Rare ‘triple’ La Niña climate event looks likely

Re:Rare ‘triple’ La Niña climate event looks likely by bogomipz on Friday June 24, 2022 @11:03AM (#31863267)

You didn't actually answer my question. It sounds like you might be confused on what eminent domain is. Eminent domain provides the Federal government with the power to take private property and convert it into public use. There is no single piece of land here. This is not only not land it's literally water that flows across the land. Further it's not private property. The Colorado River basin covers 250,000 square is almost 1,400 miles long. Not only do seven states depend on it but Mexico also has rights to it under The Mexican Water Treaty of 1944. To compare it to appropriating land for a mall is absurd.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rare ‘triple’ La Niña climate event looks likely by lovich on Friday June 24, 2022 @01:06PM (#31865794)

Then eminent domain multiple pieces of land.

You’re ignoring that they have the power to do so, they just don’t have the will. We have built mega projects before and taken land for it. This would be no different

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rare ‘triple’ La Niña climate event looks likely by bogomipz on Friday June 24, 2022 @03:39PM (#31868293)

I'm not ignoring anything. Eminent domain is not at all applicable here. You seem to be ignoring that eminent domain applies to private land in order to make it available for public use. The land involved is already public, it belongs to the states. Honestly you really don't seem to have much of any meaningful argument or explanation other than repeatedly using the phrase "eminent domain" incorrectly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rare ‘triple’ La Niña climate event looks likely by lovich on Friday June 24, 2022 @04:48PM (#31869097)

That is incorrect. The federal government can exercise eminent domain against the states, and that is not an old idea. I found it last referenced in a 2021 opinion authored by Roberts[1]

The pertinent text is

>Early cases also reflected the understanding that state property was not immune from the exercise of delegated federal eminent domain power. See Stockton v. Baltimore & N. Y. R. Co., 32 F. 9 (Bradley, Cir. J.). The contrary position—that a federal delegatee could not condemn a State’s land without the State’s consent—would give rise to the “dilemma of requiring the consent of the state” in virtually every infrastructure project authorized by the Federal Government.

It literally calls out that major infrastructure projects would not have been feasible without this power

[1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19-1039

[ Parent | on HN ]