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

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.