I hope that the fight over the delta smelt was worth it (it was not), because this controversy over water rights will end with somebody being shot. I’d also suggest that the AP at least mention that one major reason that the farmers are not getting that water is because of a three inch fish that may, in fact, be extinct in the wild at this point. …And wouldn’t that be a kick in the teeth? The Democrats can’t even keep their goram pet fish alive; and yet, they want to set ecological policy. And cut off all the bits of agricultural policy that don’t fit in this particular Procrustean bed, of course.
Moe Lane
PS: Sorry: the AP has some very cranky, and ultimately self-defeating, attitudes over ‘fair use.’ Short version: some farmers in California are taking their water and justifying it with existing water rights. It’s going to end badly. Very, very badly.
Is it spelled “goram” or “gorram”?
Asking for a friend.
I always write it as goram, but it might be gorram. I truthfully do not know which is the right spelling. 🙂
They’re going to get a friendly federal judge to hold that the federal government owned all water rights during the time the state was a territory, and even if the federal government hasn’t been utilizing their claims, their claims are still senior in the event they wish to use them for whatever purpose they choose.
Regardless of whether the law regarding water rights has explicit provisions for what happens to water rights in they are not utilized for an extended period or explicit requirements about how water rights can be filled and claimed.
.
They’ve been doing it for years. And “they” encompasses both political parties.
It was under W. when it was ruled that federal regulations trump our state constitution in this regard.
.
There’s an old saying in these parts: Whisky’s for drinking, water’s for fighting.
can we tell Cali that it’s legal to vote for, and even elect, responsible Republicans who will clean up some of the problems?
I think that in California, that is banned under blasphemy laws.