Illegal drainage
I read your front-page article entitled “Sask. Commodity groups denounce drainage bill” twice before I made a serious decision about the new bill.
Quite frankly, it is about time the government of this province took the bull by the horns regarding drainage.
Two incidents on our farm have been detrimental to our ability to use our farm for our crop production.
Incident number one, my father got a water reduction (ditch) permit for some of our land. We followed all the rules.
Read Also
Proactive approach best bet with looming catastrophes
The Pan-Canadian Action Plan on African swine fever has been developed to avoid the worst case scenario — a total loss ofmarket access.
We were told that there was to be no additional water put into that ditch system. That meant we could not dig the ditch lower to remove all the sloughs; only lower them. We could not ditch any additional sloughs.
Ten years later, water is added. And by the way, not by our family. Every spring since, part of the road is under water for a time, which had never been the case before.
Incident number two is regarding a second quarter. That quarter is half cropped and half grassland. The grass is partial grazing and partial hay.
Since someone has ditched onto that quarter we have lost one-third of the crop producing land, plus we cannot access our hay nor grazing area.
In your article, Jeff Pylatuik states he will lose 20 to 25 percent production. We lost over half of the production area on that quarter. All from ditching. Someone else’s gain and our loss.
Since the 1950s ditching has been escalating and during that time period the government did nothing. It is about time!
When you ditch, yes, you gain, but keep in mind someone downstream will lose. I have lost long enough. Shut those unwanted and unpermitted ditches.
Better you lose a small amount than someone downstream losing it all.
Delwyn J. J. Jansen
Humbolt, Sask.
Conservative choice
President Donald Trump’s speech may have brought tears to many and caused some Canadians to be envious. But now it’s Canada’s turn.
With 14 Conservative Candidates vying for leadership in the next election, we hope the winner is as good as American leaders.
My preference for the next prime minister would be one who wants changes to our corrupt medicare, such as Maxime Bernier. Or someone who supports an arctic naval base; or someone who is anti-national debt.
Also, someone against firearm confiscation and anti-immigration.
The House of Commons should not be run by left-wing socialists, They always ruin the country. We no longer have a social credit “watchdog” of 34 seats in Ottawa, so a good Conservative prime minister could make Canada great again.
E. Storsuk
St. George, Man.
Check-off frustration
The Jan. 19 issue of The Western Producer provided coverage of a discussion on a non-refundable, mandatory levy on pulse crops. I can understand why the farmers are frustrated.
CN and CP Rail often exceed the suggested rail-cap on the price for moving grain, amounting to thousands of dollars. This is essentially the farmers’ money.
I can understand the disappointment and frustration felt by farmers.
Is there no limit as to how much money can be extracted from a farmer’s income?
Lyle Birch
Weekes, Sask.
