I called the WSA minister's office...

[bucket]

To ask how much money they are spending on the Westside rehabilitation Project.

If they spend 25 million on 80000 acres of rehabiltion in engineering and soils , (((actually they are starting over and keeping the right of way of the existing canal))) that is 312 dollars per acre of subsidy before any major earth work happens.

Everyone knows that its the poorest of the poor taxpayer that is funding this not those who are given a wealth transfer.

Meanwhile the saskparty blames dryland farmers for their deficit.

[Guest]

has anyone asked them publicly about their $4B wet dream to irrigation ?

[bucket]

has anyone asked them publicly about their $4B wet dream to irrigation ?

I asked at public meeting in delisle and outlook in July.

They took a picture of my questions and ignored them.

Ran into the guy that took the picture at agribition. Great guy sent a message to those that are supposed to answer the questions.

The other guy sent me on a wild goose chase.

Another small factoid is the US gets close to 500 million of that project.

[Flatlander]

I asked at public meeting in delisle and outlook in July.

They took a picture of my questions and ignored them.

Ran into the guy that took the picture at agribition. Great guy sent a message to those that are supposed to answer the questions.

The other guy sent me on a wild goose chase.

Another small factoid is the US gets close to 500 million of that project.

It sure seems that irrigation has done wonders for southern Alberta. I’m not sure of the incentives that all went into that. Governments get tax dollars from development and from jobs that are actually created when there is a product that is in demand, I don’t know what the cost benefit is that this government looks at but it’s possible it’s not as bad a return for them as you are thinking. I remain open on this file but Bucket, can you explain what you mean by the USA getting 500 million?

[bucket]

It sure seems that irrigation has done wonders for southern Alberta. I’m not sure of the incentives that all went into that. Governments get tax dollars from development and from jobs that are actually created when there is a product that is in demand, I don’t know what the cost benefit is that this government looks at but it’s possible it’s not as bad a return for them as you are thinking. I remain open on this file but Bucket, can you explain what you mean by the USA getting 500 million?

2500 pivots x 150000 each plus pumps and probably any pipe.

Unless you know of a Canadian pivot manufacturer.

I asked the executive director this question ...""" How much of this project is going to the US economy "" point blank he said """"none""'

Just a little shade of red when i pointed out where pivots come from.

[bucket]

It sure seems that irrigation has done wonders for southern Alberta. I’m not sure of the incentives that all went into that. Governments get tax dollars from development and from jobs that are actually created when there is a product that is in demand, I don’t know what the cost benefit is that this government looks at but it’s possible it’s not as bad a return for them as you are thinking. I remain open on this file but Bucket, can you explain what you mean by the USA getting 500 million?

So government get tax dollars but are still on the hook for deficiencies after 30 years and still picking up the operational costs at $40 an acre for 5 years...where is the ROI to the taxpayer? The Outlook canals are needing a multi million $$$ upgrade that after the asset transfer are still the taxpayers responsiblity.

In the last year the Alberta government is approaching 500 million in irrigation infrastructure spending .

If any of the projects were self sustaining and reasonably profitable , they would be off the government tit by now.

But I have learnt in this area of saskatchewan, wannabe irrigators , have always had the tab picked up for them even before they were irrigating. Inherit the farm and daddy still pays for everything . Now with irrigation , Government becomes daddy.

You may not like the way I say it, but for the most part (99%) is true. I won't say 100% , I may have lowballed the government spending.

[mcfarms]

Here are some ROI numbers from an Alberta study in 2015
CALGARY, Aug. 20, 2015 /CNW/ - Every cubic metre of water delivered for irrigation creates three dollars to the province's GDP and two dollars in labour income.

This is one of the key conclusions in a study funded by the Canada-Alberta Growing Forward 2 program and commissioned by the Alberta Irrigation Projects Association (AIPA).

The study also shows that for every dollar of irrigation related crop, livestock and food processing sales, total GDP increased by $2.54 and labour income increased by $1.64. Overall irrigation contributes $3.6 billion each year to the province's GDP averaging $2550 per acre of land irrigated. The governments of Alberta and Canada are the beneficiaries of $1.3 billion in income annually from irrigation-based economic activity.

"We have known that irrigation is the lifeblood of many communities in southern Alberta but we wanted to be able to quantify our overall economic impact in Alberta" explained AIPA Chair Erwin Braun.

"A robust irrigation system plays an important role in the economic, environmental and social fabric of Alberta's agriculture industry. Our government will continue to support, build and maintain an efficient and sustainable irrigation system to ensure our producers are able to grow and diversify the industry while keeping thousands of Albertans employed," said Oneil Carlier, Minister of Agriculture and Forestry.

Other key conclusions in the study undertaken by Paterson Earth and Water Consulting from Lethbridge include:

The irrigation agri-food sector contributes about 20% of the total provincial agri-food sector GDP on 4.7% of the province's cultivated land base.
Almost 90% of the GDP generated by irrigation accrues to the region and the province and 10% to irrigation producers.
Using labour income as the criteria, 89% of the irrigation-related benefits accrue to the region and province, and 11% to irrigation producers.
Because of the growth of irrigation in southern Alberta, irrigated crop and livestock production has resulted in 38,000 jobs and food processing has created in another 17,000 full time equivalent positions.
Benefits from irrigation water and infrastructure used for non-irrigation purposes, such as recreation, hydropower generation, and drought mitigation, generated an additional $85 million to the provincial GDP and $71 million in labour income.
"We also wanted to know the industry's economic challenges for the future." Braun said. "And what the study shows is that there is a clear need for governments to work with industry to plan for potential impacts of climate change on agriculture, both positive and negative."

The study calls for long term water and drought management strategies, including increasing Alberta's water storage capacity and better communication with international markets about the environmental and economic sustainability of Alberta's irrigation agri-food production and new food production opportunities to meet growing world-wide demand.

NOTE TO EDITORS: COPY OF STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ATTACHED. FULL STUDY AVAILABLE FROM THE AIPA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

SOURCE Alberta Irrigation Projects Association

[bucket]

This is one of the key conclusions in a study funded by the Canada-Alberta Growing Forward 2 program and commissioned by the Alberta Irrigation Projects Association

FFS they needed government money to write a study.

Here is the smell test , if you can't afford the buck an acre for a study or 2500 to sled the land to qualify for the wealth transfer , how can it be a ROI to the province overall.

[mcfarms]

Our farm is 14 percent irrigated, this year those 14 percent allowed us to grow feed for our 225 head of Mother cows this winter without buying a pound of feed , the other irrigated fields grew as much saleable grain as the the total of our dryland acres. Our crop insurance payment on the dryland acres will be in the millions and will cost the province and federal gov't our revenue from the irrigated land will be in the millions and will generate income for the province both in tax revenue and the economic value created by the maltsters , millers, fractionators , crushers, feedlots, and beef processors and bringing in foreign currency from exported grains , from dryland producers this year in southern alberta there is maybe 15-25% of that value.
Personally I'd like nothing better to see sask stay out of the irrigation business, less product grown that way and less competition in the marketplace for my farm. Best of luck in your efforts.

[Guest]

so are you saying crop ins separates irrigated from non irrigated?

[blackpowder]

But Mcfarms, irrigation clearly doesn't work look at potatoes in Outlook. It has nothing to do with Sask govt over 100 years.
Why, I'll bet if they had the Crow back everything would be better. Feedlot Alley clearly a drain on taxpayers.

[mcfarms]

so are you saying crop ins separates irrigated from non irrigated?

yes and no , yes Irrigated is not eligible for lack of production but we can take all risk on irrigated which we do for the hail endorsement which has usually gave us better dollars per acre coverage at a lower rate than straight hail.. We have to combine and store dryland separate from irrigated in case of production shortfall and a claim audit which will happen this year.

[Rareearth]

Just to shake the agriculture divisive sword,

Sask doesn't need a cattle industry, nor should it be supported
As some suggest with irrigation

[bucket]

What support has the cattle industry had. $200 a head really is a joke.

When you compare it to the $10000 per acre to get water to the quarter line free gratis on the wet dream project.

FFS the proponents and capitalist farmers on the west side won't even pay for sledding their land to qualify. How the hell are they going to afford the pivot?

One guy, who is the hall of fame, couldn't even do the math that 4 billion on 400000 acres is 10000 per acre. he had to get out his calculator.

On another thread , it was mentioned the cost of getting natural gas to a farm yard . That costs more to install yhan this water project and its used year round.

[Happytrails]

In the cost/benefit world i.e. the real world the economics of irrigation largely depend on climate and markets. Long growing season supports irrigation. High value crops also. Short growing season and commodity crops grown far from market not so much. The irrigation districts in Alberta are a huge success story in many ways but so are the subsidies that make them possible. Not sure that the same model works in moister, cooler Saskatchewan.