4 ms·

Is it really feasible if a state can only pull it off with large federal funding efforts? It seems like a problem those in the area will just have to deal with

Is it really feasible if a state can only pull it off with large federal funding efforts? It seems like a problem those in the area will just have to deal with given that they're knowingly walking down that path. If you can't fund desalinization or other options, won't take federal funding, and choose not to region or conserve water then you collectively made your own bed.

lazide 1y ago
Like people who build in flood zones and don’t have flood insurance, they do have a nasty tendency to make their problem your problem somehow though.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  They shouldn't be my problem, and I say that as someone who lived in a flood prone home with no flood insurance as it was ridiculously expensive for pretty terrible coverage. I wouldn't have lived in that house if I was unable or unwilling to deal with the consequences of a flood, no one else should either.
  - lazide 1y ago
    Should == I wish, unfortunately.
mattmaroon 1y ago
I don't really know what they're talking about, states almost never refuse federal funding for anything.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  Louisiana refused federal highway funding for long enough that their highway system went to shit. They refused due to a federal mandate that the drinking age be raised to 21. It isn't common, but states have absolutely forwent federal funding to stand their ground, and in my opinion they should do it more often. Its a huge weakness in our federal system that states are so dependent on federal funding for long lived programs.
  - mattmaroon 1y ago
    I did say “almost”. I’m aware it has happened. But I have property in Arizona and I have a real hard time imagining this state saying no thank you if offered water. It’s sort of a big deal out there these days.
    - _heimdall 1y ago
      Oh I hear you, I have family in Phoenix. My main concern there is that states can and should turn down federal funding if it comes with strings the state isn't interested in accepting. Our federal system becomes fairly useless if states are so dependent on federal funding that we can no longer have 50 different experiments running to try out different legislative approaches.

lazide 1y ago

Like people who build in flood zones and don’t have flood insurance, they do have a nasty tendency to make their problem your problem somehow though.

_heimdall 1y ago
They shouldn't be my problem, and I say that as someone who lived in a flood prone home with no flood insurance as it was ridiculously expensive for pretty terrible coverage. I wouldn't have lived in that house if I was unable or unwilling to deal with the consequences of a flood, no one else should either.
- lazide 1y ago
  Should == I wish, unfortunately.

mattmaroon 1y ago

I don't really know what they're talking about, states almost never refuse federal funding for anything.

_heimdall 1y ago
Louisiana refused federal highway funding for long enough that their highway system went to shit. They refused due to a federal mandate that the drinking age be raised to 21. It isn't common, but states have absolutely forwent federal funding to stand their ground, and in my opinion they should do it more often. Its a huge weakness in our federal system that states are so dependent on federal funding for long lived programs.
- mattmaroon 1y ago
  I did say “almost”. I’m aware it has happened. But I have property in Arizona and I have a real hard time imagining this state saying no thank you if offered water. It’s sort of a big deal out there these days.
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    Oh I hear you, I have family in Phoenix. My main concern there is that states can and should turn down federal funding if it comes with strings the state isn't interested in accepting. Our federal system becomes fairly useless if states are so dependent on federal funding that we can no longer have 50 different experiments running to try out different legislative approaches.