|
<br />
<br />1661
<br />
<br />, .',I','I';;\")~''i. .<!o\"~,,,.V"'~to'~ ~"'J,;"';;i/'" 't'IR'''''''~~ '{)"D"'~:d'O' <'(~"~~ l't~;':t~li.i\(;,J-1,tt";,,#~.:l
<br />~,.t..',~.j"~"'''',\<:~,,"'' '..", " _,<,$. .".. "~.;~, j~'t> ...' ~~f~~",~"'':><"":''~''''",,,,,
<br />h>"","'_"I".~...I~'",,,,,,, ".IC.~, ,,,,,1' .,0.... "I A.;; ,#'~,. >,..~.~......,~14'!>..~"""~','>''''~'~
<br />
<br />~ v-..,,~
<br />. 'B/ e-c.J'n-.
<br />
<br />For What It's Worth
<br />
<br />An open letter to The Denver Post
<br />
<br />I want to express my real concern about !be style of,
<br />Journalism In the recent Denver Post sertes "'The new
<br />harvest," (July 19-22) WIitten by Pat O'Drtscoll and Mark
<br />Obmasclk and a subsequent column WIitten by Mark
<br />Obmasclk onJuly25 headllned 'Colo.
<br />fanners should catch !be wave of
<br />water conservation."
<br />My favortte Journalism professor
<br />had one rule of goodjournallsm: "Get
<br />the story. and get It rtght. damn!t."
<br />That's not what happened with "The
<br />new harvest" sertes.
<br />Worse, tn !be environmental colwnn
<br />(Saturday, July 25, "Colorado farmers
<br />should catch !be wave of water conser-
<br />vatlon") Obmasclk manages to make a
<br />complete fool of himself.
<br />Exactly contrary to Obmasclk's
<br />allegations. !be lnigated agriculture
<br />industry has worked long and hard to promote water
<br />conservation. Fanners, !be nation's land grant universi-
<br />ties (Includtng Colorado State University). !be Coopera-
<br />tive ExtensIon Service, !be USDA's Soli Conservation
<br />Service and Agricultural Research Service. as well as
<br />manufacturers oflnigatlon equipment have spent years.
<br />and literally mllllons of research dollars, fine-tuning
<br />lnigatlon practlccs to conscrvc water and Increase lniga-
<br />tlon efficIency.
<br />Moreover. Colorado's ag sector Is served by numerous
<br />water conservancy/conservation districts. Directors of
<br />!bese districts are typically fanners who have served as
<br />volunteers, often for years and years. to conserve and
<br />manage water as a strategic resource.
<br />It's genutnely appalling !bat Obmasclk apparently Is
<br />unaware of this. If he Is aware. It Is even more appalling
<br />!bat he chooses not to report them.
<br />
<br />
<br />BY SALLY
<br />SCHUFF
<br />
<br />Obmascik Insists Incorrectly !bat agriculture contrib-
<br />utes only 3.25 percent to !be state's economy while
<br />"conswntng" 92 percent of !be state's water. Bo!b figures are
<br />open to question.
<br />The 3.25 percent figure !bat Obmasclk uses Is In.<Ieed
<br />!be figure used tn the U.S, Deparlment of Commerce,
<br />Survey of Current Bustness report. and I suppose It can
<br />be thinly defended on !bat basis.
<br />1 \ ~ A sharp reporter would have realized, however. !be report
<br />"\ paints an tncomplete picture. and would have, at !be very
<br />least. made mention of addltlonal, morccomprehenslve data
<br />readllyava1Jable from Colorado State University. The CSU
<br />report (Farm and Food Contributions to !be Colorado
<br />Economy. February. 1991) was done In cooperation wI!b !be
<br />Colorado Department of Agrlculture and !be Colorado Agrl-
<br />cultural Statistics Service (el!ber of whom would have been
<br />. , ~ "logical news sources for !be sertes),
<br />~ ' ",,*,' The CSU report shows !bat agrtbuslness (Including
<br />c,1t' agricultural Inputs, fann production and processing and
<br />~. t~ mar tlng) contributed $1.8 b1l1l0n, or 4.7 percent of
<br />t s e..Jn!llD~ tn 1987 (!be data ava1lable when the
<br />I\fSl study as one. l!b 79.000jobs, !be sector fumlshed
<br />'1i ~ 6.5 pcrcent of all employees and also accounted for $11.5
<br />11 io bllllon In annual sales.
<br />
<br />34 / Colorado Rancher & Fanner. August 1992
<br />
<br />
<br />If you add !be food wholesaling and retailing sector to
<br />!be agribusiness sector to get the real look at !be actM-
<br />ties needed to deliver food to consumers (and let's don't
<br />forget that that Is what agriculture Is all about), you
<br />would find a total contribution of $26.9 bllllon In gross
<br />sales. 231.000 jobs equal-to 19.1 percent of the state's
<br />total. The $3.8 bUlion raised by the fann and food system
<br />for labor and proprietor Income is equal to 9.8 percent of
<br />!be state's total.
<br />
<br />Does irrigation "consume" 92 percent of !be state's
<br />water? Fanners may have !be rtght to use 92 percent of
<br />!be state's water for lnigation. But. "using" It and "consum-
<br />Ing" It are two entirely different things, says Tom Cech,
<br />manager of !be Central Colorado Water ConsselVany Dis-
<br />trict at Greeley.
<br />lnigatlon. you see, applies water to crops: a percentage
<br />. of the lnigation water Is actually consumed by !be
<br />. growing plants-varying from from 40-60 percent. But,
<br />!be rest of the water seeps back to streams as -return
<br />fiows." Return fiows actually stab1llze fiows In rtver
<br />basins where there Is lnigatlon. In !bls way, water can be
<br />used and reused as many as three to seven times,
<br />explalns Forrest Leaf. water resources engineer at !be
<br />Central District.
<br />
<br />Obmasclk's series comes down pretty hard on fann
<br />subsIdies,
<br />However. it falled to make clear !bat .I!<rr''::p'rogr,am
<br />cr~ (such as~, fruits and vegetables) are grbwrfon
<br />many of !be acres eligible for supplemental Bureau
<br />water. Naturally. !bose growers can't "double dip." It did
<br />not make clear that much of !be state's lnigation Is
<br />groundwater which IlI.P\!mp~X.at the expense of
<br />fannersji"tllllrnomake clear !bat a large perc~t~o
<br />L.the~government plice support and CRP payments and 0
<br />~landJ'am1ers.whO"do....ob;Jmga
<br />Let's talk about government subsidies. an admittedly
<br />touchy subject. I don't know a fanner who wouldn't be
<br />happier making all of his Income In tile marketplace
<br />through higher prtces for what he produces. But remem-
<br />ber, It has been determined by Congress that It is in the
<br />national interest to keep our agrtculturallnfrastructure
<br />healthy and to keep food prtces low,
<br />That policy has benefited a1l Amertcans, who spend
<br />less of their take-home pay for food !ban almost any o!ber
<br />nation-about 10 percent. The Chinese spend about 50
<br />percent. The French pay 16 percent. the Japanese, 18
<br />percent. !be Mexicans, 32 percent.
<br />WI!bout low food prices. Americans would have fewer
<br />dollars available to spend on o!ber needs-not to men-
<br />tion some extras !bat are helping to put pressure on
<br />lnigatlon water: fiy rods. raft trips. wilderness adventures.
<br />As State Sen. Don Ament is fond of saying, "AgrIculture
<br />subsidizes !be lifestyle of all Coloradans: 0
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />
<br />~/Uq (1"41
<br />y::G.r~ (ilc~ ~
<br />
|