California AG Land

[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.

[bucket]

Its infrastructure if it supplies the majority of the people.

Lake diefenbaker was an infrastructure to supply the majority of the province with good drinking water.

The secondary industries like irrigation only benefit a select few, so it should not be considered infrastructure.

BTW, I have no problem with the upper qu'appelle project as long it is fully funded by those that benefit from it. I know the potash companies and the cities will put in their buck so why don't the 200 farmers that the irrigation put up theirs.

The irrigation should be 75 percent subscribed and a deposit made by those wanting water to their quarter line of about 4000 dollars per acre as a water right.

See if there is still interest.
1 billion dollar project, over 50 percent of the water will go to the irrigators so 500,000,000.00 divided by 110,000 acres equals equals 4545per acre. Less a 10 percent discount for being subscribed early equals the 4000 per acre water right fee. Now they can go spend another 1000 an acre to put up a pivot.

As I have told the principal consultants on this, if this project proceeds then the meridian dam has more value to being built. That helps both alberta and saskatchewan.

[seabass]

They only way to justify irrigaton in california is to grow high value crops. That land is total garbage. They call them valleys. But really are deserts surrounded by mountains with aquaducts running thru them. They can grow great crops with the wiz from sacramento

[blackpowder]

The way I see it; once the government has a dollar, it's as
good as spent. They might as well spend it in your back yard.
Applying rates of return to govt is a fools game. It sounds
like what you want is accountability. Can't comment on
specific projects. Can't even say what the correct method is.
But if you're wasting water and heat units you should be
held accountable. If you don't convert your real assets to the
highest end use, someone else will.

[bucket]

blackpowder

Good points, but the others that will convert the assets to the highest end use maybe will have the pocketbook to do it.

The problem with all of this stems from the fact it could have been done 40 years ago but the same problem exists then and now. The benefactors see they can't afford to do it. So they ask the taxpayers.

If i want to farm 20000 acres ( I don't BTW) and hire 4 guys to work, I don't get a blank cheque from the government to do so.

These guys want to irrigate, but they don't want to risk their existing business to do so, so they go begging to the government. That is the smell test for me. If you can't afford it on your own, don't ask the government to do it for you, unless its a 1 in 1000 year disaster.

BTW. I have a pretty good idea what it takes to irrigate and I really don't know why these guys want to do it with todays reasonable returns on dryland.

[Burbert]

Thirsty amerikie is lookin Nort, fer
water. Albertie wit its lust fer
pipelines'll supply her. amerikins are
our best customers, after water and
bitumen in that order. F'k it wes open
fer business, sell whatever we got ta hell
wit the next generation after all theys
gonna inherit our fat bank accounts
anyways, write?