California AG Land

[TOM4CWB]

I just read that 570,000ac of prime ag
land is projected to go under solar
'green' power projects.
And AP story Fresno CALIFORNIA.

Rain forests, carbon sinks, and food
supplies, Obama is causing this
development with subsidized tax and
spend policies...

He. Thinks this sustainable and wise?

Cheers

[wd9]

Without massive amounts of irrigation is it even
considered farm land?

[bucket]

wd9

Irrigation land is the highest subsidized land in saskatchewan. It would be cheaper for the taxpayers of saskatchewan to write these producers a small cheque and tell them to do it on their own, but they won't.

Saskatchewan is currently considering another project of 100,000 acres. Cost to the taxpayer to develop each and every acre, not including the farmers' cost on his own land - $5300.00

That's right the province of saskatchewan is currently considering giving 250 producers around marquis saskatchewan a direct subsidy to their farms of 5300 dollars per acre. Or for every 130 acre pivot the producer will recieve a 689,000 gift.

UMA engineering in their executive study has said the farmer can not afford to pay the capital cost. So the government picks up the tab - what do you call it?

[SASKFARMER3]

Yea wd it is farm land take a drive. Open you
eyes!

[wd9]

Haven't driven to LA in a while SF3 so it's why I
asked?

[agstar77]

This is what a conservative right wing government does? Are they crazy?

[bucket]

agstar


The worst part is they are listerning to guys that went through the farm debt review board three times and their brother was sitting on the board. These guys go to every meeting that Lyle Stewart(sask ag minister) is at and smell his farts.

Its outrageous really. They same arguments they used to justify the riverhurst district were used for the current upper Qu'appelle conveyance project.

They don't have the agricultural industry commitment.

They talk about a feedlot coming, but the water and feed grains are already here. Matter of fact there is feed grain being shipped to alberta from this area every year to the feedlots. Just another way of the government being sucked into paying for all this crap. The cattle still will be slaughtered somewhere else.


Remember spudco?

Riverhurst is not a young thriving community until the summertime and that is for tourism. There are no hockey teams left like there were up until the 80s. They are fewer farms.

The irrigation district just over the las 4 years has had an additional 30 miilion put into that project, so it is not self sustaining yet either.

BTW if anyone is interested there is a couple of irrigated farms for sale in the area. One is listed at 4 million for 1600 acres. A few years ago it was on an unreserved auction supposedly, the final bid was 400,000 and Hodgins packed up and wouldn't accept the bid.


Just some fast quick facts.

[bucket]

More fast facts.

20 years ago when irrigation got started the experts said to grow canola, wheat durum under irrigation was not a successful recipe. I still believe that. Here is why.

Take the proposed 100,000 acres and grow canola on every acre. Lets say yields increase 30bpa, a stretch but can happen, so that is 30bpa x 100,000acres equals 3million extra bushels which at todays prices is only an extra $42 million dollars gross.

Lots you say, but it won't cover the annual operating costs nor a return on investment that the taxpayers made.

It's proven every year at riverhurst that there is no return to the taxpayers from that project, as previously stated they are still looking for government help.

Riverhurst prior to the pipeline - land was worth 25,000 a quarter. Pipeline goes by - a recent sale dryland quarter sold for 300,000. The farmer did nothing to improve his land but reaped the benefit thanks to the taxpayers. That is a direct subsidy - no other way to look at it.

If i want to increase my production I don't get a blank cheque from the government, why should 250 farmers that, would all be broke if they attempted to do it themselves. That is the real smell test for the project.

[TOM4CWB]

Bucket,

In southern Alberta... it is working well and huge
productivity and diversification has been gained.
California is the veggie basket of the WORLD in
production. NO comparison at all. Water lawns/wash
cars/fill pools... instead of growing food; hardly can be
common sense.

Cheers!

[bucket]

TOM

How much did the provincial government throw at irrigation? Did they pay the full cost or did the producers that netted the most benefit after looking at the best crop to grow, spend some of their own money?

[bucket]

TOM

The reason I ask is that all these saskatchewan studies compare Saskatchewan to Alberta and what could be.

But none ever mention how much the individual producer put in.

I think the reason the industry grew in Alberta is that those producers knew they had to find more lucrative crops to grow to make it worthwhile.

[TOM4CWB]

Bucket,

There has been a historical difference between SK. and
AB.

1. There is a deep rooted faith base in southern AB
farmers... MANY were kicked out of the US under
persecution near the turn of the 1900's. They came
north and made the best they could... out of a
displacement.
2. Strong intergenerational roots and work ethic... faith
and hope that endured environmental stress... a whole
number of fundamental principals that drove
prosperity.
3. This multigenerational stability encouraged
innovation and encouraged large corporations to buy
in and back the innovation they created.

I do not see this type of roots in the Outlook SK
irrigation areas. Marketing is key to a successful
farm... and socialist SK government did not understand
prosperity.
Please note where the vast majority of Wildrose MLA's
come from. Property Rights, Common Law traditions...
and discerning respect for these principals... deeply
rooted... is a given.

[Horse]

Tom You didnt answer the question who paid.
Ken Kowlski built the three rivers dam and made a few rich but if I rember right it cost the tax payer over 500,000,000 and I will bet none was paid back.

[TOM4CWB]

Horse,

This is infrastructure... just like highways and roads.
Flood control, river flow control, irrigation, power
production; there are many different reasons these
systems were built.

Alberta Public dollars were well spent... to build a
diverse strong economy... which water security is a
base line requirement for stable communities and
commerce. Farmers pay well for the water they apply
each year... just as we pay license fees for our vehicles.

[bucket]

Unless those dollars are paying back at a minimum 5 per cent each year to the taxpayers, it is not a good public investment.

And spending 100's of millions of taxpayers dollars on a few hundred farmers without them paying their share is equally as bad an investment.

Here is why.

If the cities of Moose Jaw and regina pick up there part of the project, they recoup it by a water and sewer bill. So those 350 to 400,000 water users are vested in the project and paying their share. The potash mines will pay their share and use the make-up water and recycle it many times.

Now the high water users will be the irrigation and they will expect all taxpayers to pay for their costs, after they have paid for their own costs through their money water bills and property taxes.

So I guess the teapayers should be able to fill pools and water grass.