Unwittingly Federalizing State Water

 “The natural process of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”     - Thomas Jefferson

The federal government has its eye on state lands.  What is at stake?  State sovereignty, individual liberties and our water!

Our founding fathers did not intend for the federal government to have authority over state lands with the exception of the “erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyard, and other needful buildings”, Enclave Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 17.Yet every day that goes by the federal government is purchasing lands either directly from private landowners or through land brokers, such as The Nature Conservancy, under the auspices of “protecting species, habitat and wilderness”.

What does this mean when the federal government owns state lands?  First the state loses all authority over this land. All land purchased by the Federal government is considered public lands and thus Congress has complete jurisdiction over them.  Every acre sold to the federal government is one less acre held under the sovereign power of the State government.

When a State loses its jurisdiction over its land local people lose their ability to have local control through their locally elected officials such as Boards of Supervisors.  Local economies and concerns lose their influence on local government.

Since this land is now owned and controlled by the federal government, the feds may exercise police power on these lands as well as on adjacent lands.  “A person selling his property to the Federal Government exposes his neighbors to the police power of the United States thus expanding the already vast reach of the Federal police power within the State.  While this is a matter of sufficient concern in itself, it must also be noted that this police power is not susceptible to local political control.” B. Howell & J.L. Tenney, Federal acquisition of lands within States, Eco-logic, 2001.

In California approximately 50% of the land is currently owned by the Federal government.  It is interesting to note that strategic pieces of land are being purchased, such as along the Sacramento River and in other water ways.  State land conversions are inadvertently supported by local programs, one such program is the Sacramento River Conservation Area in that it supports the restoration of 222 miles along the Sacramento River to habitat.   This objective opens the door to agencies and environmental groups to purchase land to achieve this goal.   When the Federal government owns this land it also owns the mineral, energy, timber and all other renewable resources.  It will also own the water!  Could this be one of the multiple plans in effect to federalize state water?  We believe it is.

How could we so unwittingly allow this to happen?  It is society’s “collective” belief that supports the environmental agenda which funds land acquisitions under the “feel good” ideologies of protecting species and habitat.  Nature Conservancy alone has set out to purchase over 30,000 acres of land along the Sacramento River to contribute to the establishment of a continuous riparian belt along the Sacramento River from Redding to Verona .  It is not their plan to hold the land but to sell it to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or other agencies, thus facilitating the conversion from state to federal land and the federalization of water. 

In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to expand the Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge to 18,000 acres, an increase of more than 6,000 acres.  According to the Service, “Once complete, the Refuge will protect 18,000 acres along a 100-mile corridor along the river between the Cities of Red Bluff and Colusa.”  Who will control the water?

Additional pressure to federalize water surfaced in the Reid amendment during the latest discussions of the Farm Bill.  According to Bill Pauli, president of the California Farm Bureau Federation, the Reid amendment if passed “allows the beginning of the federalization of state water rights … From an agency standpoint, such as the National Marine Fisheries Service or the US Fish and Wildlife Service, they’d like to have control over state water rights so  that they have that water available for species, but it’s a disaster for California agriculture and ultimately California business and our California economy.”  Ag Alert, February 20, 2002

How can this be stopped?  Only through the outcry of our elected representatives at the State level.  According to B. Howell & J.L. Tenney “When a State offers no comment with respect to a particular purchase, it is assumed by the court that the State consented to the purchase.  In other words, it is necessary for our elected officials to be proactive and challenge the purchase or they give up the State’s sovereignty.”  They give up our water rights and individual freedoms under the guise of protecting species and habitat.

Where are our elected officials?  If we don’t educate our elected officials, and demand that they prevent these conversions, you can rest assured that we will wake up one day to find that California has lost much of its sovereignty, and that the Federal government is in control of all of California ’s water.