You never said the public couldn't use the lake because in your original post you spent all your irrational time assigning greed as a motive to the property owners of the Lake Delhi Recreation Association. Forget the fact that the lake levels are decided not only by the LDRA but also by the state DNR -- that doesn't fit your template. As far as your point that a lake level set at 60% of capacity is concerned, it's a beautiful example of 20/20 hindsight and not insight as you would like others to believe. Having seen the rubble strewn bottom that is now exposed and having foreknowledge of how sediment and and sandbars created unnavigable areas and contributed to traffic congestion on heavy usage days, keeping the lake level at 60% likely would have exacerbated an already dangerous situation, perhaps even leading to accidents or deaths for boaters or skiers. But then again, as long as you can say you made a "brilliant" point and drove it home with inane assumptions about others, none of that matters.

Talk about selfish, "me" - oriented responses, KeithStanS and Commonsenseguy, you guys take the cake and ice cream, too. In your rambling, repetitious, semi-literate diatribes not once did you recognize the fact that Lake Delhi is a public use area -- with public access available -- for fishing, skiing, pleasure boating, etc. Your attacks on this private property owner and political orientation assumptions about the writer (What the .....?) make you sound like you are speaking from the perspective of a ward of the state and out of jealousy for someone who has worked for and earned something of value they can call their own -- and enjoy with family and friends.the beautiful recreational setting where they live.

The unfortunate chain of events which created the circumstances resulting in the dam failure and the subsequent destruction of properties both above and below the dam were neither the creation nor the fault of any resident in the Delhi area -- unless God has acquired a summer home there recently.

The very limited number of like recreational areas and opportunities in Eastern Iowa (or the rest of the state for that matter) alone makes this area worthy of consideration for restoring. My personal prejudice is related to fond memories of my youth, when I built a hydroplane and raced it on Delhi -- even successfully pulling a skier behind the 8 ft. boat once. My wife and I also spent the night following our Honeymoon at a cabin of friends there and other parties and gatherings over the years have added to the enjoyment of this area and our memories of it.

Our next-door neighbor purchased property on the lake several years ago, and with the flood suffered losses and will incur related future expenses so devastating as to leave him seriously considering walking away from his retirement cabin and dreams of summer relaxation.

Your arrogant pretense of concern for a downstream farm owner and uninformed assignment of blame against those "well off" property owners upstream is as mindless as it is vicious. There are about a thousand property owners who could be members of the Lake Delhi Recreation Association, but the properties vary in value from beautiful, large, well-maintained homes to what some have referred to as $100 shacks. Those on the lower end are neither predisposed to joining the LDRA nor in a financial position to contribute a prorata share toward replacing the dam. Many of them will likely "walk away" from their "investment". Although they haven't got much in terms of property value, what they will lose in terms of future enjoyment is pitiable as well as that lost by the "well off".

The fact that this is a public access area, now with the feds declaring Delaware and 27 other counties Federal Disaster Areas, makes FEMA funding for the majority of the rebuilding costs of the dam available. If hydroelectric generation is made part of the project, I can well imagine how attractive an application for a grant to an appropriate foundation would be. I hope someone is looking into this.

We ALL need the dam at Lake Delhi restored, not only for the opportunities for fun it will provide for us, but future generations as well. I am enthusiastic at the thought of the party that will follow and ecstatic with the knowledge that neither of your names will be on the guest list.

Neither the Fair Tax nor a Flat Tax should EVER be levied against taxpayer monies unless and until the 16th Amendment is repealed.The Constitution forbade direct taxes and capitation taxes until the year that will live in infamy -- 1913. That year saw three critically transformative acts which forever altered the relationship between free men and their government: (1) The 17th Amendment calling for popular election of Senators, effectively neutering our foundational systemic advocacy for states rights; (2) The Federal Reserve Act which debased our money, removing the gold standard as backing and creating a fiat currency, and making possible (#3) the 16th Amendment which gave us the Income Tax.

Before the creation of a Federal Reserve banking structure and fiat currency, there was a 1 to 1 relationship between the value of one hour of your labor (your life) and a U.S. Dollar backed by Gold (substance). YOU determined what value you would place on your labor by selling your labor to an employer who paid you wages based in Gold. A Direct Tax on your labor is forbidden by the Constitution, but with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 your labor is paid in Dollars with NO VALUE behind them and consequently the Federal Government can tax the "money". Very sneaky, eh?

One thing we DO NOT WANT is to give government access to more of those hard-earned dollars, even if they aren't backed by anything because this is how your government has already cheapened and debased our very existence. You don't believe this? More's the pity for you.

YOU would believe the fox's answer to the question, "Are the chickens in the coop safe?", too.

Time has proven Joe McCarthy was right, albeit a little paranoid. You, on the other hand, are a quintessential, self-deluded Liberal/Socialist/Communist ideologue in search of a brain. Welcome to Obama's Oz!

Referring to the administration, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... you above all should recognize the fact that IT IS A DUCK, Duck.

I fully realize there are those members of society who need a helping hand and I most certainly am willing to do my share to lighten their burden -- willingly and without having the government mandate my behavior through programs which become eternal and are notoriously inefficient in their construct.. Forcing us to help others by taking our hard earned money and redistributing it to those who are unwilling to put forth the effort to solve their own problems comes under the heading of theft -- not charity. Government has no business redistributing charitable funds which are rightly handled by private sector charities anyway.

The health care bill as currently written is a great example of how government over-complicates solutions to perceived problems in its zeal to gain more control over the lives of its citizens. In this example, if the goal was truly to reduce health care costs (we all assume to the end-user) it wouldn't be necessary to take over 1/5 of the economy to do it, and in the process destroy the world's best health care system, 90% of whose insureds are currently happy with their coverage.

Claiming as 'inextricable' (I believe she meant 'inseparable') the relationship between the economy and health care reform is political obfuscation. There may be a direct relationship between a loss of jobs and the loss of health insurance for those who can't afford COBRA, but it is hardly one-to-one. It is high enough, but only because the general public has chosen to link their health insurance to their employers. Private insurance coverage is an option, and a good one. Asking health insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions makes as much sense as asking auto insurance companies to write new policies covering the accident you had last week for which you had no coverage. Legislating changes requiring insurers to retain policy holders who develop life threatening conditions without significant premium increases may be doable, however.

There would be no need to force people to carry health insurance if we continue with their understanding that it's too late to buy it once you get sick. The importance of prior ownership is then as self-evident as the fact that calling coverage after-the-fact "insurance" is improper and misleading. But then, "misleading" is our government's stock and trade.

"Many conservatives claimed to be concerned with so-called "death panels", a concept that never really existed except in the paranoid fantasies of those howling."

The unique thing about "paranoid fantasies" is that, since they like mirages are illusory, it is often difficult to distinguish reality from fantasy, especially since they keep sneaking up n you at the oddest, most inconvenient and inopportune times. When they do, roles of the observer and the fantasizer can get reversed. Then again, some people are just idiots.

Before you accuse others of being "paranoid" howling fantasizers based on defensive claims made by your pets in the ‘lamestream media,’ find a copy of the House bill (according to Pelosi, it is the only one which will be considered) and look on page 126. In addition, the links below deal with the procedures which must be implemented to GET RID of these provisions in the bill. The question follows, if they don’t exist, why have they determined what procedures are necessary to get rid of them?

http://www.infowars.com/health-care-bill-death-pa...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/30/politic...

Nothing like chicken$**t for fertilizing your lawn. Almost pure nitrate. Fresh breakfasts is a bonus.

I can remember when those people who were advocates for political scenarios or programs based on class envy, or espoused the "class envy" philosophy in general, were viewed by hard working, mainstream Americans as greedy, self-serving, sanctimonious communist sympathizers. One look at the Obama administration is a validating experience for those of us who have not changed our minds.