Water Use and Demand

[Ron]

good points cowman, i think i agree with you but. dont you ever sleep? I mean 4 am come on man, even your cows arent up at that hour and your kids are too old to be dragging their butts home and waking you up. just kidding, your posts are always interesting and i enjoy rading them.

[Ron]

whoops. I meant reading.

[cakadu]

My understanding of the natural capital concept is similar to what you are stating, cowman. There needs to be a price paid for the value of the natural capital and perhaps keeping it in its natural state, so the city person who comes out and pays the farmer for this rolling, hilly marginal land is doing just that.

I am still unsure of how various municipalities, including our own, are going to find this balance between economic development and maintaining agricultural land. What I hope does not happen is that the areas adjacent to the highway #2 corridor and around major centres like Red Deer get all the approvals for development while those of us who do not have those benefits end up providing the balance.

Development, particularly in this county, is going to be a very tough one to handle.

I couldn't agree more with you cowman that the preservation of farm land, the right to farm, providing environmental sustainability - or whatever else you want to call it - is a social problem and not just within the jurisdiction and control of the landowner. If it is important for the urban dweller to have all of these rural landscapes, then there has to be some sort of mechanism put into place that somehow compensates the landowner. There have to be incentives for the landowners to want to do this, otherwise there is relatively little desire to do it.

Many of us on the land want to preserve and sustain it and I feel that it is high time we get some sort of compensation and recognition for what we do.

[cowman]

Well Linda, I suspect we really aren't all that far apart on how we view things...hey if I could get someone to pay me to keep doing things just the way it is now I would be happy as a lark! But I would sure like some compensation...if possible!
Ron: My darned stomach gives me a lot of problems! Have a hard time sleeping very long so sometimes I have to get up! Other times I need to be somewhere fairly early...have an oil service business! Now before you shoot me let me say this...Although that is my bread and butter so to speak, that is not my favorite vocation! Have 1120 acres(well the boy does) and love all aspects of farming! Just cow/calf, rent around 250 grain land, but just love all types of farming...hogs, dairy, vegetables, fruit etc.! Just really interested in all types of farming! Am definitely a son of the soil!

[cakadu]

It has always been a concern of mine as to what will happen when the incentive dollars for environmental sustainability subside and the landowners are without any compensation for what they are trying to do.

I wouldn't want to see things remain just as they are, but compensation for ecological goods and services that are provided should in some way or fashion be recognized and paid for. If landowners are conserving, maintaining, restoring or rejuvenating the land, air, water and biodiversity, then they should be rewarded.

Substance follows form and it seems to me that there should be some way to ensure that concern for the environment goes beyond any round of incentive funding. Don't get me wrong, the incentives have their place, but we need long-term measures to ensure that there is continuity well into the future.

[cakadu]

linda, the environmental farm plan will apparently cost share on some initiatives with producers. Cowman, you really do sound like someone who loves the land and the agricultural business.
Hope your son has the same devotion to the industry and carrys on what you have built. I am sure you will be there to give some good advice IF HE ASKS FOR IT !!!
The folks I work with are continually amazed by the emails they get from me at 4:00 AM etc., but heck, a person can get a lot done if they get an early start !!!

[cakadu]

A peer reviewed farm plan that is deemed appropriate can be used to access the funding available from the Canada/Alberta Farm Stewardship Program (CAFSP).

The Alberta Environmental Farm Plan Company provides the facilitated workshops that assist producers in completing their "My Farm Plan" that then goes to peer review.

Participants in the environmental farm plan (EFP) workshops - there are 2 workshops usually spaced about 1 to 2 weeks apart - are taken through the process of how to complete the workbooks and the My Farm Plan that are available at the workshop.

The CAFSP money available for projects that fall under various Beneficial Management Practices (BMP's) on a cost-share basis, some 30% and some 50%. The applicant can use in-kind labor and use of equipment valued at rates in accordance with the Alberta Farm Operations Cost Guide (available at AAFRD).

Applications for CAFSP are available at the workshops. There is a maximum of $30,000 available for project(s) and the money does not have to be spent on just one project and could include multiple projects as long as the $30,000 limit is not exceeded. Right now the program is running until March 31, 2008.

[cakadu]

The one concern I have with the Environmental Farm Plan is that there is literally no reference to legislation regarding seasonal feeding and bedding sites etc. and the risk measurements in AOPA are different than those in some areas of the Environmental Farm Plan.

[cakadu]

This is an interesting point you bring up emrald. Could you maybe expand on it a little for me and I will send your comments (anonymously) to the head office in Edmonton so that they can have a look at it?

They're always looking for feedback on the binder and the contents and it is an important point you've brought up.

[cakadu]

One instance where the AOPA legislation and the EFP differs in the area of distance from corrals to water wells.
AOPA requires that manure storage area ( which includes feedlot pens etc.) must not construct less than 100 metres from a water well and the EFP puts that at a risk 2. That potentially could give an operator that was in compliance with AOPA a higher risk rating in their EFP. It is difficult for me to explain it in this post but there are areas in the EFP that could refer to the AOPA legislation or at least a one Page reference to what AOPA requires could be added to the binder. Folks can't comply with legislation if they don't know what it is.