>I don't know what you want for an example. I gave you several links to smga policy and detailed discussion of the legal complications
You've asserted that California is taking away rights without due process. I'm looking for examples of that.
You also said
"The start of the whole issue was that many Central Valley Farms and counties raised bonds to put in aqueducts and entered into purchase agreements with the state of California. The California legislature then passed environmental regulation and stopped providing the water. In many instances this water was already paid for, or the state decided that farmers must continue to pay while the state doesn't hold up their side of the contract."
which I'd love to learn more about if it actually happened, but Google has nothing.
>Did you read them and do you have questions? I
It's not my job to make your case for you. If you feel like those links have relevant information, pull it out and make a case.
>If you're a fundamental position is that legally established property rights don't matter and are revocable without compensation, I don't know that we will be able to find common ground and share information.
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I can't help but feel that you don't have any supports for your assertion and are therefore grasping at straws to put words in my mouth.
>For some of these people, it would have been kinder if the state simply showed up and shot them.
The state doesn't exist to prop up whatever business they want to run. It's very obvious that your viewpoint on this situation is informed solely by the complaints of people who want to continue to be subsidized by the state at the expense of everyone else.
If you don't have an actual case to make, I don't see any point in moving forward. I've already heard the Ag industry's made up grievances.
You've asserted that California is taking away rights without due process. I'm looking for examples of that.
You also said
"The start of the whole issue was that many Central Valley Farms and counties raised bonds to put in aqueducts and entered into purchase agreements with the state of California. The California legislature then passed environmental regulation and stopped providing the water. In many instances this water was already paid for, or the state decided that farmers must continue to pay while the state doesn't hold up their side of the contract."
which I'd love to learn more about if it actually happened, but Google has nothing.
>Did you read them and do you have questions? I
It's not my job to make your case for you. If you feel like those links have relevant information, pull it out and make a case.
>If you're a fundamental position is that legally established property rights don't matter and are revocable without compensation, I don't know that we will be able to find common ground and share information.
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I can't help but feel that you don't have any supports for your assertion and are therefore grasping at straws to put words in my mouth.
>For some of these people, it would have been kinder if the state simply showed up and shot them.
The state doesn't exist to prop up whatever business they want to run. It's very obvious that your viewpoint on this situation is informed solely by the complaints of people who want to continue to be subsidized by the state at the expense of everyone else.
If you don't have an actual case to make, I don't see any point in moving forward. I've already heard the Ag industry's made up grievances.