Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, "charlie" wrote:

On Jan 24, 2:38 pm, Goedjn wrote:
I think I read that our fastest growing communities are in Arizona, or
other desert locales, and as they grow, we will have to become more and
more aggressive in managing out water supplies.Or, of course, simply bill
people for what it actually costs
to deliver the water to them, and let them manage their own.
if you're thinking that there is a subsidy, there isn't. we're billed
what it costs, along with taxes and a profit for the many water
companies, for the water that is actually delivered. what there isn't
is a penalty to ensure that there will be water in the future.

Nonsense. There's a HUGE hidden subsidy: the portion of your water-delivery
infrastructure, including dams, that was built with Federal tax money. Even
though I live in Indianapolis, I'm paying part of the cost of *your* water
delivery. If you had to pay what it actually cost, including the cost of those
dams and canals, you couldn't possibly afford it.

And who paid for your reservoirs? I seem to remember Morse? Geist?