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.

Remember, we're talking about a specific geographic area here--the ICW.Your
general proposition that it's the "general taxpaying public" that is
responsible for silting in the ICW is so specious no one should take it
seriously. 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. Even assuming that development in the general area of
the ICW has contributed to its silting, (and so far your only authority for
even that proposition is claiming that it's "well known") that's certainly
no argument for burdening the resident of the Arizona desert or the
mountains of Montana with the costs of dredging it so the local yachties can
have their fun.

Deltas build up from silt that is brought downstream. Areas that require
dredging to remain navigable are those ares near the mouth of a stream or a
river. Upland development exacerbates silting. Please don't take my word for it
alone, do a little research. I just now typed the phrase "upland development
and silting" into a search engine and got 86 hits. Suppose it's a fairy tale
conspiracy spanning a number of years? A trick just to make you look silly?

My point about the general tax paying public is in response to some opinions
that have been expressed stating that boaters should bear the entire cost of
dredging the
ICW, (and by extension of principle all other waterways). I maintain that the
silting problem is a consequence of a much more extensive problem, and that all
who participate in making the mess should participate in cleaning it up.

To say that only boaters should have to pay for dredging the nation's waterways
is akin to saying that folks who never fly shouldn't have to repay bonds sold
to build an airport. How about the communities all across the country going
hundreds of millions in debt to finance professional baseball stadiums. Should
people who aren't baseball fans be required to pay the taxes used to retire the
bonds?

Just as each of us can point out a use of tax money here or there that does not
benefit us as individuals, virtually everybody benefits from some expenditure
of tax money that somebody else could criticize as not directly contributing to
their
own immediate personal needs.

Got kids in school? Mine graduated years ago- but I don't mind helping to pay
for yours. Somebody paid taxes when my kids were in school, and now my kids are
paying taxes too. :-)

Remember, we're talking about a specific geographic area here--the ICW.Your
general proposition that it's the "general taxpaying public" that is
responsible for silting in the ICW is so specious no one should take it
seriously. 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. Even assuming that development in the general area of
the ICW has contributed to its silting, (and so far your only authority for
even that proposition is claiming that it's "well known") that's certainly
no argument for burdening the resident of the Arizona desert or the
mountains of Montana with the costs of dredging it so the local yachties can
have their fun.

Deltas build up from silt that is brought downstream. Areas that require
dredging to remain navigable are those ares near the mouth of a stream or a
river. Upland development exacerbates silting. Please don't take my word for it
alone, do a little research. I just now typed the phrase "upland development
and silting" into a search engine and got 86 hits. Suppose it's a fairy tale
conspiracy spanning a number of years? A trick just to make you look silly?

My point about the general tax paying public is in response to some opinions
that have been expressed stating that boaters should bear the entire cost of
dredging the
ICW, (and by extension of principle all other waterways). I maintain that the
silting problem is a consequence of a much more extensive problem, and that all
who participate in making the mess should participate in cleaning it up.

To say that only boaters should have to pay for dredging the nation's waterways
is akin to saying that folks who never fly shouldn't have to repay bonds sold
to build an airport. How about the communities all across the country going
hundreds of millions in debt to finance professional baseball stadiums. Should
people who aren't baseball fans be required to pay the taxes used to retire the
bonds?

Just as each of us can point out a use of tax money here or there that does not
benefit us as individuals, virtually everybody benefits from some expenditure
of tax money that somebody else could criticize as not directly contributing to
their
own immediate personal needs.

Got kids in school? Mine graduated years ago- but I don't mind helping to pay
for yours. Somebody paid taxes when my kids were in school, and now my kids are
paying taxes too. :-)

So nobody is responsible for the results of their actions?

If I sand my boat at the same time you're varnishing yours in an adjacent slip,
and the wind carries my dust into your work, am I exempt from any responsiblity
because the dust landed beyond the confines of my own slip? Should I respond to
your righteous protest with "Tough, dude. Deal with it. You shouldn't expect to
be able to varnish- everybody knows that sanding is a common activity in a
marina."

Upstream activites that accelerate silting
can be reasonably found responsible for proportionate shares of the accelerated
silting. Upstream taxpayers should participate in clean up/ dredging costs.

So nobody is responsible for the results of their actions?

If I sand my boat at the same time you're varnishing yours in an adjacent slip,
and the wind carries my dust into your work, am I exempt from any responsiblity
because the dust landed beyond the confines of my own slip? Should I respond to
your righteous protest with "Tough, dude. Deal with it. You shouldn't expect to
be able to varnish- everybody knows that sanding is a common activity in a
marina."

Upstream activites that accelerate silting
can be reasonably found responsible for proportionate shares of the accelerated
silting. Upstream taxpayers should participate in clean up/ dredging costs.

Harry Krause wrote:
Dave wrote:


On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:05:03 GMT, (Norm) said:


I bet in the end the cost of maintaining all of these waterways will
be passed down to the people who use them. "User Fees". If you pass
thru, you pay a fee. It will soon be too expensive for most of us.
Back to being a rich man's sport? That will also solve some of the
pollution problems and most importantly, we lose some more of our
freedom. There are lots of places that ban anchoring or you have to
pay a fee to anchor. The ICW is most likely next in line to see these
user fees passed down to boaters.

Let's all hurry and jump in to defend boaters' divine right to have the
costs of their sport paid from the taxpayers' pockets. That's the American
way. Having to pay your own freight would be downright unAmerican.



I vote to have the thousands of dollars of my tax payments going over to
Iraq and being flushed down that toilet instead be used for maintenance
of the ICW.

The ICW was paid for by tax dollars, so it belongs to 'the public.'
The public benefits by licensing commercial use. The revenues
defrays the cost, and consumers benefit from having an alternative
shipping route, energising competition and the 'free market.' The
ICW is also a somewhat secure inside passage for defence purposes,
another public benefit, if somewhat obsolete.

Can you imagine those so numberous barges on the outside in weather?
Do previously licensed business users have rights to expect
continuation of licensing? Who would be liable to a lawsuit for
lost business if negligent maintenance should cause losses? What a
convenience to some businesses about to go belly up, eh?

It must and will be supported by tax dollars either way, unless some
government decision decides that the people of the public are liable
or have no right to the continued benefits of tax invested in this
public utility infrastructure, at which point, the politicians who
voted for that should be pilloried, stripped of their jobs,
pensions, even their trousers. I will donate one set of stocks and
one bushel basket of switches, anyone else?

Iraq belongs to the Iraqis. U.S. out!

Terry K

Harry Krause wrote:
Dave wrote:


On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 20:05:03 GMT, (Norm) said:


I bet in the end the cost of maintaining all of these waterways will
be passed down to the people who use them. "User Fees". If you pass
thru, you pay a fee. It will soon be too expensive for most of us.
Back to being a rich man's sport? That will also solve some of the
pollution problems and most importantly, we lose some more of our
freedom. There are lots of places that ban anchoring or you have to
pay a fee to anchor. The ICW is most likely next in line to see these
user fees passed down to boaters.

Let's all hurry and jump in to defend boaters' divine right to have the
costs of their sport paid from the taxpayers' pockets. That's the American
way. Having to pay your own freight would be downright unAmerican.



I vote to have the thousands of dollars of my tax payments going over to
Iraq and being flushed down that toilet instead be used for maintenance
of the ICW.

The ICW was paid for by tax dollars, so it belongs to 'the public.'
The public benefits by licensing commercial use. The revenues
defrays the cost, and consumers benefit from having an alternative
shipping route, energising competition and the 'free market.' The
ICW is also a somewhat secure inside passage for defence purposes,
another public benefit, if somewhat obsolete.

Can you imagine those so numberous barges on the outside in weather?
Do previously licensed business users have rights to expect
continuation of licensing? Who would be liable to a lawsuit for
lost business if negligent maintenance should cause losses? What a
convenience to some businesses about to go belly up, eh?

It must and will be supported by tax dollars either way, unless some
government decision decides that the people of the public are liable
or have no right to the continued benefits of tax invested in this
public utility infrastructure, at which point, the politicians who
voted for that should be pilloried, stripped of their jobs,
pensions, even their trousers. I will donate one set of stocks and
one bushel basket of switches, anyone else?

Iraq belongs to the Iraqis. U.S. out!

Terry K

Subject: ICW -- In Danger
From: Dave

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.

So just what color is the sky in your world?

Capt. Bill

Subject: ICW -- In Danger
From: Dave

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.

So just what color is the sky in your world?

Capt. Bill

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:47:38 -0500,
Garland Gray II wrote:

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.



Pork can allways be justified, if you only ask those at the trough.
Is the ICW worth using general tax revenues for? to be honest, I don't
know. But when folks talk about pork, it seems they almost allways talk
about the *other* guy's pork.


--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Unix has security which has been tested by conniving, unscrupulous
college students over generations.