Phi Eta's History Blog

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/us/13calif.html?_r=1&ref=us
This article mainly focuses on the water problems in California but there are a few parts that are very similar to arguments with the original Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians.
One of the specific disputes is over the monitoring of groundwater. If the groundwater is not monitored it is impossible to tell whether aquifers are being stressed, weakening levees and damaging the surrounding environment. Because of the drought, groundwater has been tapped into much more and in some areas it is becoming very dangerous. About 70% of the state's water districts do monitor their goundwater levels but they are not required to report their information. Democrats want to make reporting it mandatory to report the groundwater levels while republicans don't believe the state government should be "trespassing" on the private property to do so.
When I read about this argument my mind immediately turned to the original standpoints of the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians in the late 1700s. The Hamiltonians (modern day Republicans) believed in a strong executive power. They believed in unity, which meant that states power would be very limited. Jeffersonians (modern day Democrats) on the other hand believed in strong state power. They believed by the states having the power to govern themselves the voice of the people would be better heard. It is interesting to see that today these beliefs are still very much the same on the Republican side, no state interference. It does not seem that the Republicans have much leverage in this case. Without the monitoring and reporting of groundwater there is no real way to keep tabs on the drought and the causes. It seems that maybe this old idea of weak state power is still such a strong belief that it may be blinding Republicans to its real benefits in this situation.