I am absolutely mindboggled at the idea that you think the US should not guarantee safe drinking water everywhere for everyone. Unless this comment is pedantic legal snark.
What is the remedy? There isn’t a private cause of action through the state courts and suing the government itself will end up with sovereign immunity. If they can’t raise a 1993 claim, how specifically do you expect them to sue?
If a place is especially dry or inaccessible, then the lack of water should be one of the considerations for establishing a community there. This idea that no matter the expense or engineering constraints, the government must drag out the pipes and infrastructure to your private retreat, will be putting people in dangerous situations and a complete waste of scarce resources.
I think that perhaps you don't understand what a right means, in the context of government services.
>then the lack of water should be one of the considerations for establishing a community there.
People don't get to choose their birthplace, and circumstances change. Worrying about pottable water should be a solved problem in a first world country.
I didn't get to "establish a community". For several reasons, some historical. I didn't start the fire.
>I see that you've never lived somewhere with water scarcity.
I live in the US, so no. Despite all the droughts and cautions to use less water (even though it's rarely personal water usage that is causing such water shortages), it hasn't hit a point where I need to ration liquid.
That’s not what the outcome of this case would be if it went in the other direction.
In this case the state told the people that the water it was already providing was safe, when in fact it was contaminated with lead. This case was about a 1983 suit for state officials knowingly violating a constitutional right.
Few constitutional rights create affirmative responsibility for the state to provide for them. Pretty much just public defenders.
