[nightdriver]

"I fail to see where the Constitution authorizes the building of water projects. The plaintiffs' brief says that those actions not permitted by thre Constitution are forbidden. I'm just taking the plaintiffs' claims to their logical conclusion."

What I mean is that there would be NO authorization for the gubmint to destroy the water projects already put in.

If that were the case, the dams would have to be removed from the TVA, the Columbia River, the Colorado River, etc.

I agree that the Constitution did not authorize them in the first place. Now that they're there, there is also no authorization for the gubmint to remove them, although the environazis here in the Northwest are demanding that very thing.

In Idaho, a few years ago, there was a real bloody fight over the dams Idaho Power built in Hell's Canyon. The two Idaho democRAT senators tried their best to (unconstitutionally) build a single high dam, at taxpayer expense, and DESTROY the three revenue-producing dams that private enterprise built. Thankfully, the gubmint lost, but only just barely, and Pfost and Church are gone on to their rewards.

[Poohbah]

If that were the case, the dams would have to be removed from the TVA, the Columbia River, the Colorado River, etc.

Exactly so.

I agree that the Constitution did not authorize them in the first place. Now that they're there, there is also no authorization for the gubmint to remove them, although the environazis here in the Northwest are demanding that very thing.

Except that the federal government built those dams in part by seizing land through eminent domain. Any law that is not constitutional is no law at all, and thus the law that authorized the seizure of land by eminent domain is no law, and thus the land must be returned to its rightful owners. In order to effect this, the dams have to go.