#1 - Did you know that the very best bushel of durum produced in North Dakota will not generate enough money to buy a hamburger in a local cafe? The best bushel of oats won’t buy a cup of coffee to go with it. Did you realize the USFWS received funding to allow them “to assist the ag economy” by purchasing perpetual wetlands easements? Have you questioned the formula for taxing ag land and the price received for commodities?

#2 - This section comes from testimony I was scheduled to present to the congressional delegation at the hearing in Minot on the Dakota Water Resources Act (Garrison). What is a farm without a city to serve it? What is a city without a farm to feed it? What is either one without an adequate supply of quality water to sustain it? Is it proper for Congress to consider elimination of ag benefits from the Dakota Water Resources Act?

I believe at this point in time we all understand what the conservation groups have done to Garrison Diversion. The question of conservation raises a red flag when these groups preach “conserve” and promote using all our water reserves in aquifers while sending very treatable water in the Missouri River to the gulf. This concept does not qualify as scientific or appear to be in the best interest of mankind.

Farmers must earn a living, and do not have the luxury of disregarding economic impacts to their farming operations. Water development and water management activities often impact wetlands resources. There is also increasing awareness of wetland values, although the primary interest in preserving wetlands still relates to waterfowl habitat and waterfowl production.

Most wetlands are in private ownership, so many of the opportunities for wetland resource management depend on the cooperation of private landowners. Management decisions that will affect the quality and functions of wetlands should be made primarily by individuals. It is essential that any outside group’s goals concerning wetlands be implemented only with a truly voluntary and compensatory plan with private landowners. Sound and credible information must be provided to private owners so they can make informed management decisions.

Who feeds wildlife and provides habitat? The same farmer that feeds all humans. The statement has been made that 25% of all Americans use wetlands. 100% of Americans eat agricultural commodities. Should all people who claim wetlands improve water quality be banned from using treated water from municipal suppliers?

Are we obligated to the regulator and his love of wildlife? Are we really conserving when we allow the depleting of water reserves? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to develop substitutes or reserves as a part of long range planning?

Let me know.