The purpose of this is to debate a Bill before it is added. Debate can center on whether the Bill should be passed or not, or it can center over which lobbyists care about the Bill in question. Some Bills are unconstitutional or simply redundant, so if this Bill is one of those, it won't be added in the first place, so feel free to debate that, too. Have fun.
December 12, 2009

Water Rights Act of 2009

Water Rights Act of 2009
(Submitted on behalf of Congressman Anthony Intiso (R-CA))

SECTION 1: WHERAS the issues of California's water crisis has got to a very extreme point in time.

SECTION 2: WHERAS the citizens of California (mainly my district, district 2) have been suffering because their water has been taken away by the federal government. That needs to stop, and is not supported by the Constitution

SECTION 3: WHERAS the Water Rights Act of 2009 insures the following.

3.1 : Insures the protection of farmers, ranchers, and citizen's water. To be used normally. And to insure that the water does not get taken away by the federal government. Insures safety of the water.

3.2 : Insures farmers, and ranchers rights are protected indefinitely. They are not told by the federal government how to raise livestock, and grow crops.

SECTION 4: WHERAS the Water Rights Act of 2009 will start to take immediately after the signature of the President.

Respected with respect and the people in mind,
Congressman Anthony Intiso (R-CA) of California's 2nd District

Submitted 8:10 PM by Pileup
No title
Wasn't this already submitted by the Tick? And I still don't understand what the "government" is doing with the water that it is supposedly taking.
Posted By Nebula1 on 12/12/09 at 10:25 PM | Reply
RE: No title
This version is revised, and a little different.
Posted By McCain-Palin on 12/12/09 at 11:58 PM | Reply
Respected with respect
Not sure what "Respected with respect" means.
Posted By Augustus Clinton on 12/13/09 at 11:57 AM | Reply
What I ment was
What I ment was "Submited with respect and the people in mind"

Sorry for the typo.
Posted By McCain-Palin on 12/13/09 at 2:00 PM | Reply
No title
Water in rivers, lakes and that falls from the sky is the sole property of the US public. We can not allow the agro-industrial corporations.

I favor removal of all damns from the Colorado and the rivers and streams taht feed it. Large Agro-monopolies should be broken up into smaller family farms, that could use coops for marketing, purchase of expensive machinery, etc.

Of course the federal government, as well as state and local governments need to regulate agro-corporations. Otherwise they dispoil the land and create environmental dangers downstream and next door to their sites.

The drought in California is a histoical cyclical drought. In my mind it shows taht mass agriculture is not a viable activity in California.

Farming should be decentralized so taht it supplies people in that area. Monoagriculture is dangerous and expensive, and pone to ecoli etc.

Posted By Roseanne Connor on 12/15/09 at 4:05 PM | Reply
The Dam bill
The dam bill I will create after this bill has been brought up for a vote.

And the dams need to stay in. They help, there are other ways for the fish to more besides running into the dams.
Posted By McCain-Palin on 12/15/09 at 4:44 PM | Reply
No title
What are you talking about?
Posted By Nebula1 on 12/16/09 at 12:03 AM | Reply
No title
I also favor governmental control of agro-conglomerates to pursue more sustainable methods of agriculture, focusing on preserving soil viability and groundwater re-usability.

Removing the dams on the river however, could be disastrous since the redirected waters not only produce electricity but also provide a source of freshwater for much of the US southwest.
Posted By Nebula1 on 12/16/09 at 12:16 AM | Reply
No title
I'm willing to considered dams a case by case basis. But, it maybe that the Southwest US is unihabitable at the current population level
Posted By Roseanne Connor on 12/16/09 at 5:57 PM | Reply
No title
Given the environmental conditions of the earth today from dwindling ground-water supplies to soil exhaustion to fossil fuel overconsumption to flora/fauna extinction, the entire world is probably uninhabitable at its current population level.
Posted By Nebula1 on 12/16/09 at 7:08 PM | Reply
No title
I am currently in the process of creating the dam bill. But I am going to wait to submit it until this bill is voted on.
Posted By McCain-Palin on 12/16/09 at 9:24 PM | Reply
I dont exactly understand the logic...
I dont exactly understand how Californias water drought is the federal governments fault. We all know how much money California puts into things such as watering their golf courses. I will try to pull up information on this issue. However, California needs to deal with their water issues, not the federal government. The governor of California can deal with this issue. I dont ecatly see how its a nation issue. For example, Minnesota is not being hurt by Californias water problems. We are actually highly efficient and have a good supply of water. Clearly California needs to quit trying to be an agricultural state and save its water, rather than wasting it. But this is a state issue, rather than a Federal issue.
Posted By John Berlac on 12/18/09 at 6:39 PM | Reply
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The interference of government in areas of agriculture is not only unconstitutional, but threatens the stability of the states. Any water-crisis must be dealt with by the states and then their ability to govern will not be infringed. I would like the state of California to vote on the issue itself. If anyone gets this and is in the senate propose a bill that looks like this:

In order to
1. Help prevent government expansion
and 2. Protect the stability and ability of the states to govern and protect themselves.
The following bill is proposed:
The state of California's governor shall put on the ballot a resolution of a 1.00 sales tax to be used to help the water crisis.
If the vote is in favor than the sales tax will be initiated for six months.
Posted By Jim Tracy on 12/3/10 at 3:04 PM | Reply

Post New Comment

Title:
Comment (tags allowed: <b>,<i>,<u>,<a>):