Cindy, I like your home made grates for the end of your return pipes. I will have to remember that those in case I ever need something like that. I would do away with those but they do add friction to the flow of the system. Since these are DYI there are no exact measurements on these but I would guess that they are the same as 6 ft of pipe. So let's calculate the friction on your return lines. First we have water going from the drum into the 4" pipe. So we have 4 ft of the diameter of the drum and 2 ft of the 4" pipe for water to move from a larger pipe to a smaller pipe. The drum is large enough that four ft of it won't amount to any friction to worry about. But the 2 ft of 4" we will look at. Then we have a 45 elbow which is the same as 5 ft of 4" pipe. Then we also have 90 elbow which is the same as 12 ft of 4" pipe. Then we have the Ferco fitting. I am going to assume that the pipes inside the Ferco fitting are tight against each other and are in a straight line and this is the same as 4 ft of 4" pipe. Then we have the pipe expanding in the pond and this is 4 ft. of the 4" pipe and 2 ft of the diameter of the pond which will be about nothing. Then we have a 4 ft of pipe and a 3 ft of pipe. So each of the return lines are as follows: 6+2+5+12+4+4+4+3=40 ft of 4" pipe. So that short length of 7 ft of pipe is actually with fittings and changes in pipe sizes equals the same as 40 ft pipe. So the question is how much flow do we get by gravity through 40 ft of a 4" pipe with 1" of head? We actually get 3146 gph per return and we have 2 returns so the actual flow back to the pond would be 6292 gph. But I would guess that the head pressure is less than 1" so if I look at .5" head pressure we have flow for each return of 2156 or a total flow 4312 gph. So I would guess that when you actually take a good measurement of the head pressure you are going to find that it is a little more then .75 inch. .75 inch would have a flow of 5302 gph. Mike

Please don't take this the wrong way, but here is another very strong vote for having a caterer do this for you, even if it means much less expensive refreshments. It sounds like you don't have a whole lot of cooking experience (you wrote, "I don't know how to prepare anything"). With all respect, a wedding reception for 120 is NOT the time to learn -- even if it weren't your own daughter's wedding. This would be a daunting job even for those with lots of cooking and entertaining experience. I think even -- perhaps especially -- the most experienced would be inclined to get a caterer for a group this large, especially as mother of the bride. You will have so many other things you'll have to attend to, and even more than that that you don't want to miss. Do you really want to be refreshing the buffet when your daughter and son-in-law are having their first dance? If I were in your position, I would call a few caterers, tell them your budget -- and tell them it's FIRM -- and ask what they can do for that money. You may be very pleasantly surprised. If it's still out of range, consider ordering platters from a food store or inexpensive restaurant, and perhaps hiring a few servers/cleaners. You can supplement the latter and probably even the caterer option with some dishes you or friends and relatives make ahead and have the caterer serve along with his/her food. Your peace of mind, not having to worry about this in the months leading up to the wedding, is really important, too, along with being able to enjoy your guests on the big day. To me, that is worth some money. So if I were in your position, I'd cut way back on everything else if necessary: liquor (certainly a fountain is unnecessary), decorations, types of food, prom-y stuff like limos and favors, and even fancy wedding clothes if necessary. Being able to be a relaxed hostess who can enjoy her guests is more important, in my opinion, than fancy arrangements. Everyone is different, but that's just my experience. Congratulations to you all!

Well, the arrangements are already not the "norm" (whatever that is these days). Typically the bride's family hosts the reception. So if you're looking for what the right thing, traditional etiquette-wise, the bride's family by default would be paying for the decorations (because they pay for the reception). For whatever reason that the bride's family isn't hosting the reception and your daughter is, (doesn't matter, as long as all agree), it'd be nice if the bride's family said "well, at least let us pay for the decorations". But since you have offered to pay for the reception, anyway, they may be thinking that that means the whole shebang as it would if that they were doing it. Now, since there is no rehersal dinner that your DD will be paying for, perhaps the better thing would have been to offer to pay herself for the decorations and some other things in order to share in the cost with the bride's family. Suzieque

Thanks so much for all the responses! Here's my specific situation: I'm the bride-to-be. Fiance and I live on west coast, immediate family lives on east coast, extended family lives all over the country. In a perfect world, we would have a ceremony immediately followed by a reception with all of our close friends and relatives. The logistics of distance, young children, elderly parents, expense of travel, etc, are going to make this nearly impossible, so we've decided on what's really important to us. Fiance and I are thinking of a very small ceremony on the east coast with my parents, his mother, and our brothers, sisters and children. Maybe 20 people at the most. To us, these are the people we most want to share this occasion with, and it's more practical to have the ceremony take place where everyone else lives than to expect everyone to travel out west to our home. Then within a month or so of the wedding, when we're back home, we'd like to have a party with our close circle of friends, simply to mark the occasion and share our happiness with them. We wouldn't expect our east coast parents, brothers or sisters to attend, although they'd certainly be welcome to. I like the rituals of the reception (toast, dinner, dancing, cake, etc) but feel a little awkward having all the rituals at the west coast party without having had the actual wedding ceremony there. But a big party at our home sounds like fun, with perhaps the only wedding ritual a formal wedding cake baked by a friend who's an expert pastry chef. And perhaps some toasts by friends who have been asked ahead of time. In our case my soon-to-be-hubby & I would be hosting the west coast party. No family (except my teenage sons) would likely be attending, although all east coast relatives would certainly be invited. So it sounds like just throwing a regular party, with the general knowledge that we'd just gotten married, is the way to go. On the one hand I like the idea of having the party invitations omit references to the recent marriage because my preference is for no gifts. On the other hand, I feel it's awkward to throw a big party and include some of the reception rituals (well, the gorgeous cake anyway) without letting people know ahead of time that we're celebrating our wedding. A related question: since the wedding will be very small and won't include extended family, and since the extended family won't be invited to the west coast party (they don't live nearby), is it proper to send out wedding announcements to extended family? Alternatively, is it proper to not send out announcements to anyone not at the ceremony or the party, and assume that extended family will hear of our wedding by word of mouth, annual Christmas letters, etc?