Dave wrote:

I'd have no problem imposing much of the costs of maintaining the waterway
on those communities that benefit from it, and letting them figure out
either how to recoup the costs from actual users or whether they want to
have their residents provide a subsidy to encourage users to come. But I
think the benefit to the resident of an Arizona desert is too remote to
require him to pay for the yachtis' pleasures.

Following that line of reasoning maybe the Corps and the BLM should
close down lakes Alamo, Apache, Abiquiu, Avalon, Brantley, Cabello,
Cochiti, Cinchas, Galisteo, Havasu, Jemez Canyon, Sumner and the other
250+ recreational lakes they maintain west of Colorado that us folks
back East don't get much benifit from. After all, their budget totals
about 40 times what the ICW costs and they don't carry freight.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

Seems to me that's exactly Glenn's point: end the government subsidy and if
those communities don't ante up, the lakes would deteriorate.
Your words suggest it's OK for payments from these lake communities to be
voluntary.
Don't pick on only the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway..

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:11:51 -0500, Glenn Ashmore
said:

Following that line of reasoning maybe the Corps and the BLM should
close down lakes Alamo, Apache, Abiquiu, Avalon, Brantley, Cabello,
Cochiti, Cinchas, Galisteo, Havasu, Jemez Canyon, Sumner and the other
250+ recreational lakes they maintain west of Colorado that us folks
back East don't get much benifit from. After all, their budget totals
about 40 times what the ICW costs and they don't carry freight.

Wrong. Following that line of reasoning those benefiting from those lakes
should pay the freight for maintaining them. If the surrounding
communities
believe a subsidy is appropriate to encourage local businesses, let them
pay
that subsidy.

Seems to me that's exactly Glenn's point: end the government subsidy and if
those communities don't ante up, the lakes would deteriorate.
Your words suggest it's OK for payments from these lake communities to be
voluntary.
Don't pick on only the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway..

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:11:51 -0500, Glenn Ashmore
said:

Following that line of reasoning maybe the Corps and the BLM should
close down lakes Alamo, Apache, Abiquiu, Avalon, Brantley, Cabello,
Cochiti, Cinchas, Galisteo, Havasu, Jemez Canyon, Sumner and the other
250+ recreational lakes they maintain west of Colorado that us folks
back East don't get much benifit from. After all, their budget totals
about 40 times what the ICW costs and they don't carry freight.

Wrong. Following that line of reasoning those benefiting from those lakes
should pay the freight for maintaining them. If the surrounding
communities
believe a subsidy is appropriate to encourage local businesses, let them
pay
that subsidy.

Isn't that the same logic Glenn was suggesting?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:49:29 -0500, "Garland Gray II"
said:


Seems to me that's exactly Glenn's point: end the government subsidy and
if
those communities don't ante up, the lakes would deteriorate.
Your words suggest it's OK for payments from these lake communities to be
voluntary.
Don't pick on only the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway..

I'm not. I'm applying the same principle across the board. You want deep
water for your yacht (or runabout or whatever), expect to pay for it. You
want your local lake to be suitable for boating, swimming, etc., expect to
pay for it. Don't expect the general taxpaying public who don't have
yachting waters, lakes, etc. to carry the freight for your leisure time
activities.

Isn't that the same logic Glenn was suggesting?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:49:29 -0500, "Garland Gray II"
said:


Seems to me that's exactly Glenn's point: end the government subsidy and
if
those communities don't ante up, the lakes would deteriorate.
Your words suggest it's OK for payments from these lake communities to be
voluntary.
Don't pick on only the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway..

I'm not. I'm applying the same principle across the board. You want deep
water for your yacht (or runabout or whatever), expect to pay for it. You
want your local lake to be suitable for boating, swimming, etc., expect to
pay for it. Don't expect the general taxpaying public who don't have
yachting waters, lakes, etc. to carry the freight for your leisure time
activities.

You
want your local lake to be suitable for boating, swimming, etc., expect to
pay for it. Don't expect the general taxpaying public who don't have
yachting waters, lakes, etc. to carry the freight for your leisure time
activities.

It's the general taxpaying public that has contributed to the silting. All the
upstream paving and developments increase stream flows so that more river bank
gets washed
out to form a delta.

Why should the boaters have to pay, exclusively, for environmental damage done
upstream by Suburbia and the WalMart parking lot?

You
want your local lake to be suitable for boating, swimming, etc., expect to
pay for it. Don't expect the general taxpaying public who don't have
yachting waters, lakes, etc. to carry the freight for your leisure time
activities.

It's the general taxpaying public that has contributed to the silting. All the
upstream paving and developments increase stream flows so that more river bank
gets washed
out to form a delta.

Why should the boaters have to pay, exclusively, for environmental damage done
upstream by Suburbia and the WalMart parking lot?

On 28 Feb 2004 03:39:34 GMT, (Gould 0738) said:

It's the general taxpaying public that has contributed to the silting. All
the
upstream paving and developments increase stream flows so that more river
bank
gets washed
out to form a delta.

That's the kind of tale that should begin with "Once upon a time." Nice try,
though.


Hmm. Let's see here. I identify a well know cause of silting and "Dave"
responds with
an allegation that I'm lying. No facts, no refutation, just an allegation that
I'm posting a falsehood.

Ever notice how the losers in a debate don't bother to counter any factual
points, but rather turn immediately to impugning character?

Tell us, , exactly why upstream development has no effect on
drainage and accelerated silting in harbor areas. I'm sure your version of
reality will prove fascinating.

On 28 Feb 2004 03:39:34 GMT, (Gould 0738) said:

It's the general taxpaying public that has contributed to the silting. All
the
upstream paving and developments increase stream flows so that more river
bank
gets washed
out to form a delta.

That's the kind of tale that should begin with "Once upon a time." Nice try,
though.


Hmm. Let's see here. I identify a well know cause of silting and "Dave"
responds with
an allegation that I'm lying. No facts, no refutation, just an allegation that
I'm posting a falsehood.

Ever notice how the losers in a debate don't bother to counter any factual
points, but rather turn immediately to impugning character?

Tell us, , exactly why upstream development has no effect on
drainage and accelerated silting in harbor areas. I'm sure your version of
reality will prove fascinating.

Road and other development in Arizona, Texas, Wyoming, Utah,
Michigan, Washington, etc. etc., etc. are responsible for silting up the
ICW? I don't think so.

Dave, this is getting silly. YOU made that statement, no one else.
"General public" doesn't necessarily mean every citizen in the country. If
the need for government expenditure has to be caused by the actions of each
and every citizen, which seems to be what you are expecting, or accrue to
the benefit of every citizen, there wouldn't be many dollars spent.
There is some validity to your argument--in effect to cut the pork. But I
suspect the ICW can be justified in terms of revenue produced--taxes and
safety to a greater extent than a number of other federal projects.