Laserfiche WebLink
more water available. WFC has kept it out of production for 10 years already. <br />Everyone needs to go and read the Permit-Revision and then they could see for themselves who's <br />misrepresenting the facts. <br />"We can only irrigate with what water is available." Another untrue statement. Moores property <br />had 0 shares according to the Revision, but I irrigated it and got many cuttings of hay off of it for <br />many years. San Miguel Power property in the Revision had 100 shares of Calamity Draw water, <br />again untrue. The pump could only pump 1000 gallons a minute maximum and I was only <br />allowed to run two side rolls. The electric pump was not plumbed in to do the Majority of San <br />Miguel Power property and in order to achieve the 100 shares, the pump would have to be <br />pumping 1350 gallons a minute which was not possible. In the Revision it shows an accurate <br />statement and that is Garveys had 21 shares to do 50 acres. This is just as ours, 1 share will do 2 <br />acres, always has <br />, always will. Also true in the Revision, WFC had 73 shares to do 157 acres(1 share will do 2 <br />acres). WFC received 3 proposals and the Equipment was free, all of the farming was free. All <br />of the preparing the soil was free, and it was signed, and WHY should the farmer have to give <br />WFC any type of FINANCIAL assistance to put the farmers' land back like it was?? Yes, you <br />may have gotten reclamation awards in the past, but I am the one who for 13 years put all of <br />those farms back and it was to the best of my abilities to the extent that WFC would allow. No <br />other farmer on any of those properties gave WFC financial assistance to do so, nor did they offer <br />to farm any of their properties free of charge as we did. <br />If it was permitted as irrigated lands, then it should be put back as irrigated lands. Again, if it <br />was irrigated, and the water that was being used at the time, went with the property, then it <br />should be put back the way it was. WFC is not the judge of how much water it takes to irrigate, <br />when did WFC become farmers? Morgans had the highest production rates in this entire area <br />and maintained this farm for 50 years with no help from WFC and took care of several families <br />and had plenty of water and still do.. Who is misrepresenting facts? <br />In conclusion, No one changed any of the Morgan property to something else. It was already <br />irrigated crop land and should be put back as such. Also, WFC failed to tell the public, if there <br />are no objections and no comments written to the DRMS, not to WFC, (they are the ones that <br />wrote it) addressing this Permit-Revision, then the DRMS takes WFCs' word as fact, and if no <br />objections are made, then the revision is put through for approval and all this farmland becomes <br />dryland because the Division believes that all of us must think it is fine, so they pass it. All of <br />these little public notices are critical and could affect all of our lives for the rest of our life. <br />Already in this weeks' paper, TR 59 is going in for approval and we haven't even got to read it <br />yet. Where will these Managers be 20 years from now? We will still be here trying to farm what <br />they left. They will be retired elsewhere. <br />Thank you WFC , at least these discussions will give the public some idea of what is going on. <br />JoEllen Turner