Tuesday, June 24, 2008

TVA and the corn crop

Sometimes it takes a while to realize when you’ve been duped, when you realize it is far too late to do much about it.

The federal government – yes, that one we call ours – sold our ancestors a bill of goods when they promised a new kind of fertilizer all could afford; to bring back to life the worn out soil in the South. Particularly the farmland in North Alabama.

You remember where to find that promise. Look no farther that the TVA Act of 1933. The words still are there. (Partial quote of Sec. 5).

The Board is hereby authorized—
(b) To arrange with farmers and farm organizations for large-scale practical use of the new forms of fertilizers under conditions permitting an accurate measure of the economic return they produce.
(c) To cooperate with National, State, district, or county experimental stations or demonstration farms, with farmers, landowners, and associations of farmers or landowners, for the use of new forms of fertilizer or fertilizer practices during the initial or experimental period of their introduction, and for promoting the prevention of soil erosion by the use of fertilizers and otherwise.
(d) The Board in order to improve and cheapen the production of fertilizer is
authorized to manufacture and sell fixed nitrogen, fertilizer, and fertilizer ingredients at Muscle Shoals by the employment of existing facilities, by modernizing existing plants, or by any other process or processes that in its judgment shall appear wise and profitable for the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen or the cheapening of the production of fertilizer.
(e) Under the authority of this Act the Board may make donations or sales of the product of the plant or plants operated by it to be fairly and equitably distributed through the agency of county demonstration agents, agricultural colleges, or otherwise as the Board may direct, for experimentation, education, and introduction of the use of such products in cooperation with practical farmers so as to obtain information as to the value effect, and best methods of their use.
(f) The Board is authorized to make alterations, modifications, or improvements in existing plants and facilities, and to construct new plants.

What happened to that dream of a healthy, productive farming community in the valley? The law still is there but the TVA chooses to ignore it to the detriment of farmers and agriculture in general.

I envision a vast crop-growing farmland area almost as large as the San Joaquin Valley in California. True, the soil in that valley is richer than most of the farmland in the South but it could have been a different story if the TVA had followed through with their charge to improve farming and agriculture as stated in the present TVA Act.

There is one major difference between the San Joaquin Valley and the Tennessee River Valley. And that is water. And it appears that water will become very scarce in the San Joaquin Valley in the not too distant future. Already some lands lay fallow for lack of enough water.

The Tennessee River and its tributaries have never run dry although the flow has slowed with the present drought conditions.

If irrigation had followed the enrichment of Southern soil with improved and cheap fertilizer (as called for in the TVA Act) it would not be hard to imagine a Southern “breadbasket”.

I do hope the corn crop is abundant and that their prayers for more rain would be answered with an irrigation system using Tennessee River water.

Ernest Norsworthy
emnorsworthy@earthlink.net

Friday, June 6, 2008

Alabama Legislature as Confused as TVA

TVA has Alabama legislature chasing its tail

Idiocy has been described as doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome.

But maybe the Alabama legislature is just being sly like a fox. I still call what they have been doing with TVA’s payments idiocy, “bribes” in lieu of taxes from the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Looking at it one way, every year TVA provides about $450 million of free handout money (5 percent of gross sales) throughout its far-flung, 80,000 square-mile territory. And there is a scramble for some of it wherever it shows up.

Several years ago, dry Geneva County, at the bottom of Alabama on the Florida line, doled out some TVA money to the little town of Eunola, population 182 at last census. The problem was that the town of Eunola had not had an election in 40 years. Later, Alabama’s attorney general ruled it too small for re-incorporation.

There is no indication that TVA is concerned how their money is used once they give it away. I could not find out what happened to Eunola’s largess.

North Alabama feels short-changed

Now, North Alabama legislators believe their part of the state is being short-changed because a number of dry counties in Alabama outside TVA’s territory receive TVA payments. Some of those dry counties depend on the TVA handout to balance their budgets. Crunch time for them if a new Alabama law cuts them off next year.

Today it is conservation, conservation, conservation

The craziness of TVA’s whole giveaway scheme is compounded by an entirely new direction for the TVA – conservation, cutting back on demand for e
lectricity. Presently, TVA takes 5 percent of gross electricity sales and gives it “back” in what they call “payments in lieu of taxes”.

But TVA suddenly has changed directions and wants their 8.8 million customers to use less electricity.

The other part is that not a single TVA customer, those who produce the rebate amounts, ever directly get a part of that rebate. These slush funds go to state and local governments who decide without further input from the ones who enabled the rebate just how to spend this free money. The money is free because nothing has to be done to qualify for it. It’s just there. Obviously, you do not have to live in TVA’s territory to qualify.

Change to conservation means changes in rebate system

First, TVA must change its method of a 5 percent usage payment to state and local governments to a 5 percent incentive payment, or a combination of the two, to the customers who conserve the most electricity.

The incentive would go directly to customers who cut back on electricity usage during peak demand for power, usually in the summer and some in the winter. Those who conserve the most electricity would receive a direct payment or a credit to their monthly electricity bills.

If this method combines the two kinds of rebates and any portion of the 5 percent incentive rebate to customers is remaining for each month, that money would be distributed in the usual manner to state and local communities as in the past, a “payment in lieu of taxes”.

Because this scheme would operate primarily during peak demand periods, the TVA would not have to purchase as much power from outside suppliers said to have cost a billion dollars last year.

One of the main features of this plan is that reward follows conservation, not reward following excessive use. TVA has stated that it would not increase electricity rates to induce less use of it.

Another advantage is that TVA already budgets for these payments and borrowing may not be required.

Reasons plan will not work

There are at least two reasons this plan would never make it through TVA management. First, it would show the nimbleness and innovation of management to meet immediate economic circumstances, traits never thus far exhibited by TVA; and secondly, it makes too much sense.

Ernest Norsworthy
emnorsworthy@earthlink.net
http://norsworthyopinion.com
http://norsworthyattheshoals.blogspot.com