When fully operational, the NSA facility is expected to require a staggering 1.7 million gallons of water every day to cool down the computers harvesting information on people worldwide. That water is supplied by the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, a political subdivision of the state. Without it, the facility cannot function.
States Against The NSA
Those guys at the Tenth Amendment Center have an interesting suggestion for states that don't like what the NSA is doing. The Federal government controls the NSA, but the states control the water...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Interesting idea, but I can't see it happening in practice.
Does anyone really expect an agency that has to deal with the Army Corps of Engineers, and the EPA for EVERYTHING they do to stand up to the Federal Government? Not going to happen.
Wow. You don't see a problem with a state government denying basic services to some group it disagrees with?
That's pretty much what the IRS did in refusing to process Tea Party applications - it denied the basic services it is supposed to provide to the general public on a selective basis.
Be careful what you wish for, Grim.
Unless you're arguing that the end justifies the means, it might be wise to consider whether you'd support something similar being done to a group whose actions you sympathize with.
One what basis would you justify such a course?
The Federal government controls the NSA, but the states control the water...
Works for me. I've often wondered why private enterprise would want to do business with the Federal government. The short answer is because competitors do do business. It would take an actual boycott--FDR's made-up capital strike actually occurring wrt government--in order to have any serious effect. There are some software writers who write into their licenses that their software cannot be bought by the Feds, and no product that uses their software can be sold to the Feds. That last hasn't been seriously challenged in the courts, though, to my knowledge.
Eric Hines
But don't you see a major difference between a private business refusing to enter into a voluntary contractual relationship with the government, and a state denying public goods to selected (and water is a public good) to selected parts of the federal government that are funded with public money?
I see a huge difference between those two scenarios. I have to problem with the first, but a huge problem with the second. Under the second, a state legislature can cut off utilities to a military base within its borders.
Seems like a bad idea to me.
Excuse the editing errors :p Yikes.
I'd like to see the state water engineer's report on the Jordan Valley District providing that much water. 1) Does the district have enough surplus? 2)What are their drought plans and will the NSA be considered a junior rights user? If not, how much will the feds pay to compensate senior users for loss of their water? And so on and so forth. If Utah's water is as tightly allocated and divided as are NM and TX, someone's going to take a hit in order to supply the new facility's cooling system.
LittleRed1
If a state cut off water to a military base, the military would move to another (more pliant) state.
The real issue is that this is a better tactic than a strategy. Once the NSA has a major data system in your state, you can tactically use water pressure to force it to comply with demands for openness or accountability. But if you deny it water by law, it will just go somewhere else. The leverage doesn't work strategically.
As for the question of the ends justifying the means, I don't see it. The whole idea of enumerated powers for the Federal government, with other powers being reserved to the states, is to force the Federal government into a role of limited powers -- including accountability to the states. Since the Founding, one of the key questions considered has been how to structure the power relationships so that the Federal government doesn't become overweening.
It's not a question of 'the ends justifying the means.' The whole structure of the government was intended to allow checks and balances, not only between Federal branches but between the states and the Federal government.
Indeed. The structure of our social compact is for the citizens to exercise prior restraint on their employee, the Federal government, while the government is not allowed to exercise prior restraint on the citizenry. It's not at all a symmetric, or in any way reciprocal, relationship.
Moreover, the States also are in the Federal government to restrain it--that whole Senate thing. It's also why Americans hold dual citizenship.
It's like businesses not doing business with the Feds, though: the vast majority of the States would have to join the effort for it to have effect.
Eric Hines
Both of you are eliding the fact that many federal agencies are situated on Federal land that the taxpayers from all 50 states have actually paid for.
Grim talks about checks and balances and often cites the Constitution, but I don't believe the Constitution empowers states to arbitrarily deny public services to some landowners within a state based on nothing more than political disagreement.
Again, this is why state attys. general file suit against the federal government. A remedy already exists, but it requires actually proving your case. Talking in generalities about our "system of checks and balances" suggests that states can do anything they wish to as a check on federal power.
I believe the Constitution explicitly suggests otherwise :p
Hm. That's a lot of water. Do they have it? Will it affect other current customers? Will it affect future development plans the local planning board already has in place. Things like that could lead to lawsuits that could tie this up for years ....
Post a Comment