CA: Farmers win $26 million landmark water suit

You missed the point of my (sarcastic) agreement with the feds. I "agree" with them that the taxpayers should not be left holding the bag for their incompetence. I feel that there is a fundamental problem with the way such issues are resolved now. The government (or at least staffers) are in an accountability-free situation. They can impose any unreasonable edict they like; if it stands, they win, and if it's overturned, the TAXPAYERS lose. Win-win for them, lose-lose for us, their employers. The potential for PERSONAL liability might make them a little more cautious with their actions. Full, 100% personal liability isn't realistic, as their decisions have the potential for multi-million dollar impact, but it should be enough so that they think twice or three times about the impact their actions have on others and whether the law is behind them.

You missed the point of my (sarcastic) agreement with the feds. I "agree" with them that the taxpayers should not be left holding the bag for their (the feds') incompetence and cavalier attitude to whom is ruined by their actions. I feel that there is a fundamental problem with the way such issues are resolved now. The government (or at least staffers) are in an accountability-free situation. They can impose any unreasonable edict they like; if it stands, they win, but if it's overturned, the TAXPAYERS lose. Win-win for them, lose-lose for us, their supposed employers. The potential for PERSONAL liability might make them a little more cautious with their actions. Full, 100% personal liability isn't realistic, as their decisions have the potential for multi-million dollar impact, but it should be enough so that they think twice or three times about the impact their actions have on others and whether the law is behind them.

You missed the point of my (sarcastic) agreement with the feds.

There are enough people here who agree with regulatory environmental protection that absent a sarcasm tag or something too obvious, I have to treat it as if it has credulous intent.

I feel that there is a fundamental problem with the way such issues are resolved now.

Want a solution?

Full, 100% personal liability isn't realistic, as their decisions have the potential for multi-million dollar impact, but it should be enough so that they think twice or three times about the impact their actions have on others and whether the law is behind them.

IIRC, there are little used criminal and civil statutes that would work but for the gutlessness of DAs and grand juries. The real evidence of criminal racketeering, graft, and influence peddling is tough to come by.

I think the real problems are in the criminal racketeering elements in NGOs and foundations that own investments that stand to profit from the outcomes. The agencies (and I would throw academics in with them) are a symptom of an unconstitutional and structurally dysfunctional system. The players are willing dupes interested in job security, brainwashed idiots who haven't yet figured out it isn't working, or jaded lifers beholden to sources of grant money or under orders from politicians and lawyers out for power.

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.