Hey, everybody’s gone ape over the prospect of ethanol: The farmers, the investors in ethanol refineries, politicians, columnists, editorial writers, Wall Street, Agra corporate giants, etc. But has anyone noticed the potential crisis in our water supply that has been the subject of such luminaries as National Geographic? (There’s a saying: “We will argue over oil, but will fight over water.”)

The production of ethanol is reported to consume huge volumes of water in the process of converting cornstarch into sugar, suitable for production of ethanol. This could result in the lowering of available water in our aquifers.

The potential crisis in our supply of potable water is enormous, much less of great concern for those farmers and ranchers who need a dependable supply of water for their livestock.

There were two articles in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch some months ago by two unassociated scientists who pointed out that, considering all the costs in energy to produce and deliver one gallon of ethanol to the tank of a driver, more than one gallon of gasoline was consumed.

Nobody is addressing this. It’s not the political thing to do. Brazil, one of the largest producers of ethanol, consumes much less energy to produce this fuel, as they do not have to convert sugar cane waste into sugar, whereas cornstarch must be converted into sugar before it can produce ethanol.

There is something obscene in producing a food product, not to feed the hungry billions of starving people in our world, but to feed our insatiable demand for always more fuel to drive our gas-hogs. I’ve watched your publication to see if it will balance all the mania for ethanol with some of these points, but I haven’t found any. It’s possible that I just overlooked it.

One more thought on this subject. I have read and heard that many farmers, especially those in the heavy corn-production states, are ecstatic at the prospect of getting a much higher price per bushel of corn that the demand for ethanol will create. I am sympathetic to all farmers; they have been the low man on the totem pole in compensation for their production, whether grain or meat, for far too long.

Little notice has been given to what this higher cost for corn and its products will mean to the rancher or farmer who raises beef, pork, lamb or poultry - or the consumer of these meats. But the housewife will certainly notice it when they buy a steak or a pork chop or a leg of lamb or a dozen eggs or any product in which corn syrup is an important ingredient.

Would you address this issue in your fine newspaper that covers agriculture news so thoroughly?