Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="jeaton"] Sorry that I seem to be so emotional about the subject.  It's that I have little tolerance for someone that presents a view as a fact, expecially when it is contrary to some farily solid evidence.  Beyond the lack of any supporting evidence, some of the things you present as fact are total nonsense.  You suggest that since the a dredging is good for 15 years that this year's expenditure should be then amortized over 15 years.  Are you implying that the entire Mississippi system is being dredged this year?  An anYou talk of prior usage rights, that is, I assume prior to the work of the Corps, suggest that the Mississippi in its natural state was useful for something like the barge transport systems in use today.  That indicates to me that you have zero knowledge of that waterway.You present your usual babble about the cost of environmental studies and litigation as being some major part of the Corps expense hidden appearantly in the maintenance and operation budgets, yet haven't shown the first dollar figure to support your claim.And so on. If you wonder why you get little respect on this forum, perhaps it is because you present your opinions as matters of fact, and then say that they are the truth.  Because you said so?[/quote]I gave you a chance to be a mature reasonable adult, and you are choosing to act like a willfull child.Read 'em and weep:<a href="http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/history/MISSRNAV/steamboat.asp">http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/history/MISSRNAV/steamboat.asp</a>You'll notice that barging actually began in earnest during the steamboat era:"In 1907, the Sprague set a world's all-time record for towing-60 barges of coal, weighing 67,307 tons, covering an area of 6-1/2 acres, and measuring 925 feet by 312 feet." So yes, barging predates Congressionally mandated navigation improvements. Please read further:<a href="http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/history/MISSRNAV/federal.asp">http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/history/MISSRNAV/federal.asp</a><a href="http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/history/MISSRNAV/commerce.asp">http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/history/MISSRNAV/commerce.asp</a><a href="http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/history/MISSRNAV/river.asp">http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/history/MISSRNAV/river.asp</a>Here's the Upper Mississippi River navigation plan:<a href="http://www2.mvr.usace.army.mil/umr-iwwsns/">http://www2.mvr.usace.army.mil/umr-iwwsns/</a>Quote of note:  "Its first costs are the $5.7 billion framework for ecosystem restoration and a $2.6 billion for the navigation efficiency improvements."As I said previously, the greatest *cost* of these projects are the environmental costs, not the physical navigation project itself.  Here you see that the faux costs due to eco-legislation are more than two times the actual cost of the navigation improvements.Cost of dredging for USACE:<a href="http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/dredge/ddcosts.htm">http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/dredge/ddcosts.htm</a>As you can see, the cost of dredging has basically doubled from 10 years ago.  Why do you think that is?  The basics of dredging haven't changed, nor can you chalk it up to normal inflation.  Clearly, it is nothing but eco-costs imposed on the USACE that have pushed these costs well beyond the actual physical act of clearing snags and muck from the river bottom.When we add an inflation adjusted analysis, from 1963 to present the cost of dredging has still nearly doubled, all due to ever increasing strictness of eco laws:<a href="http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/dredge/ddhisMsum.pdf">http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/dredge/ddhisMsum.pdf</a>So you see, even though such things are common knowledge in general, Jay just can't fathom such things without actual reference.  From the American Waterways Operators:<a href="http://www.americanwaterways.com/press_room/issue_briefs/full_funding.html">http://www.americanwaterways.com/press_room/issue_briefs/full_funding.html</a>"Half the cost of capital construction and major rehabilitation projects on the inland waterways system is paid from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund."Are you getting yet, Jay?  Half the costs of navigation is paid from the Trust Fund, and half the costs of maintaining navigation is due to environmental add ons.  Ergo, barging pays it's own way.  Both you and Mr. White are wrong in spirit to suggest otherwise.So I'll ask you again - why should the barging companies be forced to pay for these faux cost increases beyond the actual physical costs?  What the barging companies pay into the Waterway Trust Fund is sufficient to cover the physical costs, so let the econuts pay the difference, right?Proof that the Trust Fund is raided by federal budgeteers:<a href="http://www.littleriverbooks.com/waterwayswork.pdf">http://www.littleriverbooks.com/waterwayswork.pdf</a> This is why I have no respect for your constant personal attacks.  You will not use your brain to put two and two together and come up with a reasonable synopsis of the facts at hand, instead demanding a full scale study for each point made.  Well, sorry you cannot seem to access this same informtation when you dug through your sources for your USACE numbers you provided.  Of course, you provided no links, so I'll just "pull a Jay" and state that beyond the lack of any supporting evidence, some of the things you present as fact are total nonsense.  (Sound familiar?  It should - it's your words verbatum).
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag