My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00725
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00725
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:53:33 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:43:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
1/18/1973
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />type of crop could be eliminated if this country would adopt a <br />vegetarian diet. However. the so-called low value crops are those <br />crops which sustain the livesto~~ industry. As a matter of fact. these <br />low value crops when consumed by a cow become a very high value crop <br />at the meat market. <br /> <br />Based upon these conclusions about the status of agriculture. the <br />report then makes the recommendation that no irrigation projects be <br />subsidized in any manner by the federal government. It is then recom- <br />mended that the Bureau of Reclamation be phased out as a const~uction <br />agency. Apparently as an alternative. the report states that the <br />direct beneficiaries of federal irrigation developments should pay the <br />full costs of new projects. This repayment philoDOphy is somewhat <br />difficult to argue with. However. if it is to be adopted as a matter <br />of national policy. then all agricultural subsidies should be dis- <br />continued. The subsidies which have been paid in the past. and which <br />are still being paid. for crops grown on nonreclamation lands exceed <br />subsidies for reclamation a hundred times over. Any national subsidy <br />policy should be consistent for nonirrigated as well as irrigated <br />lands. <br /> <br />~~. Kroeqer: Mr. Chairman. <br /> <br />~tr. Stapleton: Yes. Hr. Kroeger. <br /> <br />11r. I<Xoeqer: I feel that this is a real basic thing and should be hit <br />hard. We have in our favor at the moment the facts that some bad <br />weather at harvest time in the Great Plains area and a political <br />decision to sell wheat and other agricultural commodities to foreign <br />nations have reversed the situation of crop surplus to a relative <br />shortage within a period of four or five months. And yet this report <br />would indicate that their crystal ball '~ould tell us all that is to <br />happen by the year 2000. I maintain that in the less than a half a <br />year they are already off the record and this is one of the points <br />that I think we should pound on. <br /> <br />l.tr. Cornelius: I strongly agree with Fred I<Xoeger a.nd with the direc- <br />tor's opinion on this. The thing that I don't like to have pointed <br />out is the inference that people in agriculture have received the <br />entire subsidy in farm programs. It is in reality the consumer who <br />has been subsidized. Farm commodities have not increased in propor- <br />tion to other prices over the last thirty or forty years. That <br />amount of wheat which is in a loaf of bread which was bought a Bhort <br />time ago for ten cents is now thirty-seven cents. or something like <br />this. The part of the cost which goes to the producer of wheat is a <br /> <br />-8- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.