Part two to the story - Sunday edition of "The State"....
F**K Cancer
Just Damn.
Is it hypocritical at all for a group of conservatives to question a landowners ability to do what they please within the bounds of our current laws on a parcel of private land?
And for said individuals to wish for more government regulation on the ability to withdraw surface water when said landowner completed the permit process and received approval from the appropriate government agency?
And while I acknowledge potatoes don't provide the wildlife benefit provided by other more glamorous crops, is it odd that many of the same individuals here laud the wildlife opportunities presented by other more agrarian states, yet complain about the influx of more agriculture to our state?
[QUOTE=SCFoxman;1580162]I'd be more concerned with the amount of fertilizer mixed with that water coming back to the river.
This is another thing we are very concerned about. Our club is literally only several bends down from this site and we do a lot of fishing around our club. What is going to happen when these chemicals make their way into the river and right on down they go. I come from a farming family and could care less how big the farm is or what they grow are anything else about the farm. Like I've stated before, our biggest concerns are what it will do to the water level in the river and how they going to prevent these chemicals from getting into the river. From what I've been told by someone doing a lot of research on this operation, some of the chemicals they use are pretty dangerous. JMO
Here's another article to read:
http://www.michigansthumb.com/articl...e839635387.txt
Last edited by SCHUNTINFANATIC; 12-13-2013 at 10:32 AM.
[quote=SCHUNTINFANATIC;1580187]
I find it amazing that you come from a farm and have an attitude like this, hard to believe really. How are the "chemicals" any different than any other corn, soybean, cotton, sod farm in the area. But yet there seems to be no concern about these other entities. I really boggles the mind the attitude that sportsmen and outdoorsmen have about a new farming operation. Would you prefer it was a housing development?
"It's a numbers game" - Mac Owen
Endangered: Farmers, Watermen, and Rural Life
Or another "equine" operation??
F**K Cancer
Just Damn.
Also, the attitudes that are expressed on this thread are one of the reasons we see food production leaving our country. Everybody is ok with sitting down to a nice meal with reasonably priced fruits and vegetables as long as it's not grown in my back yard.
Last edited by sc high tide; 12-13-2013 at 10:37 AM.
"It's a numbers game" - Mac Owen
Endangered: Farmers, Watermen, and Rural Life
[quote=sc high tide;1580198]
I'm sure if this was right in your backyard in VA you would be more concerned. I have 3 uncles and 2 cousins that have poultry farms and also farm row crops as well. My grandfather was proabably one of the biggest farmers in our area when he was alive. I promise you I am all for the farmer but when I see how low this river can be in the dry season I can only imagine what it will be like if they pump as much water as they say they are. I frequent the Edisto atleast once a week and would hate to see what this could possibly do to it and the habitat surrounding it. I just don't like the idea that they will be allowed to draw this amount out of the river without the public being informed beforehand to voice concerns and ask questions. Hell they are even having public hearings for the new cell phone towers being erected in our area. You would think that would have been part of the permit process.
I'm no tree hugger, and believe we should use our resources in a prudent and conservative manner. No one is protesting the farm. Hell, we welcome it. The issue is the amount of water they intend to pull and the run off of the fertilizer ( chemical or chicken shit). Up until this year , the Edisto River has been very low. There were many places that were only a few inches deep. What many don't realize is how narrow the river is up on this end. Its almost 3 times wider where they monitor the river flow than where this proposed withdrawal is taking place. So , those numbers would be be different that what the flow is up river. If this farm is allowed to continue , the potential destruction of the surrounding wetland will have a huge impact on the condition of the river , the hunting and fishing as well as aesthetic beauty of the wetland. I think what many of the surrounding concerns are asking is to properly vet this issue and insure that the waterway is protected from any potential contamination. Not to use skewed data, by taking flow rates from 20+ miles down river.
.
.
How many of those farms that are "moving away " are located next to the longest navagable black water river in North America ? I'd venture to say ........ 0.....
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium. -
I prefer liberty with danger, to peace with slavery.
just crunched a few #s
9.6 billion gallons/3700 acres/27, 150 gallons/acre-inch ---> 96 acre-inches
I don't think 96" of water is needed to grow potatoes.
I am thinking for potato production you would also have to be on a three year rotation. Therefore a large volume of the water pulled would be used for corn, soybean etc irrigation.
I am guessing there are other farms that pull irrigation water from the Edisto or other rivers in the state.
These must be the people who are buying up all the chicken shit in the area. More power to them...
[quote=SCHUNTINFANATIC;1580229]So you noticed where SC High tide is located, now go do a little research on farming on the Eastern Shore and regulations concerning fertilizer runoff, it is quite possibly the most regulated place to farm in the country. Over the years I have gathered that he is directly involved with agriculture so I would wager to say he is very knowledgable on these matters.
They have a permit to pull 9.6 billion gallons but that does not mean they will. Those figures equate to 95.5" of water across the farm, give me a break, taters like some water but not that kind of water. Also remember they are not pulling from a lake but a moving river so I feel certain that you will not see an aprreciable water level difference. They are using center pivot irrigation which today's new pivots are very efficient (+/- 90%) in terms of water use. I am curious to see the rotation on this farm.
cut\'em
It is truly amazing all the NIMBY's we have in here. You will not see any fluctuation in river levels with center pivot irrigation, period. Damn you people are too far removed from the land to even make a reasoned argument...
Know one thing Black Water, Charleston draws a lot of its drinking water from the Edisto River watershed and if that were in danger, it wouldn't be happening. Someone A LOT more educated than those on this forum have looked at the proposal and said OK.
Also to say you welcome the farm but don't pump any water is foolish. No water = no taters = no farm.
cut\'em
I'm not saying not to pump water , I just want them to use the data from the area to ensure that the surrounding area isn't devastated . This issue just started gaining traction in the past week or so. No one had a clue what was happening. There were No public notices, so I don't think Charleston or those in the know had a clue . As this progresses , I believe that more people involved further down river will begin to have a say in what's going on.
Last edited by Black Water; 12-13-2013 at 12:33 PM.
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium. -
I prefer liberty with danger, to peace with slavery.
I share your sentiments for the most part; however, on a state level I feel that most involved in agricultural regulation have the state and the farmer's best interest at mind.
Black Water last time I checked the water rights laws in this state were open and if they are in no violation of these laws then what is to stop them from irrigating out of the river?
cut\'em
Bookmarks