this proposed expenditure comes out to over $135,000 for each of the 4,000 buildings impacted. most of the 4,000 probably sustained much less dollar damage than this.
the expenditure would be totally out of line with the possible exposure.
it’s like paying $25,000 to pay a $5,000 car.
We have annual flooding in North Dakota and we have parts of the west and southwest existing in drought. Isn’t there enough economic incentive at both ends to support the construction of a pipeline to redistribute the unwanted water to where it is desperately needed?
this proposed expenditure comes out to over $135,000 for each of the 4,000 buildings impacted. most of the 4,000 probably sustained much less dollar damage than this.
the expenditure would be totally out of line with the possible exposure.
it’s like paying $25,000 to pay a $5,000 car.
We have annual flooding in North Dakota and we have parts of the west and southwest existing in drought. Isn’t there enough economic incentive at both ends to support the construction of a pipeline to redistribute the unwanted water to where it is desperately needed?