The ramifications of the Obama administration's man-made California drought
Author: Brandon Middleton
Big Government's John Loudon has a great article on why it's important for the entire country to wake up and realize that the Obama administration is putting fish before people. Loudon explains that the ramifications of cutting off water to the San Joaquin Valley go far beyond California:
As for the rest of us, the implications are huge, not just for our food bills, but for establishing the precedent of allowing the Federal government this level of control over water. When government takes your water, they take the value of your land nay, they steal the value of your land.
Missouri lost this battle over the last several years and unlike California, we have to drive hundreds of miles to find anything that looks like a desert. Nevertheless, the Government used the same Act to withhold water from the State after which the river is named, favoring the pallid sturgeon over farmers. Get the pattern?
Indeed, and as I mentioned to the Sacramento Bee's Matt Weiser, Pacific Legal Foundation's constitutional lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is as much for the benefit of the entire San Joaquin Valley and country as it is for our particular farming clients. If the Constitution is not going to be respected in California, it's just as likely to take a back seat to environmental overkill in other places as well.
Sadly, this man-made drought is not only unfair, not only immoral, it's also unconstitutional: the federal government has gone beyond its Commerce Clause authority by placing the needs of a fish that has no connection to the rest of the country above the needs of people.
What to read next
Our friends at Institute for Justice have convinced the Supreme Court to soon decide in the case Timbs v. Indiana whether the Constitution restrains states (and not just the federal government) from … ›
This morning the Ninth Circuit released this opinion in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra, a case about whether California can demand confidential donor forms from nonprofit organizations operating within … ›