Laserfiche WebLink
more water available. W C has kept it out of production for 10 years already. <br />Everyone needs to go and read the Permit-Revision and them 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 bay 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 p,, .np could only pump 1000 gallons a minute maximum and I was only <br />allowed to ran 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 primp would have to be <br />pumping 1350 gallons a minute which was not possible. In the Revision it slows an accurate <br />statement and that is Garveys had 21. shares to do 50 acres. 'I'bis is just as guars, I 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). W C received 3 proposals and the Equipment was free, all of the tanning was free. All <br />of the preparing the soil was free, and it was signed, and WHY should the farmer have to give <br />WI=C any type of FINANCIAI. 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 />these farms back and it was to the best of my abilities to the extent that WFC wwould allow. No <br />other fanner on any of those properties gave WFC financial assistance to do so, nor (lid they ofTer <br />to farm any of their properties free of charge as we did. <br />lfit 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, their it <br />should be put back the way it was. WEC is not the judge of how much :water it takes to irrigate, <br />when dill 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 charged 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 17RMS, not to WTV.. (they are the ones ffiat <br />wrote it) addressing this Permit-Revision, then the D MS takes WFC's' word as fact; and if no <br />olf j; ctions 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. Ali of <br />these little public notices are critical and could a_fI'ert 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 grit 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 />'t'hank you WFI? , at least these discussions will give the public some. idea; of what is going on. <br />.IoEllen Turner