to consider the question, one Oregon couple has had to battle with the government’s scope in practice. John and Sabrina Carey, who purchased a 10-acre property near Butte Falls two years ago, are being told they must destroy a 2-acre pond on their land at the behest of the government. The Carey’s have pleaded with the Medford Water Commission to treat the pond as a municipal water source but to no avail; Jackson County Watermaster Larry Menteer has rejected the effort on grounds that it would set a dangerous precedent. Another Oregon resident, Gary Harrington, himself the subject of a governmental dispute over the appropriate method of rainwater collection, has also made headlines for his collection of some 13 million gallons of illicit rainwater. Unlike the Carey’s, Harrington crafted several ponds on his property, claiming the water would assist in fire control and prevention. But found to be in violation of a 1925 state law stating that water belongs to the Medford Water Commission and without the proper, state-issued water-right permits, “Rain Man,” as he came to be called, found himself in trouble with the authorities. Charged with nine misdemeanors, Harrington would spend three months in jail, pay $1500 in fines, and, ultimately, destroy the dams and drain all the ponds. The Carey’s contend that the government’s power to force them to destroy the pond on their private property is unnecessary and arbitrary in nature. Its environmental usefulness and capacity to allow for the growing of medical cannabis were thought to be by the Carey’s reasonable justification to maintain the pond on their private property but the Water Commission remained unconvinced, insisting that similar requests could weaken state statutes and prove too burdensome in the long term with the continued regulation and compliance that would be needed. Just why government bureaucracy is involved in the first place over a pond seemingly beneficial to the property owners and the surrounding environment remains a matter unanswered. Gary Harrington continues to put up a fight, though, maintaining his uprightness and the government’s obstruction of his personal rights. For both Harrington and the Carey’s, the states’ regulatory and bureaucratic reach has gone too far.
