It is or it isn't

I love J.T. the guys, but there's no other way to say it aside from their editorial is fundamentally wrong. And their error begin and ends in one place ...

However, as state Rep. Terry England, R-Auburn, noted in this newspaper's Friday story, restricting the use of private water sources is tantamount to restricting private property rights, which is a road down which no government should venture.

Again, this assumes that the water that flows under the feet begins and ends at the above ground boundaries. Or that the streams that run through one's backyard don't continue to trickle downstream to other. Of course, we know this isn't the case. Whether it's water draw from aquifiers underground or from rivers that snake through one's property, it's a commonly shared resource that is used by other individuals (and has an impact on the municipal water supplies the editorial is in favor of restricting as well).

Then again, I'm puzzled as to why I need to make such an argument since the editorial, just two paragraphs later, does it for me ...

Certainly, it's important for property owners accessing private water sources to recognize that, in the larger scheme of things, the rivers and creeks that flow through their land and the groundwater and other underground water sources beneath their feet are not strictly private. The water that they take from those sources is water that, once accessed, won't be available to people downstream, or to people who might be accessing the same underground water sources.

OK, bear with me on this ... this water is either a private resource as the editorial pushes for just a few paragraphs earlier, or it isn't as it concedes here. You have to pick one or the other when making your argument because if your view is that it's 'private' then the logic - though misguided - has some footing. However, if it's 'public' then the editorial is moot.