Should farmers continue Irrigating ou...

Should farmers continue Irrigating out of Lugert?

Created by Bass Master on Jul 24, 2009

475 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Maybe for a few more years

First Prev
of 10
Next Last
Bass Master

United States

#1 Jul 24, 2009
Farmers have damaged this lake long enough and it's time for it to stop.
bigman

Elk City, OK

#2 Jul 24, 2009
What damages the lake is pumping water to the marsh lands for the water fowl and other animals. They pump so many gallons of water free a year from the lakes in Oklahoma. It's not like the farmers pumps it dry. They need water for there crops.
Sassy

United States

#3 Jul 24, 2009
The Lake has been born and died so many times. I have seen it drained so low the water almost became stagnant. That is good for the lake? The farmers IMHO have benifited long enough from free water. Dig a well but leave the lake alone please.
Agent99

Dallas, TX

#4 Jul 25, 2009
The lake was originally built to irrigate the crops in that part of the SW Okla. Farming provides jobs and income directly and indirectly for many people and businesses. Drilling wells is not an option.
bigman

Elk City, OK

#5 Jul 25, 2009
Lugert lake was built primarily for water irrigation, flood control, water supply, fish and wildlife conservation, and recreation. The water level rises and falls throughout the year based primarily on the amount of rainfall received and irrigation usage. Notice how recreation is last on the list. Read online about it why it was built.
These dry season we been having. Yes, irrigation, but that was what is was built for.
Sassy

United States

#6 Jul 25, 2009
bigman wrote:
Lugert lake was built primarily for water irrigation, flood control, water supply, fish and wildlife conservation, and recreation. The water level rises and falls throughout the year based primarily on the amount of rainfall received and irrigation usage. Notice how recreation is last on the list. Read online about it why it was built.
These dry season we been having. Yes, irrigation, but that was what is was built for.
Looks like by the voting so far that the people are agreeing irigation should stop.
westok

Siloam Springs, AR

#7 Jul 25, 2009
it was built for irrigation. that is its primary function. use it for recreation when you can but that is not its function
Impeach Obama

Phoenix, AZ

#8 Jul 25, 2009
There are crops that don't require so much water. Sunflowers and dry land wheat are two crops that come to mind.

Dear God, save us from the racist black president who is destroying the middle class.
Tony

Phoenix, AZ

#9 Jul 25, 2009
I didn't realize what a beautiful lake you have outside of Altus. The water should be regulated for usage so that there is a baseline level at all times. Farmers can plant wheat and sunflowers and other crops that don't require water. I worked with farmers in eastern Colorado who had pivot irrigation and most of them wasted water and energy while turning productive land into desert sands with their plows. Farmers can farm smarter without wasting water and energy.
Tony

Phoenix, AZ

#10 Jul 25, 2009
For all farmers and non-farmers in and around Altus, here's a list of crops that don't require any irrigation water: Wheat, oats, sunflowers, sorghum, and alfalfa.

Save the lake!
Sassy

United States

#11 Jul 25, 2009
it was built for irrigation and farmers have used it for 50 years distroying it almost every year for anyone but them. It is time they let it alone. I have an Idea lets tax them for every gallon of water they use out of it. I'll bet they wouldn't be greedy with the water then.
Agent99

Dallas, TX

#12 Jul 26, 2009
The farmers pay for the water they use. It's not feasable to grow other less profitable crops based on land costs, equip. costs, etc. Most people quoting in this thread have no clue what they are talking about.
Sassy

United States

#13 Jul 26, 2009
Agent99 wrote:
The farmers pay for the water they use. It's not feasable to grow other less profitable crops based on land costs, equip. costs, etc. Most people quoting in this thread have no clue what they are talking about.
See its Greed I can't make as much so I am not going to grow it well boo hoo. Pay for it? How much a gallon?
Agent99

Dallas, TX

#14 Jul 26, 2009
It's not greed... it's called making a living, being productive, contributing to society (something you probably don't know anything about).

The water is not sold by the gallon, it's allocated and sold by the acre foot by the Lugert-Altus Irrigation District.
Big Elk

United States

#15 Jul 26, 2009
If it's not greed why not choose a lesser crop. Stop irrigation thus the expence you say you are out and make about the same money?
Agent99

Dallas, TX

#16 Jul 27, 2009
It has nothing to do with greed. The farmers are setup, invested in equipment, land etc. to farm primarily irrigated cotton. It's not economically feasable to switch to another non-irrigated crop by eliminating the water expense of ~$10/acre plus ~$30/acre foot.
In 1938 Congress authorized the construction of Lake Lugert-Altus and the dam. The lake serves 46,000 surrounding acres and provides for an estimated $300M additional annual economic impact. Additionally, the lake provides irrigation for over half of Oklahoma's cotton crop.
The lake and resulting irrigation was build to deal with the periods of prolonged drought faced in southwest Oklahoma. A side benefit is the recreational activities that are provided by the lake. If it weren't for the farmers there would be no lake to support the economic community's welfare.... as well as recreational activity at the lake.
Big Elk

United States

#17 Jul 27, 2009
Agent99 wrote:
It has nothing to do with greed. The farmers are setup, invested in equipment, land etc. to farm primarily irrigated cotton. It's not economically feasable to switch to another non-irrigated crop by eliminating the water expense of ~$10/acre plus ~$30/acre foot.
In 1938 Congress authorized the construction of Lake Lugert-Altus and the dam. The lake serves 46,000 surrounding acres and provides for an estimated $300M additional annual economic impact. Additionally, the lake provides irrigation for over half of Oklahoma's cotton crop.
The lake and resulting irrigation was build to deal with the periods of prolonged drought faced in southwest Oklahoma. A side benefit is the recreational activities that are provided by the lake. If it weren't for the farmers there would be no lake to support the economic community's welfare.... as well as recreational activity at the lake.
Sounds like the subsidies program Maybe Big Corperations should come out and take over. THen they could afford to change their crops and leave the lake alone. over 50years of water is enough. Plus where did you get the money for the Irrigation equipment? From the water from the lake making the High Dollar crops possible. It's time to scale back and be reasonable.
Agent99

Dallas, TX

#18 Jul 27, 2009
Big Elk wrote:
<quoted text>Sounds like the subsidies program Maybe Big Corperations should come out and take over. THen they could afford to change their crops and leave the lake alone. over 50years of water is enough. Plus where did you get the money for the Irrigation equipment? From the water from the lake making the High Dollar crops possible. It's time to scale back and be reasonable.
It's good thing you're not in charge of running anyting important!
Tony

Phoenix, AZ

#19 Jul 27, 2009
Cotton is a wasteful and unnecessary crop that sux up water that could be easily replaced by growing dry land grains that would actually feed people. I've never seen anyone yet who could eat a bale of cotton, have you?

However, I know that lots of people need to eat breads and cereals made from dry land crops like wheat, oats, sorghum, and sunflowers.

I suggest gradually raising the charge per acre foot every year by ten percent until the farmers "see the light" and wean themselves off mama's teats and onto production of actual food crops!
Tony

Phoenix, AZ

#20 Jul 27, 2009
Agent99 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's good thing you're not in charge of running anyting important!
Do the math for yourself. The price of cotton is about 60 cents a pound and the average field gets about 700 pounds of cotton per acre. That works out to a gross profit of $420 per acre. Now you have to deduct the costs of irrigation and the labor costs for irrigation, plus the pesticides and herbicides and equipment costs, which knocks the profit down to about $200 per acre.

Compare that with simple double row, no till (or strip till) planting of dryland wheat, sorghum, sunflowers; no costs for water or irrigation, no labor costs till harvest, no pesticides or herbicides (in order to earn more from an "organic" and "natural" grain). Dryland Kansas wheat farmers were getting 60 bushels to the acre this year at a price of $6 to $7 a bushel, for a gross profit of $360 to $420 per acre, without inputs.

When you do the math, it makes more sense to turn your farm lands into dry land wheat, sorghum, sunflowers, and other crops without the extra costs of water, irrigation, herbicides, pesticides, or fuel associated with them.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 10
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Altus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Free car seat safety event scheduled - 18 hr aintnew 1
For Mike Schulz Sep 16 As I see it 1
ROBERT ESQUIVAL who is his girl Sep 8 Michelle 1
Charles Inge aka Chuck Inge Sep 5 here ya go 2
Angelica Willis Aug 30 MangumSucks 4
cotton season fu n Aug 30 nine 1
Jennifer Brown Aug '17 Justwhoiam 2

Altus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Altus Mortgages