Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [FSP] Re: Water & The West

Expand Messages
  • Mary Lou Seymour
    ... $3000 is OK. But NV seems out of the running (at least for me, I think it was one of my wont go there states (actually, I ve kinda forgotten, its been
    Message 1 of 15 , Aug 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > I think the last time I priced it out for Rachel, NV, it was $10 / ft,
      > and the depth ranged up to 800 ft, with 300 ft as the average. So,
      > about 3 grand for that location. I guess once the place is chosen,
      > one would have to find the best area for water .

      $3000 is OK.
      But NV seems out of the running (at least for me, I "think" it was one of my
      "wont go there" states (actually, I've kinda forgotten, its been so long now:-)
      Idaho seems still in the running though (if the stuff about mild winters is
      correct;-). I wonder if the Idaho boosters could do a quickie survey of local
      well drillers (in the area with the mild winters) and let me know? (It seems
      kinda strange to me that "95% of the people don't "own" their water source,
      and i wonder why)

      > I'm also big on private wells. In addition, I plan to use solar &
      > generator for my power, since I hate being dependent on power
      > companies.
      Yeah, I have backup solar/generator/propane/wood etc. But I can live with
      buying my power from the power companies (as long as its available), while i
      truly HATE the idea of drinking govt water. (Heck, I can barely stand to bathe
      in chlorinated water.) Buying bottled water is expensive and I dont want to
      "go there" if I can avoid it. (And no, those filter setups for tap water are NOT
      satisfactory, not to me that is.)
    • G
      ... My water bill is $5/mo + $10/mo sewer. $15*55 years *12 months=$9,900 for a lifetime of city water. Actually the $15/mo really costs the city around a dime
      Message 2 of 15 , Aug 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, 2002-08-01 at 19:06, Mary Lou Seymour wrote:

        > well drillers (in the area with the mild winters) and let me know? (It seems
        > kinda strange to me that "95% of the people don't "own" their water source,
        > and i wonder why)

        My water bill is $5/mo + $10/mo sewer. $15*55 years *12 months=$9,900
        for a lifetime of city water. Actually the $15/mo really costs the city
        around a dime so it is a tax and quite profitable for a city. It seems
        most people don't care about the mark-up, perhaps because it is still
        cheaper than drilling and maintaining your own well for most people who
        move a lot. Maybe just because they don't realize they are being rooked.

        When I consider the 20,000 South Americans who recently died of cholera
        because the WHO thought treating the water would be dangerous, I'm glad
        the city adds chlorine. Although I think I'd prefer ozone since it
        smells a bit nicer even though it costs a little more.

        I'd like to see water treatment privatized but I wouldn't want to get
        rid of it, at least not in densely populated areas.
        g
        --
        We prefer to believe that the absence of inverted commas guarantees the
        originality of a thought, whereas it may be merely that the utterer has
        forgotten its source.
        -- Clifton Fadiman, "Any Number Can Play"
      • Mary Lou Seymour
        ... Yes, that is the problem with densely populated areas . When developers start cramming folks into tiny lots and town houses etc, so they can t have
        Message 3 of 15 , Aug 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          > I'd like to see water treatment privatized but I wouldn't want to get
          > rid of it, at least not in densely populated areas.

          Yes, that is the problem with "densely populated areas". When developers
          start cramming folks into tiny lots and "town houses" etc, so they can't have
          septic tanks and wells, obviously they have to have centralized
          water/sewage, and, have to treat it. I don't live in areas like that, never will.
          Bad enough now, will only get worse as time goes on. What I require is 5-10
          acres, 10-20 miles from a small town. with a good water table and a
          reasonable "perc rate" (so the drain field doesn't have to be humongous:-) I
          know the East coast and south well enough to know that this is within my
          price range; I do NOT know the West well enough to know. I appreciate any
          input.
        • timb2112
          Not that I m disagreeing with you, but don t forget that Coca Cola, Pepsi, Perrier and your own local micro-brewery or winery can do the same...i.e. don t get
          Message 4 of 15 , Aug 2, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but don't forget that Coca Cola,
            Pepsi, Perrier and your own local micro-brewery or winery can do the
            same...i.e. don't get too paranoid. ;)

            Tim B.


            --- In freestateproject@y..., Ernest Moosa <ejmoosa@y...> wrote:
            > I think the really bad thing about government water is
            > that they can add things to it "for your own good"
            > and you are not even aware of it.
            >
            >
            >
            > --- Mary Lou Seymour <libertymls@f...>
            > wrote:
            > > I'm confused. What do you do to get water to pipe
            > > into your house? Do you
            > > run a line from the river or something? I mean, we
            > > have plenty of rivers and
            > > such here in the South, thats where the cities &
            > > water districts get their
            > > water. But I do NOT use government water. (I don't
            > > like to live in town, thats
            > > only ONE reason). i do not like chlorine or
            > > chemicals in my water, (even to
            > > water my garden) and, the really bad thing about
            > > govt water, of course, is
            > > they can "turn it off". So having a private well is
            > > extremely important to me.
            > > (the "price" of govt water, even if low now, can go
            > > up any time they want:-)...
            > >
            > > > I've already answered the Nevada question.
            > > However, water is a
            > > > problem in the southwest (AZ, southern NV, parts
            > > of NM, southern UT,
            > > > and most of CO). Despite of 70% of WY being a
            > > desert, it has plenty
            > > > of fresh water because of its high mountains and
            > > low population.
            > > > Idaho has plenty of water (especially north ID).
            > > Idaho also has the
            > > > world's largest underground river (by volume) just
            > > where it is needed
            > > > the most...south ID for the potato farmers.
            > > Montana is the headwaters
            > > > for America's two largest river systems (the
            > > Mississippi and
            > > > Columbia). It has plenty of water. Indeed, it
            > > has the largest fresh
            > > > water lake west of the Great Lakes (Flathead
            > > Lake). SD and ND are not
            > > > deserts (neither is MT except for 1.3% of the
            > > state) and have the Big
            > > > Missouri River running through them. Water is
            > > cheap in ID, WY, MT,
            > > > SD, and ND.
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            > =====
            > Where has your money been? HTTP://www.wheresgeorge.com
            > "The individual is the single most important minority. If your
            rights are removed by the majority, you have been enslaved." EJ
            >
            > "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of
            servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from
            us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and
            lick the hand that feeds you; and posterity forget that ye were our
            countrymen." - Samuel Adams
            >
            > www.ejmoosa.com
            >
            > __________________________________________________
            > Do You Yahoo!?
            > Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
            > http://health.yahoo.com
          • Baubo
            I see there is a need for a quick natural resource lesson here. First, in the arid west, nearly all of the drinking water comes from the ground and most of
            Message 5 of 15 , Aug 7, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              I see there is a need for a quick natural resource lesson here. First, in the arid west, nearly all of the drinking water comes from the ground and most of that has to be pumped up. Ground water is generally of higher quality than surface water and it is safe from radiation fallout. The problems are that it costs money to drill the well, install and maintain the pump and pay the electric bill. You can lift the water with wind or solar energy, but except for livestock water in remote locations, hardly anyone does that (yet).

              A small percentage of the drinking water comes from springs and streams. This type of water is often available to people in the mountains or hills. Springs generally offer the highest water quality and gravity flow, but they are prone to go dry in drought years. And again, if you wanted firefighting water, you would have to build a huge elevated cistern.

              Most people in the arid west, and the country in general, purchase their water from a municipality. In the arid west, this is often a small town of a few hundred people. People outside of town have their own individual wells. The downside is higher initial cost and no water for fire protection. They pay more for their fire insurance. On the plus side, they don't have to treat their water to get the chlorine out. The $3000 figure someone mentioned for drilling a well on the Snake River Plain sounds about right for a typical site. The pump and pressure tank would be extra. There is great variation; however, so one should always call a local well driller before signing any earnest money papers on raw land. Septic systems typically cost about $2000. Call the health dept. before you sign anything. In some areas they could cost more than the house or simply be forbidden. (Do libertarians wish to do away with ground water protection rules? Don't bite my head off. Just asking?)

              When I think of my own tiny town's water & sewage systems, I don't know what advantage would be gained through privatization. It is well run now and if one has a complaint it is easy enough to go to the city council. The feds regulate public water systems, so the rules are the same whether there is private or municipal ownership. When you live in a small town it is not very different from being a shareholder in a company that provides you essential services.

              Irrigation water is quite a different matter. In southern Idaho, most of the irrigation water comes from rivers and is owned and dispensed to shareholders through totally private canal companies which are very careful to avoid all contractual agreements with the federal government because these could somehow compromise their water right in the future. About a fifth of the irrigation water comes from privately owned, but closely regulated, deep private wells.

              Regards,
              Maureen

              > I'd like to see water treatment privatized but I wouldn't want to get
              > rid of it, at least not in densely populated areas.

              Yes, that is the problem with "densely populated areas". When developers
              start cramming folks into tiny lots and "town houses" etc, so they can't have
              septic tanks and wells, obviously they have to have centralized
              water/sewage, and, have to treat it. I don't live in areas like that, never will.
              Bad enough now, will only get worse as time goes on. What I require is 5-10
              acres, 10-20 miles from a small town. with a good water table and a
              reasonable "perc rate" (so the drain field doesn't have to be humongous:-) I
              know the East coast and south well enough to know that this is within my
              price range; I do NOT know the West well enough to know. I appreciate any
              input.

              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT



              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • eoanthropus_dawsoni
              ... It depends a great deal on where one wants to live. In some of the trendy areas of the mountain States the cost of obtaining property is going to be much
              Message 6 of 15 , Aug 8, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                > What I require is 5-10 acres, 10-20 miles from a small town. with
                >a good water table and a reasonable "perc rate" (so the drain field
                >doesn't have to be humongous:-) I know the East coast and south well
                >enough to know that this is within my price range; I do NOT know
                >the West well enough to know. I appreciate any input.

                It depends a great deal on where one wants to live. In some of
                the "trendy" areas of the mountain States the cost of obtaining
                property is going to be much higher than if one is willing to live on
                the prairie. Here in western North Dakota, if one is willing to live
                away from the larger towns, a farmstead can be quite reasonable.
                Depending on the condition of the house and out buildings, something
                in the 5-10 acre size would probably run from 20-60K. One thing to
                keep in mind is that the smaller "hobby farms" may actually cost more
                than a larger chunk of land. Out here it is not unsual to find
                quarter sections of land up for sale where the buildings are more or
                less thrown in for free. Something of that nature would require more
                work to make the house livable but can be a great deal for someone
                willing to put some work into a place.

                Crop land will be much more costly, but range land in some parts of
                the west can still be had for $150-200 per acre. That's 32K for your
                own piece of the world 1/2 mile by 1/2 mile square. Spend a few
                thousand dollars on a well, move an old house on to the place, and
                you have heaven.
              • Mary Lou Seymour
                ... I don t care about being trendy. I do care about a relatively temperate climate (like the places previously described in Montana and Idaho) North Dakota is
                Message 7 of 15 , Aug 8, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  > It depends a great deal on where one wants to live. In some of
                  > the "trendy" areas of the mountain States the cost of obtaining
                  > property is going to be much higher than if one is willing to live on
                  > the prairie. Here in western North Dakota

                  I don't care about being trendy. I do care about a relatively temperate climate
                  (like the places previously described in Montana and Idaho) North Dakota is
                  a bit cold:-)

                  if one is willing to live
                  > away from the larger towns, a farmstead can be quite reasonable.
                  > Depending on the condition of the house and out buildings, something
                  > in the 5-10 acre size would probably run from 20-60K. One thing to
                  > keep in mind is that the smaller "hobby farms" may actually cost more
                  > than a larger chunk of land. Out here it is not unsual to find quarter
                  > sections of land up for sale where the buildings are more or less
                  > thrown in for free. Something of that nature would require more work
                  > to make the house livable but can be a great deal for someone willing
                  > to put some work into a place.
                  >
                  > Crop land will be much more costly, but range land in some parts of
                  > the west can still be had for $150-200 per acre. That's 32K for your
                  > own piece of the world 1/2 mile by 1/2 mile square. Spend a few
                  > thousand dollars on a well, move an old house on to the place, and you
                  > have heaven.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  > ---------------------~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
                  > http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/Ey.GAA/XgSolB/TM
                  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------~
                  > ->
                  >
                  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                  > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >
                • eoanthropus_dawsoni
                  ... temperate climate ... Dakota is ... It does get cold here, but not as cold as one may think. Unless you were in southern ID or souteast MT, you would
                  Message 8 of 15 , Aug 8, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In freestateproject@y..., "Mary Lou Seymour" <libertymls@f...>
                    wrote:

                    >
                    > I don't care about being trendy. I do care about a relatively
                    temperate climate
                    > (like the places previously described in Montana and Idaho) North
                    Dakota is
                    > a bit cold:-)
                    >
                    It does get cold here, but not as cold as one may think. Unless you
                    were in southern ID or souteast MT, you would likely be colder than
                    in ND. On the other hand, in the summer it is warmer in ND than ID or
                    MT. It is a climate of extremes, much more so than most other States.

                    We like to say "Fourty below keeps the riff raff out." Well, -40 does
                    occur here now and then but not so often as most people think.
                    However our winters do tend to cull the herd a bit, no homeless
                    problem up here!
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.