Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Valley growers take fight against water cutbacks to Supreme Court
The Fresno Bee ^ | 10-1-14 | Mark Grossi

Posted on 10/02/2014 6:42:29 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic

San Joaquin Valley growers Wednesday filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping to reverse an appellate court’s rejection of their claim that flawed science was used to cut back water pumping in Northern California.

The case already has been through U.S. District Court in Fresno, which sided with growers in a decision that would have forced federal leaders to rewrite 2008 protections for the threatened delta smelt.

The dwindling fish population lives in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta where pumps divert water for Valley farms and Southern California cities. Federal wildlife agencies say water pumping is harming the fish.

Growers say that stopping the pumping is harming their businesses and the surrounding economies in the Valley. West Valley growers in such areas as Westlands Water District rely on the water to irrigate their crops.

After losing in Fresno district court, federal officials and environmentalists appealed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which sided with the government in March.

The Sacramento-based Pacific Legal Foundation filed the Supreme Court appeal.

(Excerpt) Read more at fresnobee.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; US: California
KEYWORDS: deltasmelt; fresno; growers; sanjoaquinvalley; scotus; water

1 posted on 10/02/2014 6:42:29 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

‘Government’ has no concept of the damage they do, as GOVERNMENT PRODUCES NOTHING!

Screw the Delta Smelt; switch to Alewife! ;)


2 posted on 10/02/2014 7:07:43 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (I don't have 'Hobbies.' I'm developing a robust Post-Apocalyptic skill set...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I post this information months ago and contacted many people, but nothing has ever happened. It’s a temporary solution that could work for many of the hard hit drought areas.

Need Water??

Well read this............

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/bruce-kelly/if-crude-by-rail-why-not-water.html?channel=

The farmers need water and here is a way you can get it.
Rail tanker cars carry 32,000 liquid gallons and a 100 cars carry 3.2 million gallons, Five train loads a day equal 16 million gallons. According to my sources hundreds of DOT-111 tanker cars will soon be ready for water service. Plans can be made to move water from Oregon to California, but the citizens and farm communities need to act and GET ON BOARD.


3 posted on 10/02/2014 7:09:49 AM PDT by hapnHal (hapnHal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hapnHal

Oregon is in it’s third year of drought conditions. I think
you’d have to go further north, way north....


4 posted on 10/02/2014 7:24:15 AM PDT by OregonRancher (Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

Headlines that write themselves....

Did not know the Supreme Court had water to cut back....


5 posted on 10/02/2014 7:25:18 AM PDT by illiac (If we don't change directions soon, we'll get where we're going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Find out who is buying up the devalued land.
I am betting Nancy Pelosi husband is involved.


6 posted on 10/02/2014 9:12:26 AM PDT by minnesota_bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic; All
With all due respect to mom & pop, the conseqence of the parents of valley growers not making sure that their children were taught about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers is the following.

Simply put, with the exception of federal property purchased under the terms of either the Constituton's Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I, or the eminent domain aspect of the 5th Amendment, the states have never amended the Constitution to grant the feds the specific power to protect endangered animal species or regulate water usage on intrastate land.

The reason that the corrupt federal government is now wrongy regulating water usage on intrastate land is the following, imo, which is from a related thread.

-------------

Do y'all remember discussions in this message board concerning how socialists are trying to unconstitutionally expand the federal government's powers using the federal government's power to negotiate treaties? Current related issues concern Constitution-ignoring USA politicians working through the UN to try to force US citizens to comply with foreign laws. Examples of such laws are gun control, parenting control and Agenda 21 issues, issues which the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to address.

Thanks to information I got from freeper Ben Fiklin in a related thread, I had done some scratching and discovered the following. In the early 20th century, and with the help of activist justices, Congress had evidently used its power to negotiate treaties to usurp 10th Amendment-protected state power to regulate water rights imo.

More specifically, although I'm happy that Native Americans were insured a supply of water for agricultural purposes, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's decision in Winters v. United States (1908), activist justices had given Congress the green light to Congress to regulate intrastate water rights, such federal legislative powers wrongly interpolated from Congress's power to negotiate treaties imo.

More specifically, activist justices had argued that the Supremacy Clause, Section 2 of Article VII, in conjunction with Congress's power to negotiate treaties, trumped 10th Amendment-protected states power to regulate water. In fact, the justice who had argued that treaties trump the 10th Amendment, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., is one of main justices credited for fostering the idea of the "living Constitution."

However, regarding such a perspective on the scope of Congress's power to negotiate treaties, and as similarly noted with respect to controversial United Nations issues, please consider the following.

Thomas Jefferson, based on his experience as Vice President and President of the Senate, had officially clarified that Congress cannot use its power to negotiate treaties as a back door to establish new powers for itself, powers not based on the limited powers which the states have delegated to Congress via the Constitution.

Also note that the Supreme Court had later reflected on Jefferson’s words, clarifying that Congress cannot use it’s power to negotiate treaties as a backdoor way to expand its constitutionally-limited powers.

"2. Insofar as Art. 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for the military trial of civilian dependents accompanying the armed forces in foreign countries, it cannot be sustained as legislation which is "necessary and proper" to carry out obligations of the United States under international agreements made with those countries, since no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution [emphasis added]." --Reid v. Covert, 1956.

So while patriots have recently been concerned about "closing the barn door so the horses can't escape," stopping corrupt Congress from using its power to negotiate treaties to limit constitutional rights with the help of the UN, little did we know that one horse had already escaped from the barn in the early 20th century with respect to 10th Amendment-protected water rights, compliments of activist justices.

Also regarding the EPA, note that the Founding States had made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide them from Congress, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches or in non-elected government bureaucrats like those running the EPA. So Congress has a constitutional monopoly on federal legislative / regulatory powers whether it wants it or not imo.

So not only has Congress wrongly delegated legislative powers to non-elected bureaucrats in blatant defiance of the previous mentioned clauses, but Congress has delegated powers that the states have never granted to Congress via the Constitution, regulating water rights in this example.

7 posted on 10/02/2014 9:31:11 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson