Replies

I thought about mentioning to Pohbah that while I was making an argument with him going in one direction, I had previously made arguments with you going in the other direction.

Whatever the best case the farmers may have, I think that injecting contitutionality into it just muddys the water and shifts the focus.

I tend to think of it in terms of water rights since there are those there that have riparian rights and there are those there that have water relocated to them via a ditch with some of them having senior rights and some having junior rights. Since they have been relegated to "unintended beneficiaries", their contractural rights don't seem to strong.

Whatever the case may be, the real issue is that the feds have trumps in that they can set minimum lake levels for the endangered sucker and minimum flow rates to satisfy treaty rights.

I think Bush has done some good things there as far as bringing in NAS, acquiring the water upstream, and trying to split the indians and the enviros, but the fact remains that only Congress can solve it permenantly.

Whatever the best case the farmers may have, I think that injecting contitutionality into it just muddys the water and shifts the focus.

So why'd the farmers do just that? It unnecessarily weakens their case and opens up the floor for an enviro-whacko dropkick.

the feds have trumps in that they can set minimum lake levels for the endangered sucker

The "law" resulting in this is in itself unconstitutional IMHO. When that is the case, then it is by God important to bring constitutionality into the picture. It muddies nothing in that regard ... it shines a light on one of the things that must change.

In the end, the people so affected are simply not going to stand for it ... and that type of resistance to such laws, rulings, takings and actions by their own government is going to spread. At some point, such Federal or even state and local actions push beyond a threshold and the the pendulum begins to swing.

We saw that in Klamath, we saw it at Jarbidge and we are going to see more of it until things are restored to their proper order under the constitution. In the end, it will be the people who force the issue. Too bad those who are placed in a position of trust will not di their duty ... but historically such conditions have been reached before.

I am grateful for the progress in Klamath, but it isn't reasolved yet. Hopefully, it ill be soon and without the need for further confrontation.