DITCHING
During my lifetime and years of farming, I have found that Mother Nature can be so benevolent. However, she can be so abusive as your July 10 issue has shown us.
I am 100 percent certain that Mother Nature cannot be totally blamed for all the damage, both property and personal (health), inflicted upon our fellow residents.
There are people who feel very strongly that their neighbours’ land should be a receptacle for their unwanted water. I am referring to all the open water ditching that has been allowed without strong stoppage repercussions.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
What has become the net result of Mother Nature’s ravages could very rightly been big time avoided. Yes, there would have been damage from the intense rain, but there would not have been such a dramatic multi-fold increase in the damages.
The continuation of open ditching could eventually result in such high insurance rates that no one could afford or there could be clauses that make insurance useless to purchase.
Some of my farmland has been the proud receptacle for unwanted water from as far away as 20 miles.
My water woes have been detrimental to my right to use my property for my use and not for the use of others’ unwanted water storage.
Perhaps land taxation could be used such that (if) the land is totally ditched (and) void of water, then that property should be up to five times the base quarter tax.
On the other side of the equation, non-drained land would only be taxed the base rate.
Also, if my land is to be used as a receptacle for others’ water then the tax rate should accordingly be cut to as little as $1 per quarter. You gain, you pay.
Delwyn Jansen,
Humboldt, Sask.
