Special interest groups with considerable bankrolls

[samiaseo222]

If the state agreed to re-adjudicate over 80 percent of the state's water rights in order to avoid litigation, would it not seem logical that it will curtail the irrigator's rights to avoid litigation in the suit filed in August 2001? Would it then not follow that other suits could be filed anywhere within the state? Would the state then curtail other water rights to avoid litigation? Where does it stop?


The answer is that it stops when we get back job function email list to private property rights as defined in the state Constitution. When water rights holders are fairly compensated for any deprivations or takings of water rights, we will have balance again.

The state legislature must address and correct this issue immediately. If they do not, the citizens of the state must do so through the initiative process. This will put considerable undue burdens upon the people of the state to assure that their will is done, but if the legislature will not act, we have no choice. I, for one, would hate to think that the people of Idaho would be so complacent as to re-elect any legislator who refused to act upon the will of the people.

It seems as though have the legislature's ear at present. It's time that the citizens of the state demand to be heard and have their will done. Under our wonderful system, government only exists at the consent of the governed. I urge you, the governed, to raise your voice and either grant your consent or deny it to our governing bodies. Do not, I beg you, grant tacit consent to them by being silent or apathetic. I grant you, that being involved takes much time, effort, and expense, but the results of not being involved are far more costly indeed. It was once said that our nation would not die with a bang, but with a whimper. Are we at that stage now? I pray not.