BOARD00725 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~k. Stapleton: I don't '1ant to push the discussion along too fast, but I know some of the points that Ray just brought up a lot of you can participate in. I don't hear any further discussion from any members of the board. Larry, you are instructed that this board agrees with. that part of the federal policy. ~k. Sparks: The next item probably gets to the heart of the bitter criticism that has been generated here in the West. The report concludes that there is adequate productive capacity now existing to meet food and fiber requirements of the United States until at least the year 2000. Therefore it is stated that federally subsidized water resource development for agriculture is no longer required. The report further states that providing supplemental irrigation water has added to excess productive capacity and thereby contributed to the high cost of crop support and land retirement programs. This is the key portion of the report insofar as it relates to the reclamation program. The year 2000 is not far away. The time lag from the initiation of a project until completion here in Colorado has always exceeded twenty years. ~Vhile we may have sufficient agricultural capacity to satisfy the demands of this country until the year 2000, this fact ignores the worldwide problem which is creating a considerable demand for agricultural products produced in the United States. In the last several thousand years at least, agricultural production has never exceeded the demand on a worldwide basis. It is a certainty today that worldwide agricultural production is not sufficient to provide adequate food supplies. The so-called crop surpluses have existed solely because of distribution, marketing and political problems. Faulting the reclamation program for price supports is analogous to attacking a tiger with a willow switch. Only a fraction of the total sums of money expended for crop supports are attributable to reclama- tion projects. The solution to the crop support program is to eliminate it. This program was generated almost entirely as a result of crop production on nonirrigated lands. It is a complete fallacy therefore to attach any onus of the crop support program to reclamation lands. The report implies that the reclamation program encourages the produc- tion of undefined low value crops. High value crops are defined in the report as fruits, nuts and vegetables. There is an obvious limit to how much fruit, nuts and vegetables people will eat. However, the report suggests that this is the direction in which agriculture should go. I presume low value crops refer to alfalfa, corn, et cetra. This -7- I I