>
The constitutional question is - can the state stop the feds from building on federal land within a state?
>
Then Q1 becomes: Define ‘Federal’ land, per the Constitution. Else, 9th/10th kick-in and Fed can go pound sand.
The Pacific coast has a weather phenomenon called atmospheric rivers. Where massive amounts of water can pour down on the coastal states in a short period of time. The reason the dams were built in California in the first place was to keep the flatlands down to Sacramento and beyond to the Central Valley from flooding 20 to 30 feet deep. There was no way the state could have afforded the dams on their own. And no way 80% of the state could be settled permanently without them. The state has relied for decades on the feds to fund maintenance and operations- with taxdollars from every state. For dams at least, wouldn’t the feds have some sort of vested interest above that of the state, 9th and 10th excepted?
1862 Great Flood:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1862