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

[chuckChuck]

Without the feasibility study we just don't know whether spending 1.15 billion of taxpayers money on 90,000 irrigated acres is worth it.

We already have about 100,000 acres of irrigation and only about 4% is in potatoes. So If more potatoes are the stated goal why so few on existing land?

Marzolf has valid question about who benefits in the end?

Likely it will be a small number of well connected very large farms. Moe is afraid to show us the plan for some reason? And he is rushing ahead before we know what it will look like?

"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."

[blackpowder]

If you had only stopped at no feasibility study and skipped the quote. What's his real problem?

[WiltonRanch]

If you had only stopped at no feasibility study and skipped the quote. What's his real problem?

Yep the fear loathing and envy finds its way of bleeding through with every Sask socialist. Valid enough concerns with this project but true deep down hatred of someone else benefiting and not themselves.

[newguy]

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.

Biggest problem over the years was tring to grow grain at a profit when competing with highly subsidized countries.In the end the subsidies end up making farmers keep going and supplying consumers with cheap food.As a farmer I say that is jut not right.Explai how I am hypocritical and socialist with those views.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

As of today, we are competing with South America and the FSU. Neither of which are subsidized. Quite the opposite, in most cases the farms are subsidizing the rest of society through export taxes etc.

While we are busy fighting amongst ourselves, and being bitter, jealous and resentful because our neighbor might be more successful than we are, the actual competition is eating our lunch, and taking our market share.

Quit worrying about what your neighbor deserves and doesn't deserve, and look at the big picture.

[RD414]

Problem is over 90% of the irrigated land in Saskatchewan is producing the same commodities as my farm, only they get subsidies on infrastructure, power, even their water cost is low. As posted by Bucket a couple of years ago, local farms didn’t even want to put in 2500 bucks in for a feasibility study. Monet is all in tho, supposedly his new 50 million dollar processing plant on east side of outlook. Maybe he will go all in on vegetables.

[cropgrower]

Biggest problem over the years was tring to grow grain at a profit when competing with highly subsidized countries.In the end the subsidies end up making farmers keep going and supplying consumers with cheap food.As a farmer I say that is jut not right.Explai how I am hypocritical and socialist with those views.

you shud try farming where farmers get subsidized ! its notting but a nightmare of regulations and inspections , and if you don't comply no cheque in the mail

[newguy]

Not against helping an industry to get going.But this is abuse of taxpayer money and may have an negative effect on commodity prices .Wonder if they will hire an oversea contractor that is forced to buy all its equipment from certain bussiness in Sask.Like the bypass.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Yet again Chuck posted a cut and paste without reading it.

Lake Diefenbaker Irrigation Project, which is aimed at providing expanded irrigation to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Until now, it seems that that any project that has been green washed with the climate change mantra was automatically approved by the left without any concern for economics or environmental impact.

Why the sudden change of heart? Is it because this one will actually increase productivity?
As opposed to destroying productivity is all of the other supposed climate change measures have accomplished?

[WiltonRanch]

One of the local colonies irrigates potatoes off the North Sask. Other colony down river irrigated a couple circles as well. The right kind of soil and topography to make irrigation effortless. Anyone else along there could do the same but it hasn’t been to much extent. Think around battleford someone was irrigating vegetables. Go to Sask water and put in a permit application with your proposal and when approved go buy your pump and pivot and see if it’s worthwhile. Maybe first identify a market for something you could produce which justifies the cost.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Most exciting day of the year for me is when the afsc yield magazine arrives. Comparing crop insurance yields across all regions of Alberta separated by irrigated and non irrigated.

One stat that jumps out is that the irrigated yields rarely exceed what we can do without irrigation out here in the swamp.

I suppose it's a trade off between struggle and expense of irrigation versus the struggle and expense of fighting a short wet growing season and potentially poor quality.

I'm not convinced that irrigation on the average bulk commodity is the economic panacea the detractors would like to believe.

[WiltonRanch]

Most exciting day of the year for me is when the afsc yield magazine arrives. Comparing crop insurance yields across all regions of Alberta separated by irrigated and non irrigated.

One stat that jumps out is that the irrigated yields rarely exceed what we can do without irrigation out here in the swamp.

I suppose it's a trade off between struggle and expense of irrigation versus the struggle and expense of fighting a short wet growing season and potentially poor quality.

I'm not convinced that irrigation on the average bulk commodity is the economic panacea the detractors would like to believe.

Exactly! North of lloydminster some farms and ranches use the treated city wastewater. Good way to use water twice and not be dumping it back in the river. Through the drought it was a godsend for some on the sandy ground. Some were pivoting pasture and getting some great carrying capacity. Some years later windstorms took out a guys pivot. He told dad it wasn’t worth replacing. Kind of telling when infrastructure was in place paid for and not worth replacing the pivot. Typically water isn’t limiting 7/10 years.

[shtferbrains]

Typically water isn’t limiting 7/10 years.

Nothing cheap about pumping water.
Most places that have extensive irrigation the forecast is the same every day all summer.
Warm and sunny with very little rain.
Add water and it's farming paradise.
But probably grows next to nothing if you get cut off on the water.

IMHO it's the guys with the pivots that won't be able to compete with the dryland neighbors if growing wheat and canola to haul to the local terminal.

Do they have enough grain in that area to have a terminal Bucket?

[westernvicki]

Would the Diefenbaker Dam have been built if it required a feasibility study.

Or, if we had a feasibility study on any new land bought, it would not work without massive cross-subsidy.

While I would prefer the money invested in a primary grid network, the one discussed when the CROW RATE was removed, any move towards diversification of our crops and economy is a good move.

[Flatlander]

Exactly Miss Vicki, Raferty, Alameda, Saskferco, heavy oil upgraders in Lloyd and Regina… guess who would have opposed those back then. If we must have government, then they should be the ones to build the basis for an economy.