more governent control over private property. YIPPEEEE!!

[spidey07]

Some fish that were vital to maintaining the ecosystem of coast and who's survival were key to maintaining the food chain of many of the fish which were a major part of the fishing industry of that coast. Also, the farmers were attempting to farm a desert, that only had water because of huge efforts to redirect water to that area.

Don't leave out the details because they negate your talking point.

Do you fish. Sounds like a baitfish to me. Other baitfish will fill the gap. They always do unless a predator whipes them out.

This is how the world work. I and other fisherman know this.

 

[JSt0rm]

ok so when it rains the water flows from my downspouts into my lawn, but if i have a rain collector barrel and collect that rain water and use it to water my garden im not feeding the water table. sorry man but i just dont get your argument.

hell even the Colorado law makers reversed the stupid law because its STUPID!

was that my argument? No it wasn't. Your strawman doesn't make you adept at getting your point across it just makes me think your avatar and you have a little more in common.

 

[JSt0rm]

So, punish everyone, right?

How is protecting a water table punishment? In all of your cognitive dissonant, knee jerk reaction to all government you too would be dead in 7 days without water. It's worth more then anything else on this planet and should be treated as such.

 

[Jhhnn]

Rightwing outrage Junkies, front and center! Begin screaming, wailing, gnashing your teeth and pulling out your hair... Now!

Be sure to toss in a couple of red herrings, just to stink the place up...

Which reminds me of the legend of Hercules and the Stygian stables, apparently a really big stink at the time. He diverted a river through the stables to clean 'em out in less than a day. At the time, he was a hero, because apparently nobody lived downstream... Today, of course, there's always somebody depending on the quality of the water downstream, even if downstream is the ocean, and the convenience of externalizing liabilities by flushing them down the drain is rightfully becoming a thing of the past...

Too bad. So sad. Rave on, fools.

 

[JSt0rm]

Do you fish. Sounds like a baitfish to me. Other baitfish will fill the gap. They always do unless a predator whipes them out.

This is how the world work. I and other fisherman know this.

fuck I cant believe you exist. You and other fishermen know how the world works? eh? So then if we follow your logic the FISHERMEN that were against the transfer of water to the farmers know what they are talking about?

 

[Double Trouble]

Yep, just what we need more government control and intrusion into people's lives..... and we're standing by watching it happen. Sad to see it.

 

[umbrella39]

fuck I cant believe you exist. You and other fishermen know how the world works? eh? So then if we follow your logic the FISHERMEN that were against the transfer of water to the farmers know what they are talking about?

Leave the parrot to his crackers. He's so full of shit someone will change the paper in the bottom of his cage soon enough...

 

[StageLeft]

Having read the comments in this thread I can't help but think that the thread would be more meaningful if there was more substance and less wrath. Nobody is knocking on your door asking for your first born to feed to the king's lions, as I have heard a grown-up admonishing a two year old who was crying in the pool because he was too scared of the water "Use your words.".

 

[OutHouse]

The law is in place to stop multinational water companies from stealing from the water table. If they need to tweak the law a little bit to allow residents (and not corporations but seeing as how corporations are seen as individuals in our law system I dont see how you can do it) to take some run off. Honestly it can't be tweaked because of what I just stated about corporations. So there - you cant drink rain water sorry. How many honest people does something like this effect compared to the MASSIVE damage that is being done or could be done.

BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT!!! these stupid laws have been on the books since the 1800's. LONG before the western states were concerned about multinational water companies. its interesting how you say multinational it just shows what your agenda really is.

you changed your toon when i showed you Colorado struck that dumb-ass law from its books now i bet you will again.

 

[Patranus]

What constitutional justification can congress give for regulating water that doesn't cross state lines?

 

[werepossum]

What constitutional justification can congress give for regulating water that doesn't cross state lines?

Once SCOTUS ruled that anything that could presumably be sold affects interstate commerce even if there is no plan to sell it, the federal government was free to regulate, subsidize, or seize pretty much everything. Also, under the jurisdiction of the EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Endangered Species Act, very small streams and even seasonal ponds and pools have been regulated for quite some time, as the former are habitat for many species not found in bigger waters and the latter are important to migratory birds as well as many ephemeral species that live only in temporary pools (e.g. most fairy shrimp.)

The legislative change does make one wonder if an expansion in power is underway. The article specifically mentions Kelo v. New London, to me the most troubling SCOTUS decision in at least the last thirty years. Since SCOTUS has already established the right of government (at all levels, not just federal) to take your property and give it to another individual if government deems that a better use of the land, the worst case scenario would be the federal government seizing your land because you aren't managing these streamlets and temporary pools to its satisfaction and giving your land to, say, Algore to establish a tree farm selling indulgences. Sorry, carbon credits.

Kelo v. New London established that Americans are property of government. Property can't own property - although property can be encouraged to think it owns property, for political purposes - so really this change is just a progression of government establishing further control. It only remains to be seen if government uses its extra power wisely (to prevent habitat loss and extinction of otherwise viable species) or to reward its supporters and further its political agenda. Your best guess probably demonstrates how much faith you have in the integrity and wisdom of government . . .

 

[OutHouse]

Once SCOTUS ruled that anything that could presumably be sold affects interstate commerce even if there is no plan to sell it, the federal government was free to regulate, subsidize, or seize pretty much everything. Also, under the jurisdiction of the EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Endangered Species Act, very small streams and even seasonal ponds and pools have been regulated for quite some time, as the former are habitat for many species not found in bigger waters and the latter are important to migratory birds as well as many ephemeral species that live only in temporary pools (e.g. most fairy shrimp.)

The legislative change does make one wonder if an expansion in power is underway. The article specifically mentions Kelo v. New London, to me the most troubling SCOTUS decision in at least the last thirty years. Since SCOTUS has already established the right of government (at all levels, not just federal) to take your property and give it to another individual if government deems that a better use of the land, the worst case scenario would be the federal government seizing your land because you aren't managing these streamlets and temporary pools to its satisfaction and giving your land to, say, Algore to establish a tree farm selling indulgences. Sorry, carbon credits.

Kelo v. New London established that Americans are property of government. Property can't own property - although property can be encouraged to think it owns property, for political purposes - so really this change is just a progression of government establishing further control. It only remains to be seen if government uses its extra power wisely (to prevent habitat loss and extinction of otherwise viable species) or to reward its supporters and further its political agenda. Your best guess probably demonstrates how much faith you have in the integrity and wisdom of government . . .

excellent post

 

[werepossum]

excellent post

Why thank you.

 

[piasabird]

I guess the town should pay the woman to fix her roof when it leaks, because they own the rain.