Pubdate: Tue, 08 Jul 2014
Source: USA Today (US)
Copyright: 2014 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc
Contact: http://mapinc.org/url/625HdBMl
Website: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/index.htm
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/466
Author: Jonathan Turley
Page: 6A

FIGHTING WEED WITH WATER

The Federal Government Has Devised a Sneaky Way to Punish Pot Growers

When voters in Washington state and Colorado legalized possession and 
sale of recreational marijuana in 2012, federal officials were not 
happy. They will be less happy today when pot officially goes on sale 
in Washington. Though the Obama administration has pledged to respect 
state laws, it is quietly going in the opposite direction by cutting 
off water to the growers. The idea seems to be that if the 
administration cannot dry up the public support for legalization, it 
will just dry up the plants themselves.

Like areas from health care to immigration, a sharp disconnect 
between voters and their government is growing by the day. The 
administration and Congress are losing the debate over legalization.

Many citizens do not see the logic or necessity in the crackdown on 
pot. Support for legalization is soaring. In 1987, only 16% supported 
legalization. That increased to 26% in 1996 and 43% in 2012. It now 
stands at 55%. Two states have responded with legalization, others 
have taken a smaller step of decriminalization, and 20 states have 
legalized medical marijuana over the opposition of the federal government.

DEMOCRATS' DILEMMA

With other programs such as health care already endangering Democrats 
in the next election, the administration does not want to openly 
oppose the wishes of more than half of the population. With one hand, 
it allows state experimentation, while the other hand, the Bureau of 
Reclamation turns off the spigot by ordering irrigation districts not 
to distribute federal water to farmers breaking national drug laws. 
No water, no pot.

The use of water as a weapon is not new in the West, where "water 
wars" were once common among ranches and even states. The federal 
government began in 1902 to take control over such waters with 
programs to build dams and waterways. What began as a few dozen 
projects grew into a massive system, in which the federal government 
controlled a significant portion of the water in 17 states with the 
construction of more than 600 dams and reservoirs. It is now the 
nation's largest water wholesale operation, supplying to more than 31 
million people and one out of five farmers in the West. It is not 
just water. The government's 53 power plants annually provide more 
than 40 billion kilowatt hours that support millions of homes.

Though some have long chaffed at federal control over this essential 
resource, the government has insisted that its projects are designed 
to simply maximize the use of the resource. Indeed, with the growing 
national crisis over the loss of drinking water and many states 
experiencing droughts, the role of a neutral federal agency has never 
been more important.

That is why this latest move is so dangerous. The government already 
coerces states by withholding money unless they follow federal 
mandates. If the feds can now withhold water or electricity, too, 
that stranglehold will tighten.

The government supplies the water that sustains 10 million acres of 
farmland, and the farms that produce 60% of the nation's vegetables 
and 25% of its fruits and nuts.

In Washington, that translates to the water for two-thirds of the 
state's irrigated land.

LEGAL HYPOCRISY

Bureau spokesman Dan DuBray insists that the agency "is obligated to 
adhere to federal law." However, that position is inconsistent with 
the actions of the Obama administration in other areas.

I testified in Congress on Obama's non-enforcement orders issued in 
areas such as immigration and drug enforcement. In addition, Obama 
has issued controversial orders that effectively amend federal laws 
in ways that Congress had rejected. It rings rather hollow for the 
administration now to claim that it has no choice but to take this 
action to indirectly support drug laws when it has ordered the 
non-enforcement of so many others.

This is even less plausible when one considers that the Justice 
Department has altered its enforcement of the drug laws in light of 
state legalization. The administration is directly curtailing 
enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act, but a water agency is 
changing its operations to enforce that same law by other means. The 
agency could have simply supplied water to every state neutrally. 
Instead, it is taking action to punish these states.

The shutting off of the water in Washington and Colorado for these 
growers is not about pot but politics. Carl von Clausewitz once 
observed that "war is the continuation of politics by other means." 
The same can be said about the opening salvo in a new water war.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom