6 ms·

Thanks. I enjoyed reading up on that today. As for the federal role, I think a lawsuit is exactly how to solve this. Both parties are for big government, and ne

• s5300 5y ago
  ? One party is most definitely not for big government, or at least they claim not to be to garner a large portion of their votes. And, if they are for big government, they've proven time and time again to not give the slightest fuck about managing things that need to be managed, in favor of slashing/redirecting all budgets for more frivolous endeavours. >neither has solved this when they could. Yes, this goes hand in hand with their re-election tactics. They complain about something, say they'll solve it, don't solve it when given an opportunity, then campaign again on said issues, and repeat this for decades. It's quite simple and works because their constituency appears to have the attention span of a walnut. >think a lawsuit is exactly how to solve this. You obviously don't have the best understanding of how the US legal system works, especially on this level. A lawsuit can/will quite literally drag things out until all involved are pretty much dead/it's too damn late to save whatever the lawsuit was about in the first place.
  • SnowProblem 5y ago
    Why do you think a lawsuit would be fruitless? Yes courts move slow, but there is clear harm here. The federal government bears responsibility over this land. If they don’t want it, then they should hand the land over to the states, or otherwise compensate those states affected. There have been many disputes about water rights over the years that are similar to this. I would bet this will happen eventually.