My Comments regarding Oregon House Bill HB 2564 (Water Meter bill)

April 25, 2007

To: rep.terrybeyer@state.or.us; rep.chuckburley@state.or.us; rep.bencannon@state.or.us; rep.jackiedingfelder@state.or.us; rep.bobjenson@state.or.us; rep.gregmacpherson@state.or.us; rep.gregsmith@state.or.us 

BCCed to: Let your imagination run wild!

From: Julie Kay Smithson propertyrights@earthlink.net  

As an Ohio resident whose water has been arbitrarily metered for the past three years, I have witnessed several examples of faulty or poorly designed meters. Resultant damage to the impeller, which resulted from miniscule amounts of grit (either from the casing, a grain of sand or whatever), has cost far more than pre-metering days of yore. The pendulum, begun by some that doubtless were truly concerned about wasted water, luxuriant water use, etc., has swung past the middle ground of common sense, to the far extreme of monitoring, metering and mitigating every drop of water everywhere. Oregon House Bill HB 2564 is one example of this.

Technology has made wonderful advances in the use and availability of water, from windmills to desalinization plants to drip and other means of irrigation.

Somewhere along the line, the fact that water does not "disappear" forever has been overlooked, whether accidentally or deliberately. Water is often reused (my dishwater goes outside to apply to growing flowers and shrubs; the diluted detergent keeps pests off the plants and the water is utilized in the plants' growing processes). Water, like much on our planet, is renewable. It evaporates, condenses and falls again as rain, snow, etc. The Chicken Little, "Sky is Falling" hysteria surrounding water utilization -- including "global warming" and natural, cyclical weather changes and fluctuation -- is just that: hysteria. Certainly, people that don't know any better will be fooled by the sales pitch of Oregon House Bill HB 2564, assuming its authors, sponsors and co-sponsors must know far more about such things than they. The truth is, legislators often know far less about these matters than those good folks "in the field" (both literally and figuratively). The true experts are not the self-proclaimed and self-aggrandizing "environmentalists" and "conservationalists."

The Nature Conservancy (which sells itself as a "non-profit," yet also claims to be "Nature's Realtor") is not the expert on all things relating to natural resources, though it appears to relish such illusatory mirages. It is an organization involved in the acquisition of property or the control of property through easements and other restrictive means. Its government partnerships often mean it sells property it has acquired and acted as a 'holding' agent for, to various federal and other agencies: For a profit.

Knowing everything about everyone and controlling the property, resources, utilization of those resources, and the movements and all activities of all, is not "government" in the Constitutional Republic upon which America -- the United States of America -- was founded. People chafe at and rail against such agendas to regulate and make their every move a reason to fine, mitigate or regulate into oblivion.

This current piece of legislation is unneeded, unnecessary and clearly illustrates the scope with which "government" has run amok.

Oregon House Bill HB 2564 needs to be sent to the nearest paper shredder, immediately!

The good people of Oregon -- as well as those of us in the rest of America that depend on Oregon-raised and mined products for our health and well-being -- do not need or want the equivalent of the "H20 Babysitter."

Perhaps a "meter" governing the actions of "public-private partnerships" and the legislation driven by same, would be more in order, appropriate and accountable?

Julie Kay Smithson

Property rights researcher, author, speaker, consultant

Founder and Owner: Property Rights Research.org 

London , Ohio

propertyrights@earthlink.net

http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org

(Permission to post from the author.)