4 ms·
Sure, that's the easy answer. But you must have a legal framework in which to do so. Otherwise, what do you have?
by quesera 4y ago
Sure, that's the easy answer. But you must have a legal framework in which to do so.
Otherwise, what do you have?
- haswell 4y agoAre you suggesting that there is no legal framework (or avenue to one) that would allow the federal government to step in here?
- ViViDboarder 4y agoYea, the OP said federal legislators should do something. The constitution provides them a legal framework for writing laws.
- lazide 4y agoThe current setup is strongly based on historic water rights laws. Touching that would be opening a giant Pandora’s box few legislators want to handle. And with how broken Congress is in general, do ANY of the states involved think that would produce a better outcome?
- AgentOrange1234 4y agoYes of course congress is a mess and intervention will have major consequences, but the alternative seems to be everyone stands around watching the water dry up.
- lazide 4y agoAnd hoping this winter will be a wet one. Which, hey maybe. But nah. Sounds about right! If the little guy gets screwed too, SNAFU.
- diggernet 4y agothe legal framework is eminent domain
- lazide 4y agoNot even close. If anyone tried to use it to do that, everyone would regret it.
- OkayPhysicist 4y agoThe legal framework is the intersection of eminent domain and Congress's constitutional power to regulate interstate disputes and commerce. Compared to just about everything else the federal government does, this may be the most within its legal powers.