If you use a little, you pay a little.

Use a lot and you pay disproportionately more.

Bret Cahill

Huh? I live in a smallish rual city. The local malt processor uses 900,000
gallons a day and pays a fraction that ordinary citizens do.

On Mar 16, 8:38 pm, wrote:

Does that change the 4%% that spend over 40%% of everything?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vUrEWGlg6Ss

On Mar 16, 9:55 pm, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

Why? Are you claiming that there is only a limited supply of water in
the world?

If an area is facing a water shortage, implementing draconian measures
to punish user (which is the easy way out for authorities) they should
be concentrating on fixing the supply problem.

I just love it when people start blaming the environment or something
else for their own incompetence.

Sure bad things can happen that can cause a temporary disruption in
supply of a commonly needed resource, but a good leader(s) would be
prepared for such events and mitigate the impact of such events.

Is there even _one_ creationist who can post on any resource without
contradicting a law of physics?

Bret Cahill

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:17:19 -0700, MichaelNJ wrote:

Well...... It could be because there is a "limited supply of water in the
world".

True enough....

Hi, quick sideline re house of reps as per your sig. link.

I basically sure do agree with your ideas re expanding the Reps
significantly in an effort to become more trully "representative".

I wonder why it could not be sensible and feasible, and wise, to also expand
the Senate to 200 [ 4 per state ] or thereabouts, as well as using a
proportional voting system vs first past the post. It would break the back
of the Two party system and allow a more democratically accurate
representative mix of people in the senate.

On Mar 17, 12:19 pm, The Trucker verizon.net> wrote:

Perhaps in areas prone to drought. But even most of those would have
few problems with good water management.

The problem in many areas often is actually too much water, i.e.
flooding. But that, too, is a water management problem not (hardly) a
problem of supply.

I'm pretty sure that was Michael's point.

Fred Weiss

On Mar 17, 10:43 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

You are absolutely correct. As stated my comments were wrong. What
they were intended to convey was the rhethorical question "Does the
planet not contain more then enough water for human consumption?"
aka a seemingly limitless supply of water.

On Mar 16, 9:38 pm, wrote:

That high volume industrial users get a discount isn't surprising.

W : )