Contributors to this thread:
Drought and Lake Mead
Maybe its time to close down Las Vegas? :)
Americans seem so intent to build in areas that cause problems. Many places in the west also have people with no accountability to the resource they require to live. But, we just keep on building. It is ignorant. If a water resource does not support an area then the area should dry up. It is simply dumb to keep doing this. It drives costs up and everyone and everything dependent on the water resource but, the people that live in these areas, suffer for it.
Maybe they can harvest liberal tears and solve the crises. Plenty of water there.
So......flood area. What if it’s a freak deal? We flood here in Utah. And then we also burn up. Out west, water means fuel to burn. So I suppose we should vacate the west? Lots of wildfires? That can happen because of a total anomaly of a dry year. You can have a pretty good average amount of moisture. One extremely dry year, and it’ll turn into a tinder box. Every single place has its risks.
Lake mead is being sucked dry. No doubt. Maybe Israel should be gone too? They desalinate sea water for their existence.
Mankind can and will adapt other ways to get water down to Arizona and Nevada and southern cal. Mother Nature will eventually provide the moisture she used to. Last winter in the west, was damn near record breaking. Again, spike bulls theory about where to not build and to build, is ludicrous at best.
Floods, fire and drought. Well, we pretty much covered all 4 corners of America. Where’ll the next mayflower take us??
This drought just not funny anymore. If Cali wasn't so stupid and liberal and didn't drain lakes and destroy dams, maybe the pull on western reservoirs wouldn't be so dramatic.
As far as not not living out west because of a severe drought every 15 or 20 years...I'll stay put and leave the lush east to their more liberal politcs.
DConcrete - on a side note, went up to the San Juan unit today and have not seen it that dry before, but, thunderheads and storm clouds are starting to build in the afternoons now, so hopefully it starts to green up a little. A small lake up there is down about 40' from last summer...
I had a boulder mountain bear tag this year and boy howdy, that part of the state is dry!! I believe you have a San Juan tag?
Thanks for the well wish, they have and already are screwing up NM.
I hope everything works out, Rain Rain today
According to NOAA, the drought will "remain" but improve July through Sept, which means wetter than normal monsoon to get us back to semi-normal conditions.
Well, it has been 100 or more here in Denver area this past week and will be in the 90's this coming week. If this keeps up all I will have to do is take a bucket of water with when I go antelope hunting.
I just got back from visiting Rio Blanco county in CO. The drought is serious, poor hay production and ranchers will be selling off livestock. Well's have gone dry that have had water for 50 years.
Mother Nature can definitely make life difficult. Drought in the SW and the upper Midwest has too much rain. Hopefully the monsoons come soon.
There is another way of looking at this.
You fellas out west are getting your panties in a wad over something that makes zero sense. All we hear from you guys is the pitfalls of eastern living. How terrible it is in regards to the wild west. Yet, you take zero account that it is OUR majority of tax dollars keeping your butts alive. We pay for your water projects with our over whelming tax base. We pay for your Fire services protecting your homes. We pay for a majority of your roads to truck in products the country you live in won't support. I understand that philosophy applies here to some degree as well but, not nearly at the extent it does there. I can make it here. Many of you can't without tax payer subsidy to make /made it possible
See how quick that gets real when reality is perceived.
Because nobody from Kansas to the west coast pays any federal income tax?
Utah has more federal tax Payers than your state does. We have 3 million people. Almost double West vaginas.
We can stay alive just fine out here without your dollars. Remember, we pay taxes too chump!
And we thank you WV Mountaineer - keep up the good work!!
Concrete, you pay taxes. It's just the tax revenue you create isn't nearly enough for the west's roads, water subsidies, etc..... You can thank that dumb eastern for that because without our input of tax revenue, you wouldn't have those things. You are correct about the population point. Only difference is in WV, we drink our own water and, most of us grow our own food. What we do not grow, is grown right here in the east. On unsubsidized crop ground.
It's not that I think this is a good idea or the right way of looking at it. However. it is reality
And here I thought the tax base was higher back east because of all the dumbass democrats...
Had no idea it was to fund the roads out west.
So the east provides our water and food? Btw West Virginia ranks 4th in receiving federal funds.
Drink your own water? And we don’t?
Shows how much you know about the West’s watershed.
Grow own food? Guess you didn’t know that a sizable amount of food is grown here too.
You’re very detached on a few things out west.
concrete, don’t read reality and change things to fit your agenda. WV’s population is aging. Meaning most are retired. Which is why the take on social security is so high.
You are once again chewing on your panty’s and missing the point. I never said the west didn’t have its own water or food. I said areas that require subsidized resources should be abandoned. Whether that be the east or the west. I only stated reality about tax revenue to play devils advocate. Instead of get the point, you are taking it personally.
HDE, most of the east from the mid Atlantic to the south is very conservative.
I know they are, talking about places with high taxes like NY...
Most of the west is too, except for dumb little 'ol NM - a blue state.
It's not anyone's fault that most of the west is a freaking desert and can't carry enough water for all of the unnatural agriculture done there AND all the people that live there as well. There will be war over water within the next 100 years, likely civil war.....you can bet on it. I agree...the people who live in the desert are far beyond the carrying capacity of the water supply and will totally run out of usable water pretty soon. Don't matter what kind of taxes you pay....nobody that has water is going to willingly give it to people who don't before it's all over.
If other countries are already using ocean water..... Why aren’t we looking at removing salt from ocean water for mass use ? Seems to me that has to be the future......
I saw Lake Mead last year for the first time in 25-30 years....... I was shocked how low the water level is..... You can see the old water line..... We went past the Hoover Dam from Vegas to go to the Grand Canyon....
The problem with harvesting liberal tears for drinking water is the energy it takes now to desalinate them. They are extra salty since Trump took over.
A point that no one wants to address, there are just too many humans on the rock we all live on. Soooo whats the answer?
There are not too many humans on the rock we live on, but there are too many do-gooders...
I agree with keepemsharp. We are on 7 billion with exponential growth some day we will hit the carrying capacity. We are not outside of the laws of nature although we are racing to the carrying capacity like we are. Me included as I have kids.
Water, food, and shelter will someday be a fight between neighbors. If a deadly pandemic or nuclear war doesn't beat us to our carrying capacity.
Do people really know what 'carrying capacity' even means?
"You keep using that word, I don a think it means a what you think it a means".
Carrying Capacity in this context means the number of people and other living organisms that a region or ecological niche can support without significant exhaustion of natural resources and environmental degradation.
In that context then, scientifically and survival based, the human population and the west are far from carrying capacity. The pristine public lands arguement is a moot point...
"Yet, you take zero account that it is OUR majority of tax dollars keeping your butts alive."
Umm...Colorado and Utah residents pay more in fed income tax then they receive in federal funds. We are net givers of federal dollars. West Virginia, on the other hand, receives over twice as much federal funding as they pay in.
So, who is keeping whose butts alive, again?
doesn't matter what you pay in taxes. that doesn't entitle you to any of my water.
"doesn't matter what you pay in taxes. that doesn't entitle you to any of my water."
So, if Montana decided to cut off your water to the Missouri River, you'd be OK with that?
The feds are already doing just that......keeping water in Montana that is destined for downstream...it's good for wildlife they say. Face it...if you live down steam anywhere you are screwed and nothing is going to change the fact that they can suck it out before you get and there is little or nothing you can do about it. I'm lucky to be water rich....I have a 650 ft well with water level at about 450 ft. It's dropped about 10 feet in the last 25 years...at that rate it's going to be while before I even have to drop my pump down.
The question is, what do you consider "your water". Should the Rocky Mountain states, where over 70% of the surface water in the west originates, consider that water their own?
And how about sub-surface water? Aquifers often extend across state lines. Perhaps your well is tapped into one of them. Is that "your water", or is it another state's water?
Or, should all water be considered a resource to be shared by all?
"Or, should all water be considered a resource to be shared by all?"
From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.
The problem with making a point to egotistical men is that they tend to glaze over and, miss the point altogether. No amount of reality changes that. Only their ego rest's when they "told you so". Many of these same men charge others with juvenile name calling and such. Yet, to ignorant to read and comprehend. SMH.
One last time. This isn't a state by state thing. Only you nimrods are trying to make out that way to win some point? This is exactly what I said it is. Whether you like to admit it or not, there are many areas in this country that people do not belong trying to live at all or, in the numbers that they do. It causes a huge finiacial burden to all tax payers country wide. Many of those areas are in the west. Without tax revenue generated by the EASTERN tax payer, many of these areas WOULD not EXIST today and cdrtainly would not be looking to expand their burden. As they are today.
IF that is to complicated for the sensitive among us, just forget you read it.
"From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs."
That's why I questioned SA's rather selfish comment about "my water". If Colorado adopted a "my water" policy, I know of at least 5 states that would suffer badly.
My older sister graduated at the top of her law class at CU in Boulder. Her area of emphasis was water law. Thru conversations with her, I have a rudimentary understanding of how extremely complex the subject is. There really is no such thing as "my water".
Think you need to look at a state's poverty rate and fed dollars recieved first before determining that it is for infrastructure spending and urban development.
My state is one of the worst, and I can tell you why - along with Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana.
FWIW, WV ranks pretty high on the list as well...
And another thing, what the hell does the moral conflict somebody has about the west's population have anything to do with a drought cycle!?!?!?!
Nice backpedal, WV.
Your original assertion was:
"You fellas out west are getting your panties in a wad over something that makes zero sense. All we hear from you guys is the pitfalls of eastern living. How terrible it is in regards to the wild west. Yet, you take zero account that it is OUR majority of tax dollars keeping your butts alive. We pay for your water projects with our over whelming tax base. We pay for your Fire services protecting your homes. We pay for a majority of your roads to truck in products the country you live in won't support."
That's a very disingenuous and erronious statement. The fact is, the majority of the states that give more federal tax dollars than they receive are western states. The east isn't funding squat for them. Especially not your state, which receives more than twice what they put in. Should I conclude no one should live in West Virginia because the rest of us are subsidizing you?
While I'm soap-boxing, living out west makes as much sense I guess as the morons who live back east in hurricane and nor'easter prone areas. What is the high cost of reconstruction there?
It's a good thing for the wealth back east to be so generous to donate the surplus after the slush funds are taken care of for weather related destruction...
Could not agree more HDE. It for sure doesn't make sense to rebuild in flood prone or hurricane prone areas....why anyone would want to rebuild after getting wiped out is beyond me.
Me too. Which is part of my whole point. Also, for the genius among us, check out a Map showing the US population density. That’ll give you a real good idea of where the tax revenue is coming from. No poverty estimates needed.
You don't have to look at a population density map, the statistics are readily available. As of 2017, there were 14 states that paid more federal income tax than they received in federal funding. They were California, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Utah, Colorado, New York, Kansas, Ohio, Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, and Delaware. Those are the givers, all the rest are takers.
Sorry to bring facts to the discussion, but the notion that the east subsidizes most of the west thru their federal tax dollars is laughable, especially from a resident of WV, which ranks 10th highest for sucking off the federal teet.
...and when it comes to water rights.....who subsidizes who has zero bearing. To me it's all about who gets to it first in this day and age...
"From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs." Agreed.
GG, are you aware of where the quote comes from?
Yeah, I know it's associated with communist philosophy.
But, what is the alternative with respect to water, and air for that matter? Do you really want Colorado to shut off its surface water that flows to Kansas and other states? And what about aquifers that span over state lines? How do you propose we divide that water up?
I still maintain there is no such thing as "my water".
There is if your tribal...they take precedence over EVERYONE.
According to Colorado law, I own the surface water rights to 4 springs on my property, as well as all the sub surface water rights. I secured those rights knowing that water will become a scarce and valuable commodity at some point. But, I have no illusions that that water is actually mine. When push comes to shove, that water will be given to whoever needs it.
I believe that by the time push comes to shove any springs you and anyone else has on their property will be dried up because the aquifer they are part of has been pumped dry. It's happening where I live already....people with old wells are having to drill deeper...at least another 100ft if their well is over 25-30 years old.
Thanks for making my point, SA.
So, "my water" isn't really mine. Doesn't that fly in the face of your "...that doesn't entitle you to any of my water." comment?
"When push comes to shove, that water will be given to whoever needs it."
And it will.
My God, 4 days arguing over hypothetical water issues. LOL You guys are something else. I'm starting a thread...The sky is blue...ish.
There's nothing hypothetical about it. Water issues are real, especially here in the west. If you don't like the subject ignore it. For me, it's a nice change from the typical political vomit-ball threads we get here.
LOL, don't go on the crossbow thread. It's pretty sad.
Water is an interesting subject. For the guys that think the water collected on the surface is "theirs" to own, consider what you would do if there was way too much of it collected. You aren't simply allowed to throw your trash in your neighbor's yard, are you? If "your" water moves downstream and destroys property, are you responsible?
Generalizing that the West as a whole is supported by the taxpaying East is pretty asinine. Sure, there are a few locations that development creates serious issues, but those areas are really just a small portion of the West (maybe some heavily populated ones albeit).
One solution tho the water crisis (meant to be read with tongue in cheek) is to have E&P companies invest in the technology to clean up produced water for it to be potable. After all, they've used countless millions of gallons of fresh water to drill and frac wells, from free flowing rivers and lakes to waterwells tapping into the Ogallala Aquifer...
water is a combination of the 1st and 3rd most abundant elements in the universe.....there really is a LOT of it. Enormous amounts in space....in fact most of the oxygen in the universe exists in the form of water or carbon monoxide. Getting it is the problem.....we will for sure never use it all.
What is asinine is getting the whole west out of the point of this thread. Its also asinine to not realize that it wasn't about just the west too. The only way you could get that from any post here was listening to the biggest whiner on the CF instead of read what has been typed.
ben h's Link
Just shut down Las Vegas?
I read the attached article a few years ago and I think it has interesting insight to water problems in the west and how they came about.
I don't understand the laws and how water shares transfer/sell, but in a nut shell we have water allocation laws and shares from 100-170 years ago when the west was settled and our water uses and population was very different then. The vast majority of the water is used by agriculture; much of it to produce very low value crops and not very many of them either compared to other parts of the country. I gather it's not really a free market selling the shares and the farmers don't get adequate compensation from other downstream users for conservation, so they're in a use it or lose it situation.
No, not bingo. This whole thread is a lot more than just the arce feet of water granted from a state engineer's office for a portion of the year of growing season. Bitching and whining about west population and expansion is an empty tirade at best.
Piss poor politics have a larger role and you can thank liberal politics most of all. You can take that to the bank, Jack.
Who is bitching about the West’s population? Who here is exclusively only talking about the West’s dependence on subsidy? It appears to me to only be a few people. What about this has got you so bunched up and ticked off us beyond me. It is what it is. It is what you say it is. So, nothing here is contradicting to another’s point.
And WV continues to backpedal. I guess that "east is subsidizing the west" thing didn't work out too well for you, eh?
I don't understand why you keep posting on this thread Justin. Every post makes you look worse. I mean if you want to keep saying it isn't about that, then either be a child and go up and erase part of your post above, or just say that you weren't really thinking right, or that isn't really what you meant. It was very clear that it was about the East subsidizing the West based on WHAT IS WRITTEN in your posts above. I'm not even from the West, yet it was very clear to me.
The data is a bit dated now, but I'm sure it hasn't changed much. Unless you live in one of about a dozen States, you're being subsidized. It most certainly isn't an East-West thing. I always like pointing out that those nut-job liberal states of California and New York are the biggest givers :)
The only one complaining about the west is you WV, so get off that train...
First it was about population and development. Then it has been about maintenance and federal dollars recieved, and finally It's about "wasting" water. You've been all over the place, so chill.
Franzen, go back and read man. Did you read all the posts? I have explained this very easily. I plainly said playing Devil's advocate in reference to that. I clearly said "There is another way of looking at this". I have also plainly stated that this doesn't involve just the west. If you would look at my post's, that is plainly obvious. Especially the first one. IT's called context and I am certain that you are capable of doing that. IF you missed where I said that multiple times, go back and read it again. Don't pay attention to Matt. His attempt here isn't to do anything but divert and change the topic to what he wants it to be about.
To explain: The different perspective was in response to a comment about eastern liberals. Yes, I said that. I'm not denying that. That however does not change reality since roughly 75% of federal tax revenue comes from payroll and income taxes. That is going to come from your population centers. Since the east has a much higher percentage of the total population, common sense and 3 brain cells say that. IF that pisses or rubs anyone wrong, I'm sorry but, that is reality. However, that isn't the only example of this. But, when confronted that this was wrong, I must defend what I KNOW is right. Since I SAID it.
I( must have done an absolute horrible job of explaining my point here. I've looked it over about 30 times. I can't see how this is being so confused and rubbing people wrong. I'm not concerned with Grey Ghost. He'd argue with a butterfly just to argue. I'm not even going to address his repeated stupidity to switch the argument to his topic of choice. What I am saying is there are some really smart people here that have misunderstood what I have tried to say all along. So, that must be my fault. However, if this isn't clear, I truly do not know how else to explain it any better.
I have never thought of the taxes I have to pay as being an 'investment'...If I did, and I could get away with it, I sure wouldn't be investing as much as I do...8^)
Do those numbers above include SS payments? If so, then the chart is bogus in my opinion. People earned that SS and SS should not be included IMO. Also, I haven't researched it, but if SS is included, which of those top states in the chart do not tax SS? That would be a big reason for those states to show up high on the list...like Florida for instance...People who have the wherewithal to move will move to low tax states when they retire...
As to who subsidizes who, that is a sticky subject as pretty much everyone on this board has been subsidized to some extent if you have ever bought a house with a typical mortgage. Being able to write off property taxes and mortgage interest is a subsidy that everyone with a brain takes advantage of...
I've attached a link to the latest analysis, MT in MO. It's done by Wallethub. It is a reflection of dollars coming into the IRS from the States, and dollars going back out to the States (Federal contracts, grants, welfare, etc). Not sure whether SS is included but I doubt it would change the picture that much unless there were States that were receiving an inordinate amount of SS funding that didn't have a population paying back into the pot. Again, this is only a look at the inflow and outflow of Federal dollars from each State and not the total tax inflow-outflow (State taxes are not included).
And you are right, we all benefit from tax breaks and subsidies. This view is slightly different and looks at the story in aggregate. There are lots of reasons why certain States are high on the list - some have large military bases, some receive lots of welfare, etc. This aggregates it all.
"Yet, you take zero account that it is OUR majority of tax dollars keeping your butts alive. We pay for your water projects with our over whelming tax base. We pay for your Fire services protecting your homes. We pay for a majority of your roads to truck in products the country you live in won't support."
Here's the problem, WVM. You've carried a fact (that the Federal tax revenue comes from large population centers) too far (that it subsidizes areas that are, in fact, givers at the Federal level).
There's a big difference of where the money is collected and where it is spent. The fact of the matter is that there are many States out West (CA, WY, UT, CO for example) that are not reliant on Federal tax dollars from back East and, in fact, quite the opposite is true.
I haven’t taken anything too far. Take a look at your cited list. You and Matt are hung up On this. But, it truly is not the determining factor you are making it to be. Percentages of giving versus getting don’t mean squat. What does matter is the overall number of tax revenue. Since population centers require employment, I’m sticking to the concept that cattle farmers aren’t employing enough people in Wyoming to pay a higher amount of tax revenue then convieneve store owners in New Jersey are. Or, that the gas fields in Montana are employing enough people to pay more revenue in employment taxes then McDonalds does in New York State. How is that concept wrong?
I don't know how to make it any more simple for you, WVM. When you are getting back less in dollars than you are putting in, you aren't being subsidized - you are subsidizing other people.
Sure, there are fewer Federal tax dollars coming from WY than there are from NJ and there are fewer Federal tax dollars coming from MT than NY. It's not a matter of what people are putting into the pot - it's what's being taken out.
When you say what you did about people from the East paying for the services of people out West (I'm paraphrasing), you are saying that those States are takers. Many of those States aren't and they do not need the money from States back East. In fact, they are footing the Federal bill in many of the States back East.
I can appreciate your post above WV. From your first post on the thread I didn't see any issues, in fact I was in agreement. It was later on, that I was like "what the heck is he saying here." Maybe to summarize a little bit, the idea is that some areas are creating unnecessary spending, regardless of whether they are givers or takers of Federal dollars. Some are going to be givers and some takers, but on a Federal level, unnecessary spending regardless of reasoning, is a burden on us all.
Then that's what should have been said. Saying places like CO and WY and UT need dollars from the East for Federal fire services, roads, water projects, etc and that tax dollars from large populations centers are "keeping [their] butts alive" is wrong.
The dollars spent on Federal services, projects, and programs in those States are less than what those States pay in Federal taxes. They are not reliant on other areas of the country. The complete opposite is true.
I have. You say spending doesn't matter, only where tax revenue comes from ("Percentages of giving versus getting don’t mean squat. What does matter is the overall number of tax revenue"). You've said that the high revenue States carry the low revenue States ("Yet, you take zero account that it is OUR majority of tax dollars keeping your butts alive. We pay for your water projects with our over whelming tax base. We pay for your Fire services protecting your homes. We pay for a majority of your roads to truck in products the country you live in won't support").
Both of those statements are not accurate. Plenty of States that generate a lot of Federal tax revenue still take more Federal dollars than they put in. Plenty of lower tax-revenue generating States are contributing more to the Federal pot than they are taking out. This is simple addition and subtraction. The residents of the State of CO are more than paying for the Federal spending in their State (water projects, fire fighting, roads, welfare programs, education, you name it).
The same cannot be said of the residents of WV. In fact, roughly 38 States are subsidized by the other dozen States in our Union. So you might want to rethink the statement that "areas that require subsidized resources should be abandoned."
Let me try to make it easy for WVM.
For every dollar that Colorado residents pay in income tax, the state receives about 80 cents back in federal funding. For every dollar that West Virginia residents pay in income tax, the state receives about $2.20 back in federal funding.
So who is subsidizing whom, exactly? Eastern tax dollars don't fund anything in Colorado, Utah, California, Wyoming, etc.... If anything, those states are subsidizing many eastern states. Why is that so difficult to understand?
If you have no water you are likely all for "it's everyone's water".....
My grandmother grew up on the edge of the Mohave Desert near Bishop. I remember her talking about the Water Wars down there when the developers begin expanding LA and southern CA. Literally armed goons going from ranch to ranch and farm to farm strong arming people to sell/sign off their water rights so it could be diverted to LA. They burned people out. Families disappeared. Gun battles with those that fought back. LA developers literally getting away with murder as they paid off the local law. Serious stuff.
Many states now are claiming all the water for themselves to control. All of it. In OR even the rain that falls on your roof is not your's..... it's the state's. You can be fined for catching it in barrels and keeping it for your own use.
"Piss poor politics have a larger role and you can thank liberal politics most of all. You can take that to the bank, Jack."
Grey Ghost's Link
Until people start to tell gov'ts to go pound sand when they cook up stupid laws like that, they will continue to cook up stupid laws like that...
"In OR even the rain that falls on your roof is not your's..... it's the state's. You can be fined for catching it in barrels and keeping it for your own use."
Grey Ghost's Link
TD, do you have any proof of that? I'm reading it's perfectly legal to collect rain water in Oregon. I even found the above PDF from the Oregon Building Code Division that outlines how to do it properly.
I'm thinking this is yet another internet myth.
Gee, we had a thread about it, it MUST be true. LOL.
I can't find a single source that says collecting rain water in Oregon is illegal. I have found a few reputable articles that debunk that claim, including this 2018 article that lists rainwater harvesting laws for all states.
It is not against the law in OR to catch and collect rainwater for personal use If not for personal use one would need a license to use or sell collected water
Most state's are encouraging residents to harvest rain water for conservation purposes. That's why I questioned TD's assertion.
I think I also found the case that started this myth. The Oregon resident built dams across his property and was collecting public water that ran across his property. He had collected the equivalent of 20 olympic size pools. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail, deservedly so, IMO.
Oregon and Washington states encourage the collection of rainwater for personal use. Colorado is the only state that outlaws it.
FWIW, last time I was around Austin, Nevada, I had a few conversations with the ranchers there, and a frequent topic was about how the City of Las Vegas had been buying up all the large ranches and farms all the way up the valley from Tonopah. They buy out the farms with the best wells, and then pump it all down to Vegas.
"Colorado is the only state that outlaws it."
Wrong. See House Bill 16-1005 passed in 2016. It allows Colorado residents to collect up to 110 gallons of rain water per household for outdoor use only.
CO allows two 55 gal barrels...? Per household...?
Now think about it for a minute, what's wrong with that?
My bad..... apparently the man charged and fined in that case collected a LOT of water. Can only be collected and stored off an artificial surface such as a roof.
But also was stated in the same article it was illegal in CO up until two years ago..... =D
Two barrels wouldn't water my yard for one day..... Very curious as to what the logic and reasoning is to not allow more personal storage...... water hording I guess.
"Gee, some people are just argumentative ashholes, THAT is true."
Show me where I argued with anyone on this thread, Spike. I just corrected some misinformation is all. Perhaps if you tried to disseminate fact from fiction on occasion, you would earn some credibility around here, too.
"Show me where I argued with anyone on this thread, Spike. I just corrected some misinformation is all. Perhaps if you tried to disseminate fact from fiction on occasion, you would earn some credibility around here, too."
Long past that ever happening;)
"Show me where I argued with anyone on this thread, Spike. I just corrected some misinformation is all. "
In the eyes of the victim, every conversation is an argument and every one who disagrees with them is a bully.
"There really is no such thing as "my water".
Have your prostate removed and you'll realize how true this actually is.
We were on the lake a couple years ago. The complaints were "it's down 40 feet". It's got a thousand feet of water in it.
Lake Mead is 550 ft deep
Lake Tahoe is 1640 ft deep
Lake Powell is 560 ft deep
Lake Havasau is 90 ft deep
Lake Superior is 1300 ft deep
Lake Michigan is 990 ft deep
deepest fresh water lake is Lake Baikal in Russia at over 5000 ft deep
the deepest water depth, fresh or salt is in the Pacific's Mariana's Trench at 36,000 ft deep
Alex I'll take what Lake is the Deepest for $800
Perspective Tru.. perspective ... ;0) ...... just another little tidbit I found, there is more water in that Russian Lake Baikal than all the Great Lakes combined ...
You forgot Navajo Lake...
The dam is a thousand feet.
this fits right in with the lower water levels of lake Mead ... bet ya didnt know it was even there
Why does CO limit rainwater collection?