Imagine that. Each State deciding their own fate. How Constitutional.

Except that in 50s, when Lake Lanier was being planned, Florida and Alabama demanded that they get their fare share of the Chatahoochee water.   It's believed that the three states signed an agreement on the distribution of the water.  In the past 20 years Georgia's widespread rapid development has greatly contributed to this crisis.  A federal suit concerning the distribution of this water has been in the courts for years.

'Common sense' would suggest that Georgia should have planned it's growth with limits to water availability in mind.

It'll be interesting to see whether Alabama and Florida think it's common sense to give their water to Georgia.

It's not about water for mussels and sturgeon, it's about development.

This is not a good thing. People have a responsibility to be, well, responsible when planning development. It's wrong to essentially consign already stressed and rare species to extinction because humans need water to flush toilets. There has to be some way that we can create closed loop water systems that treat gray water so that it can be used for other purposes rather than putting it down the drain and into the sewers.

Barry,
finding the right balance between federal and state governments on what they may and may not regulate has always been tricky.  In this case, if your point is that the state of Georgia has the right to abrogate the Endangered Species Act, because it prevents the Georgians from "deciding their own fate," you have got it wrong, just as the Confederacy had got it wrong.

There are certain goods that have a universal character, and that can be said to belong to all humanity, now and into the future, but for the care of which particular local communities are directly responsible.  Those communities certainly have the right to provide for their own well-being.  But they most certainly do NOT have the right to do that by violating the rights of others, and desecrating their own sacred responsibilities.