Renwick Dam Rehab Project

I’ve expressed some of my feelings concerning this at meetings and in letters to the papers, so I’ll try not to be repetitive. I have some thoughts and concerns I’d like to share with you.

First, I have to say that Icelandic State Park is a beautiful facility and certainly an asset to the area, even to the state. I know of no one who would knowingly put that, or the city of Cavalier, or downstream property owners at risk. Where folks seem to differ is in how they feel the dam should be fortified and who should be responsible for the local match portion of the expense.

My belief is that those who pay an assessment for a project should: 1)benefit from the project, 2) be allowed to have input in deciding how the project is done, and 3) be offered as much information about the project as they would like to have, from the entity proposing the project and assessment.

I attended very few meetings on the Renwick Dam rehab project because, due to my location, I really didn’t feel that my input deserved consideration. Obviously I was not serving District 10 in the ND House at the time. What I remember very clearly from my limited participation is that the meetings were not conducive to public input. You could submit a comment or question in writing at the end of the meeting with no chance for follow up or rebuttal of the committee’s answer or comments.

I have witnessed situations where federal government agencies use these “public meetings” to direct a consesus that supports the plan that agency wants. It’s difficult for local officials to argue when a federal government employee, with all the credentials, says you should do it his way and promises federal help for funding if you do.

Whether or not this was the case with the Renwick meetings, I am concerned that the people in Pembina and Cavalier Counties who will be assessed for the rehab project are not being well served. I would much prefer that a project of this magnitude be brought before the people for approval or disapproval through a vote. There would have been more than adequate time to apply this process had the controlling entities chosen to do so. Local officials would have known the sentiment of the public as a result.

If the present plan is the most effective, economical, fair and beneficial way to proceed with the Renwick Dam rehab project, prove that to the people and let them vote. All cost and funding issues should be addressed and re-addressed as the project proceeds, as this is necessary knowledge in making an informed decision.

One more issue that surfaced once again as a result of water issues is that of County Commissions of one county assuming taxing authority in a neighboring county, and some people thought they saw an opportunity for this to happen. One doesn’t have to envision too many scenarios to realize the absurdity of such an arrangement. And I believe the mere suggestion flies in the face of the structure of government envisioned by our forefathers and defies reason.

As always, I welcome your thoughts and comments concerning this or the subject of your choice!

Regards,

CDD

Food, energy, the high price of grain, and global warming.

Busy harvest.

(An article written by Chuck Damschen for the Monday, March 24, 2006 edition of the Cavalier County Republican, Ag Outlook.)

As we head into the 2008 crop season we do so with guarded optimism that the commodity prices we have enjoyed the past several months will carry on for the new crop. I’m no marketing expert, but when I can lock in a reasonable profit with some protection, I’m fairly well satisfied. So I contract most of next year’s barley as malting for $6.13 – 6.81/bu. and almost half of my anticipated wheat for $10.10/bu. I know, I know, I missed the market peak for new crop. I missed with all of my 2007 crop, too. But I sold on the upswing instead of after it peaked, for the most part, and I’m thankful for what I did get.

The question remains as to how long these prices will last. We have a pretty good idea how long the higher input prices will last. A number of reasons have been sighted for high commodity prices. I heard an author analyze that it was the planned use of ethanol that caused $20+/bu. wheat. While it may be true that all of our present agricultural production, if dedicated to energy production, would be only a small portion of the energy we now consume, I doubt many of us believe that’s why wheat hit $20+. The spike above $12/bu. is more likely attributed to speculators bidding to cover their positions with little grain left in the country.

I believe the turn toward renewable energy supplements has certainly contributed to increased grain prices. More so, the fact that the world has consistently consumed more food than i has produced, dwindling the supply. Market analysts predict that this trend will continue into the future which whould mean good prices for our commodities. I hope they’re right!

The problem with high grain prices is that it prices itself out of economic feasibility in the renewable fuels market. As the renewable energy industry develops it will very likely advance in its efficiency of converting grain or biomass into fuel. If and when it will become competitive with fossil fuels has not been determined. In the meantime we should be utilizing all of our resources wherever they are available.

One of the greatest obstacles to utilization of our resources is extreme environmentalism making the construction of oil refineries and coal fired power plants cost prohibitive as well as blocking the development of oil fields in several prime areas. The myth that human activities have caused global warming and that global warming is a crisis it he latest obstacle to efficient energy production. An article concerning global warming, entitled “Anatomy of a Fake Consensus“, by Joseph Bast, appears in the Heartland Institutes’s Environment and Climate News magazine. It has this to say about the UN climate alarmist branch, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

The best that can be said about the latest IPCC report [claiming a scientific consensus on man-made global warming] is that it represents a negotiated political statement by about 50 scientists and many politicians, UN bureaucrats, and green activists.

We can use all of the energy we are capable of producing right now. Cooperation between the traditional and renewable energy industries is essential. In the meantime, let’s make the best we can of the positive effect this changing world is having on production agriculture. And let’s hope the government will promote the development of all of our available energy resources.