# Another I told you so



## Plainsman

http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015- ... er-barons/

A year or so ago on here and fishingbuddy we were debating land and water rights. We got into it through a debate about a landowner and I believe thief in Utah by the name of Bundy. So it turned into a big debate about water rights, and I said if California continues in the drought the cities will take the water from the farms. Oh no that could never happen. It's starting.


----------



## walleyecandy

No offense plainsman -but California is a gigantic rathole full of purebred whine ***** that deserve to go hungry or get malnutrition from not getting enough vegetables.

If I were one of those farmers- I'd refuse to sell in state...

If the water was being wasted, fine. But wasted is definative on lawns and golf courses. That's where the attention should be focused- not on 107 year old family farms.


----------



## Plainsman

No offence at all walley. As a matter of fact I mostly agree. My only point was I told the guys I debated that it could happen. I'm not surethe farmers will sell it, I think it will be taken from them. They will say that when the public pays for a water project it belongs to the people and an individual farmer never should have been given "water rights". Politicians go along with numbers of voters when lies don't work.


----------



## Chuck Smith

I remember when the last time this was brought up. I pointed out how some "celebrities" were getting on the band wagon yet when you looked at an ariel photo of their home.... one of the greenest lawns you would see and a huge pool. uke: But yet it is the farmers fault. Who helps provide food, taxes, etc for the state and nation.

I have family that lives in CA (he is conservative thank god... :beer: ) But he talks about how people out there would complain if their ice cream is too cold. That state just has a bunch of whackdoodles living in it and running it.


----------



## 9manfan

The people of Kalifornia keep voting Pelosi in.....that shows the mentality of the people out there.....


----------



## blhunter3

I hope the farmers fight and win. There is no excuse for poor playing and poor water management from city people. My family farm, which has been in our family since 1903, was suppose to be bought out and turned into lagoons. We fought and proved it was cheaper for the company that wanted to buy us out to go another route.


----------



## shaug

Plains, Bundy lives in Nevada, not Utah.

The story came from Bloomberg. Even so, it wasn't too one sided. I read the whole thing. I didn't know the Salton Sea was created by an engineering mishap back in 1905. It would seem some very industrius people created the whole imperial valley and all the produce derived from irrigation.

"Build it and they will come" is a saying that can certainly be applied here.

Progress: forward, onward, upward, to develop.

Plains, there are people who have dug, ditched, created, invented and put their sweat equity into projects. Should it be taken from them? It can be argued the greater good for the greatest many. OK fine, give them water.... but no bread.


----------



## blhunter3

So its okay to take from someone, someones livelihood and give it to someone else? Its not the farmers fault that government on California screwed up the whole water supply.

Yes, people need water, someone should have had the foresight to understand water management in a dry state like California. Hell I took classes on that in college. It doesn't take a degree to figure out that there is only X gallons of water and people need X gallons to live (drinking, cooking, bathroom, and washing)


----------



## Plainsman

> Plains, there are people who have dug, ditched, created, invented and put their sweat equity into projects. Should it be taken from them? It can be argued the greater good for the greatest many. OK fine, give them water.... but no bread.


Your right it was Nevada Bundy lived in. It just wasn"t important enough to try remember.
As gor your above comment read all the posts. I already explained that I didn't agree, but predicted what would happen. If America becomes even more socialist than we already are I could see a future with no private land ownership. It's a terrible thing to think about, but perhaps some landownwrs should consider not blaming hunters for fire that gets away fr them and roads torn up by the new huge grain trucks. Hunters are few and need support. Farmers are even fewer, and growing farms are reducing their numbers even more. Soon Monsanto will own the land and we will have to pay to hunt. Oh wait ------------


----------



## shaug

Monsanto isn't interested in owning farmland. They make enough money minus the risk.

Some high bred seeds such as canola require a tech fee to use their product. A fifty pound bag will plant "X" amount of acres and the farmer pays a $15 dollar tech fee per acre. Give me some of that action.

BL3, waters rights are not that hard to understand. First in time, first in priority.


----------



## walleyecandy

Monsanto has roundup ready alfalfa that the tech fee is $200 a bag! Not at all kidding- I hauled a load of it last year and had to check my cargo insurance to make sure I could cover it... 
Last time I had to check was 18 years ago when I hauled packaged cherry tomatoes- ridiculous how much 45,000 pounds of them are worth.


----------



## Plainsman

> BL3, waters rights are not that hard to understand. First in time, first in priority.


Keep in mind one who predicts doesn't always support it. So lets not get side tracked on Mondanto because it isn't the subject. So back to water rights. People will always come before cows. I think in the not to distant future the whole idea of water rights will be changed. Before they force a few million people to move a few hundred or a thousand miles they will take all water rights. I think there will be a fight which resultes in all grazing rights also lost.


----------



## shaug

Plains said,



> So lets not get side tracked on Mondanto because it isn't the subject.


before Plains said,



> Soon Monsanto will own the land and we will have to pay to hunt.


You tried to wrap it around your axle.



> I think there will be a fight which resultes in all grazing rights also lost.


oops, there it is again.


----------



## Plainsman

Well shaug a farmer made the comment to me about Mondanto.

As far as ooops there it is again I have no idea what your point is. My point was I think water rights in this country are about to change because of the problems in California. My secondary prediction is that it will become a big fight and even more "rights" like grazing will be lost. No opinion about those "rights" just a prediction.


----------



## blhunter3

The issue with the water rights stems from when they decided how much gallons rivers have. When they did the calculations, the rivers where at an all time high. Example the Colorado river. And those allotments were never adjusted to the correct amounts.

Plainsman you are right, the water regulations will be changed soon. Either from the California ruling or the Iowa ruling.

Yes I know its hard to predict the number of people living in certain areas. But maybe someone should have hS the foresight to realize that there isn't enough water to support the amount of people and slowed down growth until they figured out the water issue. But as what typically happens, issues try to get corrected after the fact not before.


----------



## walleyecandy

We can't get rid of the water fast enough in Minnesota -and they apparently buy it out of the Colorado River system. .. Does anyone else think that maybe they need to farm somewhere else? Just saying -I don't try to raise bananas or pineapples or rice in sw mn....

If they settled that area when there was nothing there- why are the farmers the bad guys just because the huddled masses are breeding faster than the resources in the area can sustain?


----------



## remington_onpoint

Well put WalleyeCandy. Farmers are too often given a bad name b/c of their practices, but what the majority of the country doesn't realize, is the responsibility that falls on their shoulders to feed the world. Most city folk don't understand where there food comes from and the sacrifice that comes with feeding the masses!


----------



## Habitat Hugger

Plainsman, like everything this whole water war thing is much more complicated than youve posted. Wintering in Artizona you get the opportunity to hear and participate in a lot of stuff, and one of the most interesting thing was a one day seminar put on by many agenciues, govt., private, pro and con, everone stating their csse, or trying to anyway, about water allocation in the Colorado River system. living on the lake at Lake Havasu this was even more interesting to me!
For decades, more and more water has been allocated for lots of purposes cities, agriculture, golf courses, etc. until there is now allocated (meaning PROMISED) far MORE water frtom the Coilorado system that has ever been recorded in the recorded history of the system. anyone who has seen Lake Mead lateley knows what I mean. and now there is another huge pipeline being constrtucted to salt Lake City and all the cities up and downthat valley, most of the population of Utah, actually! for years therre has been NO WATER even reaching ther Gulf of California. and lake Mead and all the upstreram reservoirs are getting lower and lower every year and are NOT predicted to ever fillm again, and if comngressm water allocation ismnotmchangedtheynwil be essentially dry most ofmthe yerar!I power generation from Hoover Dam is getting close to being cut or eliminated! 
I'm not taking any sides here at all, but everyone in the Colorado diverted area will have to give, and at least in Northern California the farmers have willingly cut back their use of water, planted crops that take much less watewr, and suerprisingly ALL cities in California have cut bavk water by a huge amount, lots over 50%, no more green lawns, city parks now turning into desert flora, erc. Same in a lot of areas in Arizona, though Arizona cities, namely Phoenix and Tuscon are way behind cutting off water usage, but will be forced to catch up! no more well wateredcity parks, folks!
From Parker south the vegetable basket of USA, water usage has been cut way way down. 
But like Bundy and his arrogance, there ARE areas of producers that refuse to cut down water usage, exactly like some arrogant rich movie star types in LA, and what to do with these guys? I dunno andf am nbot going to take a stand on this Unamerican debacle. Times change, though.
there will be more and more water fights, in USA and most other areas of the world. lots of other not well understood fsctors, climate change (a dirty word on an outdoor websiye) and many other thingsd, aquuafers dry to the extent of huge cave ins, etc. 
itys interersting to hrar proplr complain when thry havr to replumb to a 1 litre toiklert flush from a 5 liter one! grumbling and complaining and blambing those dratted LIBERALS! (I HATE thet word, being mas its used wrongly most times, especially by my friend Bruce) 
But the reason fvor the wars isd NOT govt takover or conspiracies, it is Congrssses decades of overallovation to keep their grerern lawn loving, gholf club swinging andf agriculture based voters happy, till they have hopelessley overallocated wtaer. Congress promises way more water thsn will ever be available, EVER! something has to giver! Actually EVERYBODY ewill have to swallow their pride and arrogance and givre up a lot of water anbd change th eir usage!


----------



## Plainsman

No kidding, I was in Arizona for the winter too. I'll bet I knew two or three of the speakers at that meeting. You do remember that water and ecology were my profession right?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 1-10-57-44

Maybe they have the problem solved. They should have known years ago that millions of people living in the desert, and farmers farming desert were going to cause a problem. I guess they were as blind as the people involved with the Devils Lake Basin. Shortly before I retired I had to read 250 articles on the Red River Watershed and write abstracts for publication. It was sickening the political maneuvering causing much of the problem.

HH we use the word liberal to describe people advocating much of what they know nothing about. Mentally blind people not only trying to pass themselves off as intellectuals, but arrogant enough to come out and say they were intellectuals right on these pages. I am always amazed at self described geniuses. As soon as you realize they have no humility you also realize they also have no social skills.

I am not saying the farmers are good or bad, I am just saying after debates last winter "I told you so". At that time we were talking water rights. I said that politicians pay attention to numbers and water rights in the end will mean little.


----------



## Habitat Hugger

There's another arrival on the same water wars, this time the buying and selling of water rights downstream from Parker Dam, all the farmland from west of Quartzite almost down to some smaller head dams north of Yuma. When u drive south along the Colorado from Parker dam there are already abandoned previously irrigated fields abandoned to the desert! Now las salve led wants to buy out their water rights, with Phoenix, Tucson, Vegas and salt lake undoubtedly not far behind! Will be interesting to follow over the years!


----------



## Habitat Hugger

Forgot too mention the article was in the Bismarck Tribune but likely is in other papers too. Think it is all the irrigated area around Blythe Ca on both sides of the river.


----------



## shaug

The old saying,

Build it and they will come, certainly applies here. Big cities appearing out in the desert aren't sustainable. Their food water and energy all have to be trucked or piped in.

Instead of succumbing to urban sprawl, the landowners should get their heads together and place easements on their property surrounding a city to completely stop progress. If a city cannot grow its boundaries, newcomers won't move there. If newcomers cannot move there then cities won't be trying to "take" the water from everyone who was first in time and built the place in the first damn place.

HH and Plains, you guys both snowbirded in the desert. Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?


----------



## dakotashooter2

> Big cities appearing out in the desert aren't sustainable. Their food water and energy all have to be trucked or piped in.


BINGO

And it also applies to farming in the desert.


----------



## Habitat Hugger

Well Shaug, hats a fair question and I've asked myself that many times! We don't go to Phoenix or Tucson or any big are that doesn't recycle their water usage though they are doing a lot of,things in all those big cities to use much lass than before. Hardly any water using public parks now, and it's becoming almost rare to see a private residence with green lawns. 
We go to a smaller place where they recycle all,their sewage to use on golf courses and the few public parks that stil have green irrigatable lawns. And they are really rigid on small volume crappers. Some of them must use. Impressed at and hiss at you like a flat tire using only small amounts of water. Like I pointed out, most cities in the Colorado drainage are honestly cutting their water usage down, as are most of,the farmers. Increasing population is the problem, IMHO. 
When you go to the supermarket and see our tons of fresh food and vegetables, almost all of it comes from the area north of yUma to the Parker dam, and the California Central Valley. nOne of it viable without Mexican workers either, by the way.
Also tons of fresh veggies comes across the border from the Mexican irrigation project that swallow up every drop of Colo River water that dares to pass Yuma! About the amount of the Heart River in spring if they are lucky! Now Mexico is demanding more water for,their irrigation projects and as the ColomRiver is an INTERNATIONAL River, there's a big fight there, too! LOL
It'll be interesting to see what happens in the future for all these battles and water fights! They don't use water balloons for water fights down there! LOL. Everybody wants a bigger slice of the diminishing water pie!


----------



## shaug

dakotashooter2 said:


> Big cities appearing out in the desert aren't sustainable. Their food water and energy all have to be trucked or piped in.
> 
> 
> 
> BINGO
> 
> And it also applies to farming in the desert.
Click to expand...

This is one of those which came first questions, the chicken or the egg? Big cities need food. If they keep tearing out the orchard groves, the vegtable fields and replacing them with asphalt, where are they going to get food?

California is ranked the number one State in cash receipts for agricultural products. $43,544,001,000 in 2013. One can only wonder what that number is using the multiplier effect considering all the people working in food services. HH mentions none of this would be viable without immigrant workers and that is true. However, they are coming to what has been built, not to a barren desert. They already have desert in Mexico and they aren't immigrating there.

Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.

-William Jennings Bryan

And yes, I am aware that Bryan was a democrat.


----------



## Habitat Hugger

So true, Shaug, whether said by a Democrat or a Republican!


----------



## shaug

Habitat Hugger said:


> So true, Shaug, whether said by a Democrat or a Republican!


What about a professed conservative?



> Plainsman said,
> My point was I think water rights in this country are about to change because of the problems in California. My secondary prediction is that it will become a big fight and even more "rights" like grazing will be lost. No opinion about those "rights" just a prediction.


Notice rights in quotation twice.

Yesterday Audubon opened for pheasant hunting. My brother wanted to go and hook up with some friends. We were done in 30 minutes. At 9:00 am the USFWS had nephla soup, coffee and dessert bars for $5 bucks at the visitors center. While we there eating, some guy walked in and wanted to file a complaint. In two and a half hours he only shot one rooster.

The staff was busy so he visited with us and said why are they grazing. This is public land. It was all about him and this should be managed for pheasants. I offered maybe for weed control and he scoffed. I said maybe rotational grazing to benefit the grass and other wildlife. He didn't think so. He wanted to know where we were at and I told him. Lots of grass sloughs and birds.

When the head guy showed, he took this fellow outside. The guy was loud and I could hear him saying his dog works good and he hadn't walked past any. They were mismanaging everything and they had wasted his time. Good 15 minutes worth.

I felt bad for the USFWS staff, they can't please everyone.

We are a nation of laws and there is a very good reason why.


----------



## Plainsman

I agree with most of what is being said, but cut welfare and you will find people taking those jobs that some think we rely on Mexicans for. Everything else I mostly agree with.

Shaug:


> What about a professed conservative?


Plainsman:


> No opinion about those "rights" just a prediction.


The conversation is going good so drop the age old whine. Do you not know what No opinion, just prediction means? It's hard to carry on conversation when I agree with 95% of it, but onr individual want to paint you otherwise.


----------



## shaug

> No opinion, just prediction


Ipse dixit


----------



## walleyecandy

You do realize that California is not even close to growing ALL the fruit and vegetables in the USA right? A lot...fine, but saying the majority of ALL fruit might have the hint of some truth but all? No.

What about Texas and Mexico? Florida? All the other areas that produces, well PRODUCE!
And what about IMPORTS?

I despise California with a semi- but I guarantee you never have to go to California just to haul fruits and vegetables. ... You will never need to leave Texas except to deliver. Good vegetables too- not that artichoke, broccoli, crap exc....

The farmers were irrigating for 100 years before Tommy Townhead showed up and wanted to start breeding faster than the neighborhood rats...

Why live in an area short on water? Anyone else think that this is ridiculous? Or am I the only one?


----------



## blhunter3

Well vineyards and nuts aren't water friendly either. One gallon of water per almond.


----------



## shaug

blhunter3 said:


> Well vineyards and nuts aren't water friendly either. One gallon of water per almond.


The waste is always water used by someone else.


----------



## walleyecandy

I have wild grapes transplanted around a windmill...they don't get any water besides rain.... oh yeah, that's right- I don't live in a desert either!

I did buy a $4 little bag of almonds Monday at a truck stop...guess that makes me part of the problem.

At a dollar an ounce -I'd bet they can afford to water them... Now I'm wondering how many almonds grow on one tree, a 1000? 3000? Who did this survey? Was the almond tree was in the Mohave Desert or was it somewhere a tree should grow?


----------



## blhunter3

Walleyecandy, that number for was a soil scientist by the name of Niel Kinsey, when I was at one of his work shops. I have also heard it from a couple other people. And the number was the average for where ever they grow them in California. I have no idea how many of them grow on a tree, but that sounds like a lot of management.


----------



## walleyecandy

I'm not calling anyone a liar at all- just saying that X gallons per almond seems to me to be a ridiculous assumption of a fact. There are so many variables that if a tree needs that amount of water- maybe it should be planted in an area that can sustain it...

For instance -if I say it takes 350 gallons per 50 square feet of ground to grow soybeans. ...then who disputes my numbers? Is that to total root depth? How did I figure that number against natural rainfall? Does dew in the morning get counted? Exc, exc...


----------



## blhunter3

Figuring water per bushel is actually something I studied in college. It is very interesting, and with all of the new technology out there it is easier, but it will drive someone crazy if you keep watching it daily.

http://www.businessinsider.com/amount-o ... ato-2015-4

http://extension.psu.edu/plants/crops/n ... ue-of-rain


----------



## walleyecandy

I enjoy reading studies like that but... I planted sweet corn in mud two years ago -it never rained at all on it...still produced ears (smaller than normal but still good). There were cracks in the soil that if you dropped your phone in- you would never have seen it again. .. Unless you own a backhoe.

Which brings me to this argument; the corn and beans still produced a crop at or near longterm average without a total inch of rain during that season. Heavy corn @ 57 pounds per bushel, again- with little to no rain.

The drought is legitimate, the irritation is probably necessary, but.... I'm not buying the study saying an almond tree will produce 1000 almonds if you plant it under a glass canopy and feed it 1000 gallons of water. To me- that doesn't makes sense. Nice survey but I personally don't think it's legit.

I'm not calling anyone a liar! Just saying... My wild grapes did very well with very minimal water also. I also lost no young trees to drought -and trees use a lot of water supposedly....

The grass in my yard only was mowed 4 times that year- once before, and once after the initial corn planting rain.

Beans are a different critter entirely -their root system is ridiculous. The get wet once and they make it- a lot like hollyhocks! They claim during the dust bowl days- a hollyhock was the only green plant in the yard here...


----------



## Plainsman

So many variables. Ground water being a major player makes things very difficult to compare one region to another. Walleye the corn you planted in mud had to send roots down far enough to reach water if it didn't rain right? How deep is ground water in California? I forget for the moment the the large lake that they pumped from for irrigation,, but after years depth to water for a well went from a hundred feet in that Valley to many hundreds of feet. Much of the irrigated land in California I don't thing has water that crops can reach.

Water "rights" is a nebulous concept. Billions of dollars have gone into building water containment yet individuals still claim rights built by public taxpayer dollars. Sounds like legal theft. I predict this will first be decided in the courts in favor of the landowners. Following will be public outrage, and following that public pressure that will be changed laws and water "rights" passing into history. Things change.


----------



## shaug

Plains said,



> Water "rights" is a nebulous concept.


As usual Plains, you mislead with your opinion, making it sound like there is no static historical benchmark.

Water Law.........Blacks Law Dictionary.


----------



## blhunter3

Walleye, there is sub surface water for the roots to get and the dew in the mornings helps. You can't always have to look at the water available in the ground and not always what you get during the growing season.

We do some no till, minimum till, and very little conventional till. Our neighbors typically dig everything black every year, whether its is the fall or the spring. Anyways, when its a dry year, their crops start drought stress earlier then ours and there have been a few times where it drastically showed up on yield. They lost soil moisture by digging it, and we didn't.

We have one irrigator pivot, and it is always night night day from where the water reaches to where it doesn't. Except the one year were it was too wet to operate it until August. Take this year for example, where the water on the pivot hits we consistently had corn weigh 58, 59 and a few 60. Where it didn't hit on the same field, was typically 56,57 and a few 58.

Walleye, what type of soil are you grapes planted in? Because soil type and soil health will help with water availability.


----------



## Plainsman

shaug said:


> Plains said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Water "rights" is a nebulous concept.
> 
> 
> 
> As usual Plains, you mislead with your opinion, making it sound like there is no static historical benchmark.
> 
> Water Law.........Blacks Law Dictionary.
Click to expand...

Yes it is opinion, I never stated otherwise.

I see this as unfortunate, because in this water struggle there will necessarily be a loser. There would be no water with current populations if not for public projects. The average tax payer gets treated unfairly in this scenario of get what you give.

It would appear that politicians in the 1800's had little forethought. Of course we would have done little if any better. Who could see a desert population of millions? The dumbest thing is they keep moving there. When politicians are faced with thousands of people on one side of the debate and millions on the other the outcome is already determined. They will be paid an exorbitant amount, but they will lose rights as we know them.


----------



## blhunter3

Maybe the people in office need to start thinking and evaluating water usage and management, population influx, land usage and management, and efficient/practical methods of waste management.

Everything now days needs to have sustainability, practicality, and usability planned for short term and long term. We cannot keep at the same pace on anything and except everything to be taken care of. City planning needs to be way better. Water usage and management needs to be way better. Agricultural practices and management needs to be a lot better. Waste needs to be managed A LOT better.


----------



## shaug

Plains said,



> When politicians are faced with thousands of people on one side of the debate and millions on the other the outcome is already determined.


We need to define the above....thousands of people (farmers) verses millions of people (city dwellers)

I believe what you are saying Plains is the establishment will fall on the side of the majority (mob rule) over the minority.

Plains, do we live in a Republic? If we do, then your opinion concerning a predetermined outcome, is wrong headed.


----------



## blhunter3

The water situation in California is a lose lose for everyone involved. If the ag sector brought in more tax revenue then it does it would be a no brainer. But for how much water they use compared to the tax the state makes off them its hard to justify siding with them


----------



## shaug

bl3 said,



> If the ag sector brought in more tax revenue then it does it would be a no brainer.


Do you have some numbers to back that up, or is this another one of those opinions yelled from behind the dumpster?


----------



## Plainsman

shaug said:


> Plains said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When politicians are faced with thousands of people on one side of the debate and millions on the other the outcome is already determined.
> 
> 
> 
> We need to define the above....thousands of people (farmers) verses millions of people (city dwellers)
> 
> I believe what you are saying Plains is the establishment will fall on the side of the majority (mob rule) over the minority.
> 
> Plains, do we live in a Republic? If we do, then your opinion concerning a predetermined outcome, is wrong headed.
Click to expand...

Yes, we are in a republic, but something is going to give and we know the majority rules. Farm land has greatly increased, so those old water rights must have provided water beyond the need of the original owners. How did they determine how much water a person received. Now there isn't enough for people. Some landowners will be hurt because they will not have enough for all of their land. Some landowners will demand millions for their water that is only there because of public projects. Because of those water containment structures there is now water year around, but landowners evidently somehow have rights to that water too. How???? It wasn't there when water rights were handed out for free. Figure out the natural flow of those streams when water rights were established and don't give them more than they are entitled to. I feel sorry for some landowners, and not others. I feel sorry for those who recently purchased, but not for guys like Bundy.

I think blhunter has some reasonable and fair ideas about how things need to proceed. The greedy will see this as an opportunity to hold their fellow man hostage for water.


----------



## walleyecandy

Blh3, the grapes are in crappy rocky soil- best definition would be clay/loam with mulch (old tree, leaves, debris). They climb a windmill that has my well under it (water table is about 40ft down on a dry year)....

Shaug, get out of the dumpster that Blh3 supposedly tossing comments from behind. How else would you describe why the preexisting farmer is getting cut back on water-when the new homeowners are getting water for his lawn in the desert?

It's not fair to say a farmer can't continue producing because more neighbors moved in. And if that farmer used too much water and the 'drought' isn't replenishing the water table- then that farmer doesn't have a crop... I'm not going to go buy 10,000 pineapple trees and grow them in Minnesota -why are we even talking about a water shortage in an area that should be a considered a desert?

The Dakotas are too wet
California is too dry
Minnesota plates are too blue
The Rockies are too, well- rocky...

Who here has a horse in this race? We will all be dust or 6 feet down before we have to buy water...unless you don't have a well, or live in town (which usually has a well or equivalent).


----------



## shaug

walleyecandy said,



> Shaug, get out of the dumpster that Blh3 supposedly tossing comments from behind.


You're probably right, why climb down into this dumpster in the first place.



> Who here has a horse in this race? We will all be dust or 6 feet down before we have to buy water


Kalifornia does seem a long way away. However, when rights are taken away in Kali or Nevada, it sets a precedent. States lose rights while more power is centralized into the fed/gov, who never let a good crisis go to waste.

"Crisis is a process of transformation where the old system can no longer be maintained." Therefore the defining quality is the need for change. If change is not needed, the event could more accurately be described as a failure."

Plains wrote,



> The greedy will see this as an opportunity to hold their fellow man hostage for water.


The template never changes. You're too predictable.


----------



## Plainsman

> The template never changes.


True, so true.


----------



## walleyecandy

I came off harsher in my last post than intended -my point was: if they want to live in a hot arid climate; then why are they crying for 'their share' of the water? Truck it in and put it in a tank if they want water. .. Same goes for the farmer; if they plant bananas in Alaska; don't come looking for money to borrow from me when they go broke... Because in the end- we aren't doing anything but borrowing money from the government to live. They will take it all back one way or another -that's what 'ownership' means...it's your's as long as you keep paying 5% of it's value back every year.


----------



## shaug

Plains said,



> Yes, we are in a republic, but something is going to give and we know the majority rules.


You accept we are a Republic but default back to one man one vote.



> Some landowners will demand millions for their water that is only there because of public projects. Because of those water containment structures there is now water year around, but landowners evidently somehow have rights to that water too. How????


How???? They are taxpayers too and were the first ones there building, designing those water projects for more than a hundred years.


----------



## Plainsman

> How???? They are taxpayers too and were the first ones there building, designing those water projects for more than a hundred years.


You need a new tax man. Even if they do pay taxes should they get as much water as 100,000 taxpayers? I feel sorry for those farmers until I think about Bundy and Shaug.

Walley I agree with your last post. I try to maintain sympathy for our farmers and ranchers until a conversation with those who think they are royalty and everyone else is a peon made to serve them.


----------



## walleyecandy

I haven't passed judgment on Bundy yet...but I know some royalty farmers! I'm no longer in the farming race- input costs are killing profit and I'm done taking money from my other job to pay to farm.

AND, if things don't change in farming; it won't be sustainable! Who are these people dropping $10k-$13k an acre?!? The interest on the loan is over $350 an acre... That will never be profitable! 100 acres cost a million dollars? What are they thinking?


----------



## Plainsman

walleyecandy said:


> I haven't passed judgment on Bundy yet...but I know some royalty farmers! I'm no longer in the farming race- input costs are killing profit and I'm done taking money from esmy other job to pay to farm.
> 
> AND, if things don't change in farming; it won't be sustainable! Who are these people dropping $10k-$13k an acre?!? The interest on the loan is over $350 an acre... That will never be profitable! 100 acres cost a million dollars? What are they thinking?


I knew a couple old bachelors that would say "why should we buy a self propelled combine when we have a perfectly good motor in our John Deers". They only had a section each, but in their 80's they each had close to two million. Sharp old fellows. They spent the last 40 winters in Arizona after they went grain only and dropped the cattle. In their house after they passed away they had an entire bedroom with all records back to 1932. They only made $540 in 1936.


----------



## blhunter3

walleyecandy said:


> I haven't passed judgment on Bundy yet...but I know some royalty farmers! I'm no longer in the farming race- input costs are killing profit and I'm done taking money from my other job to pay to farm.
> 
> AND, if things don't change in farming; it won't be sustainable! Who are these people dropping $10k-$13k an acre?!? The interest on the loan is over $350 an acre... That will never be profitable! 100 acres cost a million dollars? What are they thinking?


And I will be waiting in line for when they go bankrupt to buy equipment and possible land. Everything that the farmers are going through as all self inflicted. Push ethanol, get the corn prices up, that pushed equipment, buying land and renting land up, inputs when up, old farmers got out and younger farms bought and bought and didn't know when to stop.


----------



## Plainsman

Bl you got it pegged. I would guess those programs like CRP that they hated they will want again. Everything appears to be sorted of cyclic.


----------



## walleyecandy

I still think ethanol and biodiesel is the biggest joke I've ever heard... But I am bias because I have a degree from Hard Knox that proves bio gels up way faster than straight fuel in Minnesota weather. We should have a choice of what we burn in trucks.

The cycle of farming should be referred to as a bubble. ... Feast or famine. I'm old enough to see it doesn't do me any good to work myself into the dirt doing two jobs. Especially when one barely breaks even two years in a row!


----------



## Plainsman

walley it's small farmers that respect their fellow man that I wish programs would continue to help. I know some very big farmers that farm the taxpayers wallet more than they do the soil. Either we limit it by farm types which I don't think we can do, or we limit it to $100K a year per farm family. I have friends that they get a huge payment, their wife gets one, and their kids get payments. I have another friend with maybe 50,000 acres. I don't consider that a family farm. They are incorporated, but I didn't think we could have corporation. There are many confusing things. There is waste in our welfare system, our military contracts, in our agriculture programs, school programs, it appears where government is involved there is waste. Most of it paid out for favors to those who support specific politicians.


----------



## blhunter3

Plainsman said:


> Bl you got it pegged. I would guess those programs like CRP that they hated they will want again. Everything appears to be sorted of cyclic.


I bet with rent backing down, CRP is looking pretty good to some people.


----------



## blhunter3

Plainsman said:


> walley it's small farmers that respect their fellow man that I wish programs would continue to help. I know some very big farmers that farm the taxpayers wallet more than they do the soil. Either we limit it by farm types which I don't think we can do, or we limit it to $100K a year per farm family. I have friends that they get a huge payment, their wife gets one, and their kids get payments. I have another friend with maybe 50,000 acres. I don't consider that a family farm. They are incorporated, but I didn't think we could have corporation. There are many confusing things. There is waste in our welfare system, our military contracts, in our agriculture programs, school programs, it appears where government is involved there is waste. Most of it paid out for favors to those who support specific politicians.


There are two types of farmers, ones who farm for a paycheck and ones who farm for the insurance and subsidies checks.


----------



## shaug

Plains said,



> I knew a couple old bachelors that would say "why should we buy a self propelled combine when we have a perfectly good motor in our John Deers". They only had a section each, but in their 80's they each had close to two million. Sharp old fellows. They spent the last 40 winters in Arizona after they went grain only and dropped the cattle. In their house after they passed away they had an entire bedroom with all records back to 1932. They only made $540 in 1936.


If those bachelors were married with childred they wouldn't have millions. :rollin:

bl3 said,



> And I will be waiting in line for when they go bankrupt to buy equipment and possible land. Everything that the farmers are going through as all self inflicted.


Sounds like you would like to grow. Possibly become one of those big guys.

Walleycandy said,



> I still think ethanol and biodiesel is the biggest joke I've ever heard...


Ethanol is an invention of the oil companies who were looking for an oxygenated fuel to blend with.



Plainsman said:


> walley it's small farmers that respect their fellow man that I wish programs would continue to help. I know some very big farmers that farm the taxpayers wallet more than they do the soil. Either we limit it by farm types which I don't think we can do, or we limit it to $100K a year per farm family. I have friends that they get a huge payment, their wife gets one, and their kids get payments. I have another friend with maybe 50,000 acres. I don't consider that a family farm. They are incorporated, but I didn't think we could have corporation. There are many *confusing* things. There is waste in our welfare system, our military contracts, in our agriculture programs, school programs, it appears where government is involved there is waste. Most of it paid out for favors to those who support specific politicians.


Yes, it would seem you are very confused. We have many corporations or family incorporated companies in the State. Such as a downtown store etc. are family owned and incorporated. You would have to look at the laws to see how far removed a member of a family has to be related. Family members have to reside here and/or work the store.

Cargil INC. grain company is family owned but no family members reside here or would be interested in actively working the land. And Plains, that bit about some big farmers working the taxpayers wallet instead of the soil is just some more of your spin to get low information persons spun up. All the programs are gone except crop insurance.

Plains, we realize you are old and it is hard to educate an old dog, but you should try a little harder to inform yourself before you get on here, throw about a bunch of opinions and then put a disclaimer on it saying you are confused.

bl3, just saw your post about farmers farming to get a subsidy check. One question, what subsidy check?


----------



## Plainsman

http://farm.ewg.org/

Don't know if this is up to date. I'll check it out, and post it for others to check. It looks like a bunch of this stuff ended in2013. Now with corn prices down I bet it will start up again.

I got a gift certificate the other day for $250. Had to pay tax on it right at the store. Dwight do you pay taxes on the chunk you get free to subsidize your insurance? I don't have any subsidized insurance. :laugh:


----------



## blhunter3

Shaug, all I want is to farm 2000 acres, 1000 acres soybeans, 200 corn, 800 wheat, and rotate sunflowers. So no, I do not want to be one of the big guys. I would rather manage what I have properly. Work on soil health.

There are a few specialty crops that get subsidized. Nothing grown around here.


----------



## walleyecandy

Ethanol is alcohol...with an additive to make it not pleasant to your stomach. It's been around for 1000s of years. It was never invented by any oil company.

It is combustible...but so is flour and bean dust (among a lot of other things)....

Can't imagine you seriously think oil companies invented ethanol -that is ridiculous.


----------



## Plainsman

> I would rather manage what I have properly. Work on soil health.


blhunter I am very concerned about the health of our soil and our state a couple of generations from now. The rip, rape, and run attitude some have is very destructive. People with your attitude are the lifeline for the future. My hats off to you sir.


----------



## indsport

A little data (from the NASS data for summary by legal status for tax purposes) : 89% of ND farms are classified as family farms (sole proprieter) , about 7% are family partnerships and about 2% are family held corporations.


----------



## dakotashooter2

When you push land beyond it's natural capacity to produce at some point something has to give. Technology has provided enhancements in seed, equipment and farming methods that have increased the production of land...but....In most cases today that production is artificially enhanced..... As long as the resources are available all is fine and dandy but when they are not things go to pot in a hurry. I too am worried about soil health. From past experience we are learning that what we once thought was not harmful often proves its harm 50, 75 or 100 years down the road.


----------



## shaug

walleyecandy said,



> Ethanol is alcohol...with an additive to make it not pleasant to your stomach. It's been around for 1000s of years. It was never invented by any oil company.


Permit me to rephrase, the ethanol "industry" was a creation of the oil companies. If they hadn't wanted it in competition with gasoline, they would have done whatever necessary to smother it in the crib.

Went goose hunting this morning. Seven of us got 24. They didn't decoy well. Most shots were from the backdoor or pass shooting as they went over with the wind.

Yesterday three of us limited and then went pheasant hunting in the afternoon and limited. You guys should move over here to paradise.


----------



## walleyecandy

For the record -I was pretty sure you didn't literally think alcohol was invented by big oil...that would be ridiculous.

Alternative fuels are fine- but ethanol sucks up water, even humidity- that's not acceptable to sludge up my engine. Neither is being forced to add a $15 bottle of additive to my diesel tank every time I fill up- the biodiesel is not for winter use! Sell the crap to the southern boys.

I went out in the fresh coating of white here any selected 3 full grown roosters to come home for supper. One had a tail that has to be pushing 30"- he will decorate my wall! I have 20 deer in my pasture trees hiding from the road warriors out muzzleloader hunting -hope they stay hidden.


----------



## blhunter3

dakotashooter2 said:


> I too am worried about soil health. From past experience we are learning that what we once thought was not harmful often proves its harm 50, 75 or 100 years down the road.


Summer Fallow is the worst thing you can do to your ground but the government made people do it. Now we find out that it wrecks the ground, which is weird that when you take Preventive Plant, they won't let you plant a cover crop until after August 15.


----------



## blhunter3

Walleye, I know exactly what your talking about. Biodiesel is summer only.


----------



## dakotashooter2

While ND has been somewhat immune to such water issues, at some point it will become a bigger issue. I do have some concern that with all the drain tiling at least a percentage of the water that once filtered down into the aquifers is no longer getting there. That may not matter now but when an extended drought eventually hits the state farmers will be digging wells at a rate equivalent to the current tiling in order to irrigate their crops.. THEN water rights issues will "come to the surface" as the partially depleted aquifers may not handle the needs of all.


----------



## dakotashooter2

While ND has been somewhat immune to such water issues, at some point it will become a bigger issue. I do have some concern that with all the drain tiling at least a percentage of the water that once filtered down into the aquifers is no longer getting there. That may not matter now but when an extended drought eventually hits the state farmers will be digging wells at a rate equivalent to the current tiling in order to irrigate their crops.. THEN water rights issues will "come to the surface" as the partially depleted aquifers may not handle the needs of all.


----------

