Wed, Oct 24 2012 at 5:18 AM
OK, people, calm down. Despite the article's title and the first set of paragraphs that suggest that this man's "crimes" were indeed merely the collection of rainwater, it seems the possibly more salient point -- that he was diverting watershed water from tributaries [ostensibly necessary for community water collection] -- was missed by most readers. This article was clearly designed to get up the ire of "anti-guvment" folks, and it did so brilliantly. How about an accounting of what really is happening here -- without the bias -- so that ordinary folk can make up their own minds about the situation without being led astray by someone with an obvious hidden agenda?