• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sask. 'moving forward' with $1.15B Lake Diefenbaker Irrigation Project

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Sask. 'moving forward' with $1.15B Lake Diefenbaker Irrigation Project

    Sask. 'moving forward' with $1.15B Lake Diefenbaker Irrigation Project despite incomplete feasibility study

    Critics say the government owes taxpayers an explanation as to how this mega-project makes sense

    Geoff Leo
    The government of Saskatchewan says it is "moving forward with constructing" a $1.15-billion irrigation project, despite having never completed or publicly released a feasibility study that was supposed to examine whether it is a good use of public money.
    Earlier this year, Premier Scott Moe announced "we will begin construction of the early works" of the project in 2025.
    That has critics worried that the government may be launching an ill-thought-out mega-project — spending more than a billion dollars to benefit just a handful of farmers.
    Robert Halliday, a leading water resource engineer who has extensively studied the Saskatchewan river basin, says the lack of transparency has him worried.
    "Faith in government is plummeting," he said. "This kind of stuff just gives government a bad name."
    In April 2021, the province asked the accounting firm KPMG to do a feasibility study on the Lake Diefenbaker Irrigation Project, which is aimed at providing expanded irrigation to mitigate the effects of climate change. The study was to examine, among other things, what the project might contribute to the economy and whether that would justify the cost.
    That review was supposed to be completed by March 2022, according to the government's RFP requirements. However, the province says the document is still "not finalized," so it can't be publicly released.
    Halliday wonders why the province is moving forward without completing its due diligence.
    "It seems like the cart is before the horse here," he said. "It's almost beyond belief that after doing almost four years of study … they've got no product that's available for public release."
    Robert Halliday, a well-known Saskatchewan engineering hydrologist, worries about the lack of transparency around the province's irrigation mega-project.
    He said there are many crucial questions that remain unanswered. How many farmers will take part in the project? What will they have to pay to participate? What's the likelihood that increased financial benefit from irrigation will cover the cost to taxpayers? Could this project attract secondary processing and what would the impact of that be? And much more.
    He's also concerned that the government has, so far, failed to do any detailed work examining potential environmental impacts.
    He wonders if, with a provincial election looming in the fall, the government doesn't like what the KPMG report concluded.
    "Maybe the report found that the economics don't add up very well and that's why the province is refusing to release the report," he said.

    'How do you justify that expenditure?'
    Dave Marzolf, a farmer from the Lake Diefenbaker area who has been paying a lot of attention to this project, said that while it obviously would benefit the few hundred farmers who will get guaranteed water to their fields, it's unclear how this project is good for the rest of Saskatchewan people.

    He pointed out that spending $1.15 billion to irrigate 90,000 acres means a per acre cost of $12,778, or more than $2 million per quarter section.

    "The investment in those farms doesn't come back to the taxpayer," said Marzolf. "It goes into the pockets of those … farmers."

    The Saskatchewan government says it held public forums in rural areas near the project, and was met with significant interest and support.

    Marzolf, who attended some of those forums, said that's unsurprising.

    "That would be like being a Catholic and going to the Vatican. You're not going to get any resistance there," he said. "Go and talk to the average Joe Blow in Regina and say 'Hey, how do you like your taxes funding guys that are going to come out of this fairly well-to-do?'"

    Marzolf wants the province to answer a simple question.

    "How do you justify that expenditure?"




    #2
    Sounds like alot of money to bennifit a few farmers.Moe says food security.That is another name for cheap food policy which hurts most farmers.Saskparty supporters will be filling their pockets on this one.

    Comment


      #3
      Farms who get the water will be spending billions in their own infrastructure and land values will increase substantially. Not to mention increased production.

      Comment


        #4
        Sounds like a socialist plan. What kind of high value crop?

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by agstar77 View Post
          Sounds like a socialist plan. What kind of high value crop?
          I'm just confused as to why the most ardent socialists on this site are upset about the government spending billions of dollars on a grandoise public project.
          Or are they just upset because they didn't also socialize all of the farms at the same time?

          Comment


            #6
            Cuz its not THEIR govt. If THEIR govt spends half that amount on vaccines that get wasted * literally thrown out* then its crickets.

            * tumbleweed.... blows by*

            Comment


              #7
              Touring down south you can’t help but acknowledge the benefits of a properly utilized irrigation infrastructure. ie southern Alberta and Idaho. I emphasize properly managed and properly set up. I’d like to see a properly costed report with potential spinoffs and synergies. If it looks to pass the litmus test then why bloody not? Seems any major infrastructure projects done in the past also appeared dubious but many turned out to be beneficial to everyone. The petroleum detractors drone on about diversifying the economy from oil so it’s in their court now.

              Comment


                #8
                The infrastructure in southern Alberta due to irrigation is amazing without a doubt .
                but that’s led by mostly private enterprise?
                If the government sticks its nose too far into this project, it will fail .

                Comment


                  #9
                  Didn't say I support it, I don't know enough. I'm not even from SK. And Lethbridge is definitely not Outlook.
                  But why is building something so hard. Put a long term mtg on title like the Soldier's Settlement. High value crop can be anything comparitively when water risk removed.
                  I realize there's more to it by far operational cost wise etc. Neighbors moved to irrigation country in Sk and they continue to be astounded years later at the local negative attitude. They don't care, they're making good money...

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Was there a fight about water rights in Alta? Are there issues in Sask?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by agstar77 View Post
                      Sounds like a socialist plan. What kind of high value crop?
                      Pivots are mostly used to grow cattle feed?
                      Often silage crops.
                      Irrigation in Lethbridge supports the large and small cattle feeders.

                      Potato plants used to follow irrigation projects.
                      West of Boise where the pivots stop is desert that grows zero.
                      Nothing like Outlook.
                      Last edited by shtferbrains; Aug 22, 2024, 20:45.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I think Moe should rethink this project. I hate to think this government may be at risk of losing the next election if he insists on forging ahead. There appears to be little justification for the $1.15 B project where costs will likely balloon to $2 to $3 B.
                        Last edited by sumdumguy; Aug 23, 2024, 04:14.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by shtferbrains View Post

                          Pivots are mostly used to grow cattle feed?
                          Often silage crops.
                          Irrigation in Lethbridge supports the large and small cattle feeders.

                          Potato plants used to follow irrigation projects.
                          West of Boise where the pivots stop is desert that grows zero.
                          Nothing like Outlook.
                          Southern Alberta full of very high value crops , potatoes, seed production, very high value feed


                          no doubt canola seed costs are high it does anyone know what those producers get there for seed production
                          it’s massive .
                          it’s all prospective, there is a reason why

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Who will bennifit from this masive project?Do we need to subsidize to increase feed grains and canola production?

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by newguy View Post
                              Who will bennifit from this masive project?Do we need to subsidize to increase feed grains and canola production?
                              Thank you for confirming that this is just selfish jealousy on your part. What is in it for me, not what is in it for the collective economy. Spoken like a true hypocritical socialist.

                              Comment

                              • Reply to this Thread
                              • Return to Topic List
                              Working...