WSP07068 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2831 FRYINGPAN-ARKA..'1SAS PROJECT, COLORADO 49 ce.ntage of this Na.t.ion's long-staple cotton production which is never Wo crit.ical from the standpoint of surpluses. This particular project we are llQW considering would produce no cottOIl. So you can l'.ule cotton out. In the ease of tobacco, nOlle is produced on reclamatIOn projects at all. Now, after all of these remaining crops we ha ye talked about, they comprise a.bout :; percent of our total $8 .billion inventory in surplus crops. Sure, in infinitesimal amounts these will be produced in rat.io to the Nat.ion's supply, but the significant thing is that if you allow t.his 15-year leadt.ime or tbis 10-year lead time or what.ever time you want t.o allow, even the most severe critic of reclamat.ion and those who are most concerned about the crop surplus sit.uation as they did in the report of the select committee, can project a t.ime not too far in the fut.ufe when t.his entire Nation, at its present rate, will go over frOln being a surplus Nut.ion to being balanced or dl'ficient. 'Ve are not. planning these projects for const.ruction today. Their produce could not be put on the market, as JOU indicated, fiS of HOW. This is something that requires time and in the achievement of goals that aro enunciated' in the bills now under consideration there is a 10- to 14-yoar construction period that has to be considered. You have to assess project justification not only now but in t.he years ahead. This is the essence of the charts I would present to t.he committ.ee. ~Ir. LAN(iEN. I am snre that there is some logic. to whnt the gentle- man said in leadtilne and I think )'Oil are projecting yOUI' leadtime into possihl} a greater number of years. I am sure. t.hese people hope to be in production long before 15 years. At t.he same t.ime, I think in connection with tlwt WE'. Heed to rememlJer that t.hese nel'eS that we a.re talking- u uout,. that. we are tllkillg out of production considerable ha.)' llll(l ill which we- are expanding our efi'ort'::i to take out of produc- t,iOIl, that there is alwa}s (I.. le.adtime involven tlw,l'e a.nd that there is fL possibility that those acres are going- to come back into pro(lllction again. So t.hat. when you sny there is not a rebt.ionship between these two, I would have to question that. I would haye to raise the quest.ion, too, with rega.rd to t.he crops and the diversion when you point t.o such matters as poultry ~lnd sheep nn<l those which are causing us t.rouble now. There is not any doubt t.hat they rlre causing us t,rouhlr and they are causing an expense to the taxpayer, too, as SHell. And not only that, hut they are, callsing' an expense from both sides of t,he ledg-er in that we, UTe actually paying t.o get out of production in t.hesE'- fields now awl then we come along at t.he same time and calise anot.her (-',xpcnse in order to make an arrailgement here which is going to increfl.!-ic the production in tllOse nelds. I hesitatp, to say t.hat a project of this hind is going to improve that sitllat.ion. It. seems rather that what is happening is t.hat it is shifting from one diffielllt, prohlem to another ,lifficult problem. And we hnve in the area where I live-anti you wilJ find any number of people flS of today thnt are rec()n;Hncndin~ to farm people there th:ut the answer t.o t,heir problem is one of shifting to livcstor..:k. that the anSwer t.o our problem is makinO' these !3hift::;, and that is what they recom- mend. 0 . At. the same t.ime~ \'f'e then fmcl ".e lll'e n.dyoGating proje('.ts which are very directly compet.ing with that kind of a suggestion. Cel'tninly