Is this practice mucking with interstate commerce? I like to look at it this way:
Joe in region A has all kinds of water rights, and turns off the stream to region B. Citizens of region B are now forced to buy water at $5.99 per bottle.
Is it fair, or does the federal gummit step in?
Fair or no, what's the difference between these types of discrimination? One could say, "well the price here is $5.99 a bottle... that's the way it is" -- just like gasoline prices vary.... While water is a necessity, football tickets are not.... But "commerce" is "commerce" and the laws of supply and demand are the backbone of free enterprise -- if we demand fairness in one, we must demand the same in all. Or where am I wrong?
There's a most definite unfair advantage being wrung here and it just stinks.