Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Moral/Legal question for discussion/debate....?

I mentioned in a thread yesterday that there's a lot of fires popping up around the state due to the extreme heat/drought conditions.

Well,..today was no different. Fires are burning in semi-populated areas. Firefighters seem to be able to concentrate their resources around buildings and homes to prevent high monetary damage. Most of what is burning is open pasture/cedar woodlots and outbuildings, although a few houses have been lost.

There doesn't seem to be an imminent threat to anybodies life with these fires. Property..? Absolutely,..but it's not like there's a building of school kids on fire.

This is not an Arizona wildfire type of scenario that is going to scorch half the state. Most of the fires will burn to the road or section line where the firefighters are waiting with their equipment.

A national guard Blackhawk helio joined the fight yesterday. They reportedly carry a 1000 gal bucket that they drop where directed by the ground troops.

They just showed a clip on the news and I just caught the tale end of it, which brought about this question.

The helio was dipping his bucket from a stock pond on private property. Below the helio was somebody on a 4-wheeler adamantly waving his harms at the helio. Of course there was no audio, but it was obvious to those viewing that whomever was on the ATV did not appreciate the guard taking his water and was making an attempt let the guard know that they did not approve.

Now,..I've watched them do this on TV and they sometimes will fill the bucket miles away from the fire. So it's not like the copter fills the bucket and then flies 100 yards over to the neighbors and drops it.

They also perform this repeatedly. Once they find a water source they like, they will keep dipping until the fire is out or it gets dark.

So,..with that in mind,..who's entitled to the water on private property..? The landowner or the gov't.? What's the law on this.?

Morally, I guess the water should go to the fires, but I can see both sides of this argument.

The drought has put the kabosh on a lot of ranchers. There is little food and water is at a premium. Most of the stock tanks are extremely low if they have any water at all. Some of the population supplements their yearly income raising cattle. People are having to sell their cattle due to the lack of feed, usually at a loss.

So I propose that the amount of natural food and water on a piece of property can be worth a considerable amount of money, much like a stand of timber, some grain fields, or structures like houses or barns.

Although possibly self centered, I can understand someone not wanting to give their water away to be thrown on a fire miles away where they have no interests. Especially since this can affect their bottom line for them and their family.

I'm not promoting either side here, just wanting to find out what everyone thinks. So please don't start in with "You're a SOB for letting my Neighbors house burn down" crap,..this is only for discussion.

An additional note,..the [b][color:#3333FF]Oklahoma Highway Patrol is investigating[/color][/b] reports of rifle fire being directed at the Firefighting helicopter today... This will probably end badly for somebody...

I believe state laws govern water rights.

Water is property of the state. The bottom of the pond is owned by the landowner, but the water is the publics. So you can restrict access but you can't restrict use.

Just to be clear,..I'm talking mostly about stock tanks or ponds. Of which, probably 99% of are man-made. Comparatively there's very little natural running water in creeks or rivers at this time of year.

I can see the gov't laying claim to the creeks, rivers and lakes, but I'm not sure sure about man-made ponds.

the water is still the states. You can't own surface water.
http://environ.okstate.edu/OWRRI/waterplan/files/information_sheets/web_info_sheet2. for OKs information, but it is nearly the same in every state.

Hell, I'd fill the stock pond with diesel.

Funny, I pay a water bill every month, so the state can come and take the water out of my tub?

Interesting info....

If a person claimed and could prove that the use of the water to fight fires in some way deprived his livestock or damaged his livelihood, would that individual have a viable lawsuit against the gov't.?

if it overrode the need to put out the fire? Might could. But guess who is going to win that fight.

Most states own both the surface water and ground water. Washington even owns the rain and by law prohibited the catching or diverting of rain water. By some error a tiny bit of common sense leaked into the Capitol and that law was changed last year.

So, the water in the pond either came from groundwater discharge or runoff and belongs to the state unless the owner paid for the water and had it trucked in.

tub is ground water and use water. But really, using emminant domain the state can take your house, so the water in your is an easy one for them. But thinking no one is going to want that used tub water.

I knew this German chick once, well that's another story...

I was taught many decades ago in civics class that the government can demolish your home with no financial liability to prevent a nearby fire from spreading in a town. If that is still true, I guess they can take your pond water.

Texas is a right of capture state. If rain falls on your land or a stream runs through it or a spring rises on it the water is yours. In the case of a stream running through your land you may not entirely stop the flow so as to perminently deprive the downstream land owners of natural flow. IOW while you can build a lake or pond on it you have to have a spillway so as to allow flow downstream.

As to the case in quesion I don't know if private water can be taken for public use. I suppose it could like eminent domain but I do not know and have never dealt with the question.

So if the state takes the water and a ranchers cattle dies could the rancher get restitution, insurance, or have to sue for compensation????

I can understand the guy getting upset, if he's got some boney cattle on his place and that's the only water he has for his cows. It was a man-made stock pond. He probably built it himself for his cattle.
Lake Thunderbird is just a couple of minutes away from the fire by helicopter.....big lake with plenty of water. Seems like, under the circumstances, they could have dipped their thousand gallon bucket into Lake Thunderbird as much as they wanted in order to fight that fire.....and left that guys piddly stock tank alone.

surface water in Texas is owned by the state, period. Ground water is held by the landowner.

I have a couple of interesting books "Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands and Beyond" by Brad Lancaster. Two volumes in print and the third is coming soon.

A lot of good info in them about easy ways to make better use of the rain that does fall. Some of it is household use and such, but he talks in depth about erosion and keeping the water on your property as long as possible. He has some success stories in New Mexico and Arizona and how the wildlife and livestock have benefitted. Good Luck!

Well, I suppose he could have flopped a lariat onto the bucket and tied the durn thing down.

Questions of ownership aside, it seems to me that the helo is trespassing if the land owner is making it clear that it is unwelcome.

trespass means what, violation of his air space? He doesn' own it. Violation of his water space? He doesn't own it.

And the helo was dumping the water on a fire, not stealing it to sell. So it is in the greater public good and any issue of trespass would be moot anyway.

Its too bad someone has to suffer, I am sure it is a hardship on the individual involved, but should they let the fire burn up someone else's property instead?

Would you complain then that they didn't deal eith the fire?

Life isn't fair sometimes. Better to pray he gets some form of restitution from nature or the remaining water stays him until the next rains.

[b][color:#3333FF]Update....![/color][/b]

Looks like somebody was pointing a rifle at the helicopter, no shots were fired. Helicopter dropped the bucket and fled. State police show up looking for perp but nobody is found.

Police fetch the bucket, return it to Guard and continue fire fighting.....

It is now an FBI investigation.....

All I know if it was me I would let them get the water,it might be my place on fire next time.
I have hooked up a fire hose to my irrigation well just for this purpose and I have never asked for the county to pay anything when the fire is around here.

It happens more often than you hear about. I believe the water ownership depends on State law.

I have heard of cases, following the fire, water would be trucked back to the pond to refill it.

Aiming a rifle, at anyone, is trouble, aiming one at somebody in a helicopter is really bad. If they are working for a government agency, triple bad karma.

In Arizona, the water would be/has been replaced.

Sycamore

If the water was pumped into the stock tank with equipment owned/paid for by the rancher instead of naturally flowing that might make a difference as to ownership.

I believe he actually does.

one link

Now would I deny them use of the water? Certainly not. Just musing about might or might not be legal.

Occasional use is neither a trespass, nor a "taking." Especially not if it's for fighting a fire. When the gov't "takes" something, you can get get compensated. If they do it through a process-it's eminent domain. If they just grab it, and it damages you, it's inverse condemnation.

Near as I can see it, a firefighting helicopter scoops water out of a pond to douse a fire.... I don't see the problem. If he has to pay to refill it, file the gov't claim. It really doesn't seem to be the work of a gov't running amok. Unless the helo's black.

Not saying that someone should NOT allow the use of water on his land to help fight a fire......but it should be his choice. In an emergency, I can understand the GOVERNMENT not asking permission before hand (as if the GOVERNMENT ever asks permission), but afterward the landowner should be compensated.....or at the very least have the water replaced.

Those in other areas of the country may not understand just how bad this drought is in Oklahoma.....and even worse in Texas.

As far as the supposed "pointing of a rifle" at the helecopter.....there is no proof that it even happened (except the word of the helecopter pilot, who was being employed by the GOVERNMENT.....and we all know how they will lie). Even "if" said rifle did exist, it likely wasn't "pointed" at the helecopter deliberately.....the helecopter must have foolishly flown in front of the muzzle. After all....there certainly is no evidence of a crime since the man in question had the means to commit the "crime" of firing on the helecopter.....and didn't. therefor one must assume he had no intention of firing toward the helecopter.

With all the opinions expressed here about violating the property rights of a landowner..."for the good of all"....eminent domain (stealing of private property)....trespassing on private property by the GOVERNMENT....and the "public" owning what is on private property, I can now better understand how Obama got elected.

Just never realized there were so many socialists on the Campfire.

What if the water in his stock tank is ground water that he's pumped to the surface?

Whose is it?

If it's the state's, why shouldn't he have to pay for using it?

If it's his, why shouldn't anybody who takes it without his permission have to pay him for taking it?

If it's the state's, why shouldn't the state have to pay him for pumping it to the surface?

This is easy...........
In California we are able to take private water to save life and property.

After the emergency the fire agency works with the land owner to either replace water used or pay them for the water used.

On campaign fires a plan is set up and dipping/supply locations
anounced at briefing.

Smaller water bodies that could cause problems are identified and not used.

Cal Fire field Battalion Chiefs are sworn LE just like CHP or
Fish & Game. Folks shooting at fire equipment are arrested and dealt with accordingly.

There is, at common law, the concept of "public necessity." I pulled the following off of Wikipedia because it's easy and I need to go to bed. Happens to be correct too though I can't say how it would apply here. Compensation, if any, is more likely by fiat or private bill.



Should add that water law is largely defined within the states though generally split between eastern (riparian) and western (permit) systems. It's not ownership per se, but right to appropriate and use. Can get complicated fast.

If you are on a public sewer system, you just return flushed water to the state of local govermental sewer suthority.

We built a pond in front of our house specifically for use as a helicopter dipping fire pond. It holds about 250,000 of water, so it's not a huge pond. We live far beyond any fire agency and are surrounded by most Federal forest land. We were more than glad to have the local forest fire fighting agency use our pond in 2008 to put out a lightning caused fire about a quarter of a mile off our NW corner. They were making 2 minutes turns, dipped about 10 times and got the fire under control very quickly. The were using a 300 gallon bucket (called a bambi bucket). They did offer to bring in tankers to refill our pond, but we didn't consider it necessary. We did provide ice cream to the 30 fire fighters that staged out of our driveway area for that fire. One quirk of our fire laws is that the forest fire fighting agency won't fight a house fire, but will come to make sure a house fire won't set the woods on fire. We have the the fire fighters up to our place before each season to make sure they know about our pond, the bull dozer, our under ground water tanks and the built in sprinklers on the roof. Where others must worry about tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and flash mobs - our primary worry is about forest fires. If you've every fought one, you know how scary they can be.