In article 6Itth.26908$gS1.6754@trndny01, yourname wrote:

which is why all residential irrigation ought to be outlawed. Which it
is getting pretty close to in LV I understand. Stupid ass waste of
drinking water. SHHH, don't tell my wife...

Not just residential irrigation, either. On a business trip to Phoenix some
ten or twelve years ago, I was appalled to see from the air all the swimming
pools, lush lawns, and heavily irrigated golf courses. Once on the ground and
headed to my meetings, what do I see in the plaza at the Phoenix civic center,
but this fountain:

http://tinyurl.com/38y86m

There might be a few fountains in the world that are more efficient at
evaporating water than that one, but not many, I'll wager. Especially in that
climate.

Then, about my third day there, the local paper had a big article about a new
business that was coming to the area just north of Phoenix -- all excited
about the several hundred jobs it would provide. The business? A fish farm.

These people just don't understand that they're living in a desert.

Helloooo! Reality check time! Deserts aren't supposed to be green and wet. If
you want swimming pools, and green lawns and golf courses, then move to
some place that has plenty of water.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. so you're going to lower
the temperature in the area by wasting water on a lawn. What a gass!

--
Steve Barker



"Goedjn" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 09:17:19 -0600, "Steve Barker"
wrote:

Why irrigate a yard ANYwhere?


Environmental cooling. A lawn with non-dormant
grass can easily be 10 degrees cooler than the
same surface baked into straw-covered tile.
IF water is cheap enough, this is a reasonable
response to a heat wave.

Ya, like friggin New Orleans! HAR HAR!

--
Steve Barker



"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...
Helloooo! Reality check time! Deserts aren't supposed to be green and wet.
If
you want swimming pools, and green lawns and golf courses, then move to
some place that has plenty of water.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article ,
says...
In article 6Itth.26908$gS1.6754@trndny01, yourname wrote:

which is why all residential irrigation ought to be outlawed. Which it
is getting pretty close to in LV I understand. Stupid ass waste of
drinking water. SHHH, don't tell my wife...

Not just residential irrigation, either. On a business trip to Phoenix some
ten or twelve years ago, I was appalled to see from the air all the swimming
pools, lush lawns, and heavily irrigated golf courses. Once on the ground and
headed to my meetings, what do I see in the plaza at the Phoenix civic center,
but this fountain:

It's my understanding (I live 2k mi. from AZ) that Phoenix gets
their water from underground, not the Rio Grande and has plenty
more where that came form.

snip

--
Keith

krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
In article 6Itth.26908$gS1.6754@trndny01, yourname wrote:

which is why all residential irrigation ought to be outlawed. Which it
is getting pretty close to in LV I understand. Stupid ass waste of
drinking water. SHHH, don't tell my wife...
Not just residential irrigation, either. On a business trip to Phoenix some
ten or twelve years ago, I was appalled to see from the air all the swimming
pools, lush lawns, and heavily irrigated golf courses. Once on the ground and
headed to my meetings, what do I see in the plaza at the Phoenix civic center,
but this fountain:

It's my understanding (I live 2k mi. from AZ) that Phoenix gets
their water from underground, not the Rio Grande and has plenty
more where that came form.

snip

And they are required by law to use renewable water resources. Not just
dump their waste into the river and let the next city downstream take
care of it.

In article nuzth.452225$Fi1.215799@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net, says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
In article 6Itth.26908$gS1.6754@trndny01, yourname wrote:

which is why all residential irrigation ought to be outlawed. Which it
is getting pretty close to in LV I understand. Stupid ass waste of
drinking water. SHHH, don't tell my wife...
Not just residential irrigation, either. On a business trip to Phoenix some
ten or twelve years ago, I was appalled to see from the air all the swimming
pools, lush lawns, and heavily irrigated golf courses. Once on the ground and
headed to my meetings, what do I see in the plaza at the Phoenix civic center,
but this fountain:

It's my understanding (I live 2k mi. from AZ) that Phoenix gets
their water from underground, not the Rio Grande and has plenty
more where that came form.

snip

And they are required by law to use renewable water resources. Not just
dump their waste into the river and let the next city downstream take
care of it.

Didn't see anyone talking abut waste in this thread...

--
Keith

krw wrote:
In article nuzth.452225$Fi1.215799@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net, says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
In article 6Itth.26908$gS1.6754@trndny01, yourname wrote:

which is why all residential irrigation ought to be outlawed. Which it
is getting pretty close to in LV I understand. Stupid ass waste of
drinking water. SHHH, don't tell my wife...
Not just residential irrigation, either. On a business trip to Phoenix some
ten or twelve years ago, I was appalled to see from the air all the swimming
pools, lush lawns, and heavily irrigated golf courses. Once on the ground and
headed to my meetings, what do I see in the plaza at the Phoenix civic center,
but this fountain:
It's my understanding (I live 2k mi. from AZ) that Phoenix gets
their water from underground, not the Rio Grande and has plenty
more where that came form.

snip

And they are required by law to use renewable water resources. Not just
dump their waste into the river and let the next city downstream take
care of it.

Didn't see anyone talking abut waste in this thread...


So? What should be done with the water? Let it flow into the ocean?

It isn't being used up. If you are depriving someone downstream of
drinking water that is something else. But if you can recycle and use
it for your pleasure I really can't see anything wrong with that.

Not like burning up several gallons of gasoline to drive to a beach.

Los Angeles brings water hundreds of miles and when it has been cleaned
up it dumps it into the ocean. Same with most sea side cities. That
seems to me to be a waste.

Municipal water is pumped and treated, and that consumes a significant
amount electricity as well as other resources.

Since you speak of LA, according to a report prepared for the
California Energy Commission, in southern California, an average of
1.3 kWh of electricity is used to process each 100 gallons of water
consumed. If we use the 100 gallons per person, per day, average rate
of consumption others have mentioned here, the supply of water to a
four-person household would require just a little over 1,900 kWh/year.

Looking at the full picture, in 2001, total water-related energy use
in the state of California came to 48,013 GWh -- that's 19.2 per cent
of the state's total energy use of 250,494 GWh. I think you will
agree, the numbers are not exactly trivial.

Source:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publica...0-2006-118.PDF

Cheers.
Paul

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 03:48:42 GMT, Rich256 wrote:

So? What should be done with the water? Let it flow into the ocean?

It isn't being used up. If you are depriving someone downstream of
drinking water that is something else. But if you can recycle and use
it for your pleasure I really can't see anything wrong with that.

Not like burning up several gallons of gasoline to drive to a beach.

Los Angeles brings water hundreds of miles and when it has been cleaned
up it dumps it into the ocean. Same with most sea side cities. That
seems to me to be a waste.

In article , krw wrote:

It's my understanding (I live 2k mi. from AZ) that Phoenix gets
their water from underground,

Your understanding is incorrect.
http://phoenix.gov/WATER/wtr100intro.html

not the Rio Grande and has plenty
more where that came form.

I'd be astonished if Phoenix gets any water at all from the Rio Grande, since:

a) the city has an extensive system of canals and aqueducts from the Verde,
Salt, and Gila Rivers, all of which are _right_there_, and

b) the Rio Grande is nearly five hundred miles to the east.

And, no, there's not "plenty more". What part of "in the desert" do you have
such a hard time understanding?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
Municipal water is pumped and treated, and that consumes a significant
amount electricity as well as other resources.

Since you speak of LA, according to a report prepared for the
California Energy Commission, in southern California, an average of
1.3 kWh of electricity is used to process each 100 gallons of water
consumed. If we use the 100 gallons per person, per day, average rate
of consumption others have mentioned here, the supply of water to a
four-person household would require just a little over 1,900 kWh/year.

Looking at the full picture, in 2001, total water-related energy use
in the state of California came to 48,013 GWh -- that's 19.2 per cent
of the state's total energy use of 250,494 GWh. I think you will
agree, the numbers are not exactly trivial.

Source:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publica...0-2006-118.PDF

Cheers.
Paul


The last I remember is that all that processed water is dumped in the
ocean. Naturally don't want to dump raw sewage but I would think it
could be recycled. There was a big plant along the beach between
Redondo and Culver City. (I used to drive that way to work a few
hundred years ago). They may well be doing some recycling now.

I often thought they should pump it out on the desert.

A town in the desert to the south east was reclaiming all their water.
After being cleaned it flowed through a series of about 5 lakes. By the
time it got to the last one it was ready for drinking again.

"Steve Barker" writes:
"Goedjn" wrote
"Steve Barker" wrote:

Why irrigate a yard ANYwhere?

Environmental cooling. A lawn with non-dormant
grass can easily be 10 degrees cooler than the
same surface baked into straw-covered tile.
IF water is cheap enough, this is a reasonable
response to a heat wave.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
So you're going to lower the temperature in the area
by wasting water on a lawn. What a gass!

You may think it's a "gass", but it is an effect in a
large enough urban area. Look up "microclimate".

"Everett M. Greene" wrote in message

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
So you're going to lower the temperature in the area
by wasting water on a lawn. What a gass!

You may think it's a "gass", but it is an effect in a
large enough urban area. Look up "microclimate".

Las Vegas has been changing (getting more humid) due to all the water spread
around in the desert by people that want to bring lawns with them. Just
because you CAN do something does not mean it is a good idea.

Not just residential irrigation, either. On a business trip to Phoenix some
ten or twelve years ago, I was appalled to see from the air all the swimming
pools, lush lawns, and heavily irrigated golf courses. Once on the ground and
headed to my meetings, what do I see in the plaza at the Phoenix civic center,
but this fountain:

http://tinyurl.com/38y86m

There might be a few fountains in the world that are more efficient at
evaporating water than that one, but not many, I'll wager. Especially in that
climate.

That's kind of the point. The fountain helps cool the plaza,
which would otherwise be even more of a giant stone solar oven.
This is classical roman technology, here.

Then, about my third day there, the local paper had a big article about a new
business that was coming to the area just north of Phoenix -- all excited
about the several hundred jobs it would provide. The business? A fish farm.

As long as it's a recirculating system, I don't see the problem.

A simple non moving pool of water will lose a quarter inch per day in
evaporation. Move it around like the one Doug showed and I'd be willing to
bet that fountain is going through AT LEAST a hundred gallons a day in that
area.


--
Steve Barker


"Goedjn" wrote in message
...

As long as it's a recirculating system, I don't see the problem.

In article uGAth.805099$QZ1.696422@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net, says...
krw wrote:
In article nuzth.452225$Fi1.215799@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net, says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
In article 6Itth.26908$gS1.6754@trndny01, yourname wrote:

which is why all residential irrigation ought to be outlawed. Which it
is getting pretty close to in LV I understand. Stupid ass waste of
drinking water. SHHH, don't tell my wife...
Not just residential irrigation, either. On a business trip to Phoenix some
ten or twelve years ago, I was appalled to see from the air all the swimming
pools, lush lawns, and heavily irrigated golf courses. Once on the ground and
headed to my meetings, what do I see in the plaza at the Phoenix civic center,
but this fountain:
It's my understanding (I live 2k mi. from AZ) that Phoenix gets
their water from underground, not the Rio Grande and has plenty
more where that came form.

snip

And they are required by law to use renewable water resources. Not just
dump their waste into the river and let the next city downstream take
care of it.

Didn't see anyone talking abut waste in this thread...


So? What should be done with the water? Let it flow into the ocean?

How about let it evaporate (we *were* talking about irrigation of
lawns, golf courses and swimming pools).

It isn't being used up. If you are depriving someone downstream of
drinking water that is something else. But if you can recycle and use
it for your pleasure I really can't see anything wrong with that.

Downstream? Try reading for comprehension.

Not like burning up several gallons of gasoline to drive to a beach.

Not like?

Los Angeles brings water hundreds of miles and when it has been cleaned
up it dumps it into the ocean. Same with most sea side cities. That
seems to me to be a waste.

Who is talking about LA? Sheesh, did you read _anything_ in this
threadlet?

--
Keith

On Jan 24, 6:01 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , krw wrote:
It's my understanding (I live 2k mi. from AZ) that Phoenix gets
their water from underground,
Your understanding is incorrect.http://phoenix.gov/WATER/wtr100intro.html

not the Rio Grande and has plenty
more where that came form.I'd be astonished if Phoenix gets any water at all from the Rio Grande, since:

a) the city has an extensive system of canals and aqueducts from the Verde,
Salt, and Gila Rivers, all of which are _right_there_, and

b) the Rio Grande is nearly five hundred miles to the east.

And, no, there's not "plenty more". What part of "in the desert" do you have
such a hard time understanding?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

well, both of you are not completely right, but keith is way more
wrong.

a good deal of phoenix water currently comes from stored lakes, both
underground aquifers and surface lakes, snow pack from further north in
arizona and in colorado. furthermore, a good deal of phoenix (and other
southwestern cities) water comes from the colorado river via the
central arizona project canal, which is uphill. the rio grande would be
downhill, by a good deal, and much further away.

regards,
charlie
cave creek, az

krw wrote:


It's my understanding (I live 2k mi. from AZ) that Phoenix gets
their water from underground, not the Rio Grande and has plenty
more where that came form.

Phoenix reports that it gets almost all of its water from the Salt and
Verde and Colorado Rivers and relies on snowfall in the mountains for
that water. While they do store excess water underground, their main
sources of water are the rivers, and what they draw from there is not
available downstream.

The idea that underground water is inexhaustible is laughable. There
have been plenty of instances of aqifiers being overdrawn and either
exhausted or contaminated. Many communities have recognized this and it
it common that partially treated wastewater us used for landscaping
purposes.

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.

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.

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.

regards,
charlie
cave creek, az

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.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

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?

On Jan 24, 3:22 pm, (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.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

but couldn't you state that about EVERY project in the usa that
received (receives) federal funds? are you advocating that there be no
federal money paid for infrastructure in any state? how much of my
taxes went into providing the interstate road system and water system
of your state? could your city afford the cost of the infrastructure to
provide water to you in total? we in arizona are paying for the trains
in la and dc, along with the levees in la, the airports in every state,
the highways in every state, etc.

furthermore, we are repaying federal loans that were used to build the
canal from the colorado through our local taxes. and actually, the
farmers from 40-50 years or more ago are the ones who actually paid for
and built the canal system and the dams that formed a lot of the lakes
around here. i would hope that they would have been paid off a long
time ago.

frankly, you don't know about my individual situation. my local water
provider has a well and storage tank in the property adjacent to my
property. they provide water to about 200 houses in my general
location. some of my neighbors have their own wells. so when you say
'you' receive federal funds, i assume you're speaking in generalities,
because for sure there were no federal funds used to provide me with
water.

regards,
charlie
cave creek, az

In article .com, "charlie" wrote:

but couldn't you state that about EVERY project in the usa that
received (receives) federal funds?

Of course. No doubt you're paying for part of the costs of water delivery in
Indianapolis, too (though not mine specifically, because I'm on a private
well).

are you advocating that there be no
federal money paid for infrastructure in any state?

Yes -- unless it's for a purpose authorized by the Constitution. Building dams
in Arizona, and forcing the people of Hawaii, Indiana, Alabama, and Maine to
pay them goes quite a bit beyond the legitimate authority of the Federal
government.

how much of my
taxes went into providing the interstate road system

Interestingly enough, that's one of the (few) purposes that *is* specifically
authorized by the Constitution.

and water system of your state?

Probably not too much. Indiana isn't in the middle of a desert. We have plenty
of water here, and we don't have to build extensive systems of canals,
aqueducts, and underground storage reservoirs to get water for drinking. Here
in the midwest, we don't build dams across rivers in order to have drinking
water. We build them for flood control -- in short, because we have _too_much_
water, instead of not enough.

could your city afford the cost of the infrastructure to
provide water to you in total?

Probably yes -- but it wouldn't really matter if they couldn't, because it's
pretty easy to sink a well and hit water in Indiana. Anybody who wishes can
hire a well driller and provide his own water.

we in arizona are paying for the trains
in la and dc, along with the levees in la, the airports in every state,

Yep, and so are we -- and we shouldn't be.

the highways in every state, etc.

Again, *that* one is specifically authorized by the Constitution. You might
stretch that point for rail and air as well, because the authorization for
building roads is specifically for the purpose of carrying the mail.

furthermore, we are repaying federal loans that were used to build the
canal from the colorado through our local taxes. and actually, the
farmers from 40-50 years or more ago are the ones who actually paid for
and built the canal system and the dams that formed a lot of the lakes
around here. i would hope that they would have been paid off a long
time ago.

So none of those dams were built with Federal *grants*? Yeah, right.

frankly, you don't know about my individual situation. my local water
provider has a well and storage tank in the property adjacent to my
property. they provide water to about 200 houses in my general
location. some of my neighbors have their own wells. so when you say
'you' receive federal funds, i assume you're speaking in generalities,

Yes, absolutely.

because for sure there were no federal funds used to provide me with
water.

Nor me. Private well, as noted above.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article ,
says...
In article .com, "charlie" wrote:

but couldn't you state that about EVERY project in the usa that
received (receives) federal funds?

Of course. No doubt you're paying for part of the costs of water delivery in
Indianapolis, too (though not mine specifically, because I'm on a private
well).

are you advocating that there be no
federal money paid for infrastructure in any state?

Yes -- unless it's for a purpose authorized by the Constitution. Building dams
in Arizona, and forcing the people of Hawaii, Indiana, Alabama, and Maine to
pay them goes quite a bit beyond the legitimate authority of the Federal
government.

how much of my
taxes went into providing the interstate road system

Interestingly enough, that's one of the (few) purposes that *is* specifically
authorized by the Constitution.

snip

we in arizona are paying for the trains
in la and dc, along with the levees in la, the airports in every state,

Yep, and so are we -- and we shouldn't be.

the highways in every state, etc.

Again, *that* one is specifically authorized by the Constitution. You might
stretch that point for rail and air as well, because the authorization for
building roads is specifically for the purpose of carrying the mail.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"Post roads", sure. I think you can make a pretty good case for
the others with the "interstate commerce" clause.

--
Keith

In article , krw wrote:
In article ,
says...

Again, *that* one is specifically authorized by the Constitution. You might
stretch that point for rail and air as well, because the authorization for
building roads is specifically for the purpose of carrying the mail.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"Post roads", sure. I think you can make a pretty good case for
the others with the "interstate commerce" clause.

You're on. Go ahead and make that case. Listed among the enumerated powers of
Congress, the clause says in full "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;".

Now make the case for that clause authorizing Congress to take tax money from
the citizens of Indiana, Maine, and Hawaii, and use it for building a water
project in Arizona.

Make that case.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

(Doug Miller) writes:
"charlie" wrote:

but couldn't you state that about EVERY project in the usa that
received (receives) federal funds?

Of course. No doubt you're paying for part of the costs of water delivery in
Indianapolis, too (though not mine specifically, because I'm on a private
well).

are you advocating that there be no
federal money paid for infrastructure in any state?

Yes -- unless it's for a purpose authorized by the Constitution.
Building dams in Arizona, and forcing the people of Hawaii,
Indiana, Alabama, and Maine to pay them goes quite a bit beyond
the legitimate authority of the Federal government.

Careful there, boy, or you won't have any winter fruits
and veggies from California.

how much of my
taxes went into providing the interstate road system

Interestingly enough, that's one of the (few) purposes
that *is* specifically authorized by the Constitution.

and water system of your state?

Probably not too much. Indiana isn't in the middle of a desert. We have plenty
of water here, and we don't have to build extensive systems of canals,
aqueducts, and underground storage reservoirs to get water for drinking. Here
in the midwest, we don't build dams across rivers in order to have drinking
water. We build them for flood control -- in short, because we have _too_much_
water, instead of not enough.

A major reason for building Hoover dam was flood control.
Look up the history of the Salton Sea.

In article , (Everett M. Greene) wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:
"charlie" wrote:

but couldn't you state that about EVERY project in the usa that
received (receives) federal funds?

Of course. No doubt you're paying for part of the costs of water delivery in
Indianapolis, too (though not mine specifically, because I'm on a private
well).

are you advocating that there be no
federal money paid for infrastructure in any state?

Yes -- unless it's for a purpose authorized by the Constitution.
Building dams in Arizona, and forcing the people of Hawaii,
Indiana, Alabama, and Maine to pay them goes quite a bit beyond
the legitimate authority of the Federal government.

Careful there, boy, or you won't have any winter fruits
and veggies from California.

What, you think that there wouldn't be any produce from California if the
Federal government didn't subsidize it? Don't be ridiculous. If there's a
market demand for it, somebody will step up to satisfy the demand. That's the
way a free-market economy works.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article ,
says...
In article , krw wrote:
In article ,
says...

Again, *that* one is specifically authorized by the Constitution. You might
stretch that point for rail and air as well, because the authorization for
building roads is specifically for the purpose of carrying the mail.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"Post roads", sure. I think you can make a pretty good case for
the others with the "interstate commerce" clause.

You're on. Go ahead and make that case. Listed among the enumerated powers of
Congress, the clause says in full "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;".

=3FOthers=3F == rail, air, and Eisenhower system (though that was
justified under defense).

Now make the case for that clause authorizing Congress to take tax money from
the citizens of Indiana, Maine, and Hawaii, and use it for building a water
project in Arizona.

Make that case.

No intention to try.

--
Keith

In article , krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
In article , krw
wrote:
In article ,
says...

Again, *that* one is specifically authorized by the Constitution. You
might
stretch that point for rail and air as well, because the authorization for

building roads is specifically for the purpose of carrying the mail.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"Post roads", sure. I think you can make a pretty good case for
the others with the "interstate commerce" clause.

You're on. Go ahead and make that case. Listed among the enumerated powers of
Congress, the clause says in full "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;".

=3FOthers=3F == rail, air, and Eisenhower system (though that was
justified under defense).

Now make the case for that clause authorizing Congress to take tax money from
the citizens of Indiana, Maine, and Hawaii, and use it for building a water
project in Arizona.

Make that case.

No intention to try.

So... I guess there isn't "a pretty good case" for it after all, huh?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article ,
says...
In article , krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
In article , krw
wrote:
In article ,
says...

Again, *that* one is specifically authorized by the Constitution. You
might
stretch that point for rail and air as well, because the authorization for

building roads is specifically for the purpose of carrying the mail.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"Post roads", sure. I think you can make a pretty good case for
the others with the "interstate commerce" clause.

You're on. Go ahead and make that case. Listed among the enumerated powers of
Congress, the clause says in full "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;".

=3FOthers=3F == rail, air, and Eisenhower system (though that was
justified under defense).

Now make the case for that clause authorizing Congress to take tax money from
the citizens of Indiana, Maine, and Hawaii, and use it for building a water
project in Arizona.

Make that case.

No intention to try.

So... I guess there isn't "a pretty good case" for it after all, huh?

Try reading what I wrote again, this time for comprehension. Slow
down, if needed.

--
Keith

In article , krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
In article , krw
wrote:
In article ,
says...
In article , krw
wrote:
In article ,
says...

Again, *that* one is specifically authorized by the Constitution. You
might
stretch that point for rail and air as well, because the authorization
for

building roads is specifically for the purpose of carrying the mail.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"Post roads", sure. I think you can make a pretty good case for
the others with the "interstate commerce" clause.

You're on. Go ahead and make that case. Listed among the enumerated powers
of
Congress, the clause says in full "To regulate Commerce with foreign
Nations,
and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;".

=3FOthers=3F == rail, air, and Eisenhower system (though that was
justified under defense).

Now make the case for that clause authorizing Congress to take tax money
from
the citizens of Indiana, Maine, and Hawaii, and use it for building a
water
project in Arizona.

Make that case.

No intention to try.

So... I guess there isn't "a pretty good case" for it after all, huh?

Try reading what I wrote again, this time for comprehension. Slow
down, if needed.

If there's such a good case to make, then go ahead and make it. Or you can
admit you were talking through your hat. Take your pick.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Try reading what I wrote again, this time for comprehension. Slow
down, if needed.

If there's such a good case to make, then go ahead and make it. Or you can
admit you were talking through your hat. Take your pick.


Or he could point out that, other than you, nobody has any trouble
telling the difference between the words "highway", and "dam".
But why bother? Just because a dog barks at you doesn't
mean you have to bark back.

(Doug Miller) writes:
(Everett M. Greene) wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:
"charlie" wrote:
are you advocating that there be no
federal money paid for infrastructure in any state?

Yes -- unless it's for a purpose authorized by the Constitution.
Building dams in Arizona, and forcing the people of Hawaii,
Indiana, Alabama, and Maine to pay them goes quite a bit beyond
the legitimate authority of the Federal government.

Careful there, boy, or you won't have any winter fruits
and veggies from California.

What, you think that there wouldn't be any produce from California if the
Federal government didn't subsidize it? Don't be ridiculous. If there's a
market demand for it, somebody will step up to satisfy the demand. That's the
way a free-market economy works.

There are those who advocate eating a lot of veggies and
fruit every day for good health. You can pay a lot for
the produce in the off-season on the free market or you
can buy the tax-subsidized products at a reasonable price.
You can pay now or you can pay later. Your choice.