>
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.
>
Stats\sources? As if Fedzilla were ‘wise’ enough, more so than the State or the Citizens thereof\moving in, that could not determine the need and how best to handle.
Your presumption implies the interstate system, or the Hoover Dam, could not have been completed were it not for the ‘jobs programs’ and Big Brother’s
>
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?
>
Forts, postal roads, etc....Nothing in A1S8. I note *nothing* re: damns, let alone ‘vested interest’.
It is the ‘compelling State interest’, all too often, used to camel nose vs. inalienable Rights. ‘Tis but *another* ‘Commerce clause’....all encompassing and wholly abused; rarely (that I can recall) on the side of the Citizen.
well, just to keep the conversation specifically on federal dams, I just gave you the wiki article on the Great Flood. That should be all the 'stats' you need.
One may sit and pontificate in 2018, when states have populations of tens of millions, 'well the citizens could have paid', but 'stats' inform us that in 1846, the population of California was less than 10,000 hispanics - including children. The first wagontrain didn't hit California until 1841 - 20 years before the flood. In 1937 when the dam was started, half of California was unemployed. So who was there to pay? Not California. The state tried to sell bonds to pay for the dam but found no buyers.
The population of Los Angeles in 1837 was 2 million - 20% were on welfare and the San Joaquin valley was inundated with 3M refugees in one year from the DustBowl. Who had money? Daddygoldbucks Feds.
Part of the reason for interstates, the Hoover and the Shasta were as work projects because people in individual states were starving to death. How many states during the Dustbowl and Depression could have built interstates or dams or any other public infrastructure 'on their own' ? And how many states could have recovered from the Depression, or any other natural disaster, without them? Not to mention the money involved in indemnification of victims and industry - if there's any assistance at all.
States are not individual countries. They are sovereign, but only within the parameters of the union. If they were to be viewed as countries, islands to themselves, then any federal assistance must be viewed as a loan with interest, and states that couldn't repay, get foreclosed and become federal property. That's not how we work obviously, or half of the US would have been foreclosed on during the Depression.
Federal assistance is given generously to states because we are a union with a common interest, we are neighbor helping neighbor, state lifting up state, but there's got to be a return for that assistance, and that return is vested interest in public projects such as dams built with government funds.
When a child is given an allowance, it is his to spend freely; but there are prerequisites to getting that allowance: chores or duties. Then there's the child that abandons the parents who funded his education, but shows up for the funeral demanding a fair share of the estate. One of the above is a mutually beneficial arrangement - a union. One is just an opportunistic thief.