Regarding the feds and water, you might find the material below from a related thread to be interesting.
——————————
Do y'all remember discussions in this message board concerning how socialists are trying to unconstitutionally expand the federal government's powers by using the fed's constitutional authority to negotiate treaties (2.2.2)? Related issues concern Constitution-ignoring USA politicians working through the UN to try to force US citizens to comply with foreign laws. Examples of such laws concern gun control for civilians, parenting control and Agenda 21 issues, issues which the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to address imo.
I had done some scratching concerning the federal government unconstitutionally expanding its powers by abusing treaty power and discovered the following. In the early 20th century, and with the help of activist justices, Congress had evidently used its power to negotiate treaties to steal 10th Amendment-protected state power to regulate water rights imo.
More specifically, although I'm happy that Native Americans were insured a supply of water for agricultural purposes, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's decision in Winters v. United States (Winters) activist justices had given Congress the green light to regulate intrastate water rights, such federal legislative powers wrongly interpolated from Congress's power to negotiate treaties imo.
It turns out that the activist justices who had decided Winters had argued that the Supremacy Clause, Section 2 of Article VII, in conjunction with Congress's power to negotiate treaties, trumped 10th Amendment-protected state power to regulate intrastate water. In fact, the justice who had argued that treaties trump the 10th Amendment, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., is one of main justices credited for fostering the idea of the "living Constitution” where activist justices basically interpret the Constitution any way that they want to.
However, regarding such a perspective on the scope of Congress's power to negotiate treaties, and as similarly noted with respect to controversial United Nations issues, please consider the following.
Thomas Jefferson, based on his experience as Vice President and President of the Senate, had officially clarified that Congress cannot use its power to negotiate treaties as a back door to establish new powers for itself, powers not based on the limited powers which the states have delegated to Congress via the Constitution.
“In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise.” —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
“Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.” —Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1812.
Also note that the Supreme Court had later reflected on Jefferson’s words, clarifying that Congress cannot use it’s power to negotiate treaties as a backdoor way to expand its constitutionally-limited powers.
"2. Insofar as Art. 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for the military trial of civilian dependents accompanying the armed forces in foreign countries, it cannot be sustained as legislation which is "necessary and proper" to carry out obligations of the United States under international agreements made with those countries, since no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution [emphasis added] [emphasis added].” — Reid v. Covert, 1956.
So while patriots have been concerned about "closing the barn door so the horses can't escape," stopping corrupt Congress from using its power to negotiate treaties to limit constitutional rights with the help of the UN, little did we know that one horse had already escaped from the barn in the early 20th century with respect to 10th Amendment-protected water rights, compliments of activist justices.
Regarding the EPA, note that the Founding States had made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide them from Congress, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches or in non-elected government bureaucrats like those running the EPA. So Congress has a constitutional monopoly on federal legislative / regulatory powers whether it wants it or not imo.
So not only has Congress wrongly delegated legislative powers to non-elected bureaucrats in blatant defiance of Sections 1-3 mentioned above, the EPA in this example, but Congress has delegated powers that the states have never granted to Congress expressly via the Constitution, regulating intrastate water rights in this example.
Also note that the post-17th Amendment Senate should have protected the states by killing the bills which led to the establishment and funding of the EPA. The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators and Constitution-ignoring EPA bureaucrats along with it.
SCOTUS has ruled three times that only Treaty Tribes have rights, all others (including non-treaty tribes) have mere privileges which can (and are being) revoked at any given time.
Whenever a case involving Treaty Tribes comes before the Court, in every instance I know, they have found for the tribes. The one I was involved with was WASHINGTON v. FISHING VESSEL ASSN., 443 U.S. 658 (1979). We lost ... and with that lost faith in the US as a viable country. We are not equal, and yes some are more equal than others.
This went with the whole property rights battles in the west. and none of them won either. These cases never made it to SCOTUS, having already ruled. Interestingly some of the cases at appeal the lower courts actually overruled SCOTUS to find even more in favor of the tribes, but were never challenged (lack of money).