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.
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.
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.
There's a HUGE hidden subsidy: the portion of your water-delivery
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.
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).
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.
Interestingly enough, that's one of the (few) purposes that *is* specifically authorized by the Constitution.
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.
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.
Yep, and so are we -- and we shouldn't be.
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.
So none of those dams were built with Federal *grants*? Yeah, right.
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.
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.
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.
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.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.