4 billion for a few farmers/corporations announced today

Commodity Marketing

Tools

4 billion for a few farmers/corporations announced today

Jul 2, 2020 | 14:53 1 Only a few short months ago the ag minister said in writing they have no plans for major expansion projects....

So what has happen to fund this development at 6250 an acre for just the mainline...

And why cant the people benefitting pick up the 22 million in study costs...

This is from an ag minister who cant and won't support dryland farmers and ranchers through agri recovery or up the margin rates to 85 per cent...


Its pretty obvious they had the money to take reference margin to 100 percent if they chose to... Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • fjlip's Avatar Jul 2, 2020 | 15:27 2 Soon as I heard the news, I knew this would BURN a few 1000 farmers. Talk about picking winners and losers! IF this pays well then pony up and invest! I think this same area need DRAINAGE not irrigation this year. Lentils are way over irrigated from the sky. Need to inform/wakeup our MLA's! Reply With Quote
    helmsdale's Avatar Jul 2, 2020 | 16:30 3 There are currently water rights assigned for an irrigation scheme around my father in laws. They keep doing studies at the governments expense to show "progress" on the project, so that the water cant be allocated elsewhere.

    Most all the players that will benefit are in support of the project, but not a one wants to pony up their share of the project. My FIL couldn't care less about the whole project. Hes perfectly content to grow durum, lentils, and chicks. The majority of the irrigable dirt is heavy gumbo that can grow a respectable dryland crop on 4-5" of growing season moisture.

    The acreage isnt large enough to support a sugar plant, or french fry facility. Yet its sold as a HUGE BOOM for the area economy... I dunno, guaranteeing those inches of rain at crucial stages would be nice, but those become INCREDIBLY expensive inches, unless the governments paying for it. Reply With Quote
    Jul 2, 2020 | 16:56 4 Let me inform you people of the Riverhurst Irrigation project that was put in place 30 years ago....

    It is receiving 40 dollars an acre for the next 5 years ...200 bucks an acre and that won't end....it is not self sustaining...it will be on the government tit for decades...




    500 million announced for phase one. today...for 80000 acres is 6250 an acre for main water supply....taxpayers will fund this...it will never pay...unless they put performance standards of growing a high value crop on the land...farmers won't do it on their own...never.

    The 80000 acres that will benefit from this project on the west side ...maybe the government should go ask the farmers for $281 an acre to do the engineering study because my farm will never see a benefit from it...never. 22.5 million/80000 acres is $281 an acre for the study.

    If there was a remote ROI on these projects why is the government still funding them?????? Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jul 2, 2020 | 16:58 5 The quappelle south project willl need 50000 acres of drainage to make it viable because they are already growing 70 bpa durum crops in the area when they don't flood out...and have potholes everywhere....


    You would think the dryland farmers would implement the tiling before the pivot showed up....they won't....know why....its 1000s of dollars an acre. Reply With Quote
    Jul 2, 2020 | 17:17 6 As a dryland farmer I am expected to increase my production with natural rainfall and tough shit if it doesnt happen....

    Meanwhile potential irrigators will be subsidized to grow the same crop mix as I grow with government help while being guaranteed the water they need to grow it...

    Worse yet as mentioned in an opinion piece in the WP...well stated ...irrigation is growing dryland crops in Saskatchewan ....its a flawed thought process.

    But no one is reporting that...just that 4 billion will be spent ....yippee...ROI not likely...

    This is worse than subsidizing the dairy industry or bombardier. Reply With Quote
    Jul 2, 2020 | 17:31 7 Maybe some of you guys could read the opinion from R.A. Halliday in the WP this week ....he has some knowledge of this ...

    Every one likes an expert opinion...

    My opinion doesn't count because I use a cheap calculator.... Reply With Quote
    Jul 2, 2020 | 18:01 8 So the Government will spend millions to help farmers that get the short end of the stick when it comes to rain but doesn’t care about all of the lost yield up here because of flooding and actually make it difficult or almost impossible for me to drain any of that water to make my land more productive. There is nothing as stupid as government! All governments! Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jul 2, 2020 | 18:15 9 My advice....

    If you believe in irrigation....write the cheques....


    If you don't ...write your MLA Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jul 2, 2020 | 18:25 10
    Quote Originally Posted by seldomseen View Post
    So the Government will spend millions to help farmers that get the short end of the stick when it comes to rain but doesn’t care about all of the lost yield up here because of flooding and actually make it difficult or almost impossible for me to drain any of that water to make my land more productive. There is nothing as stupid as government! All governments!
    If you're from Sask, your current Premier was Minister responsible for "SaskWater". Who oversees Conservation and Development projects..... Phone or write Moe. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jul 2, 2020 | 18:26 11 BTW the bureaucrat in Regina said they are only spending 22 million on a study of the west side....not 4 billion as the press release said...he was just a bit stupid...

    But go ask the people benefitting from this explosion of growth to pay for it...I am not interested...because history has proven it won't generate shit unless the taxpayer is always footing the bill. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jul 2, 2020 | 18:30 12 How do all you dryland farmers who experience difficulties over the years not have or express your anger at shit like this....

    When at the same time the AG minister says there are programs in place for production problems...

    The programs don't work....and no dryland farmer receive thousands per acre in taxpayer funded infrastructure ....
    Last edited by bucket; Jul 2, 2020 at 20:41.
    Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jul 2, 2020 | 18:55 13
    Quote Originally Posted by farmaholic View Post
    If you're from Sask, your current Premier was Minister responsible for "SaskWater". Who oversees Conservation and Development projects..... Phone or write Moe.
    I am no fan of Mr Moe and his stupid drainage policy's Reply With Quote
    Jul 2, 2020 | 18:59 14 This is a corrupt government. Period. Reply With Quote
    Jul 2, 2020 | 21:27 15 Anybody benefiting from irrigation should be barred from planting insured crops. They should be forced to grow potatoes and veggies on that land as a condition of the water.

    Nobody is going to do that though because as we all know too well, growing something without marketing support for it is doomed to fail. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • helmsdale's Avatar Jul 2, 2020 | 22:14 16 Just spitballing...

    Would this be slightly more palatable if:
    -current landowners were required to pay all costs associated with getting the water from the canal/pipe to their fields as far as setup is concerned.
    -at time of sale, when it happens, current landowner is only entitled to the value of the dryland prior to the establishment of the irrigation district plus accrued inflation of similar dryland plus the out of pocket costs they had to incur? Anything extra would go towards paying back the cost of the infrastructure? Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jul 2, 2020 | 23:24 17 I sure would have liked to fire up some pumps before we got 1.09 inches with that last rain event!!!

    Like bucket says there is barely a bankable risk management program or insurance plan for dryland farmers worth talking about.

    A guy in the neighboring community set up a pivot sucking water out of a "marsh", yes a MARSH, that doesn't cover a very very large area. So it basically relies on run-off. But once that shallow marsh is dry it doesn't accumulate water from year to year that made it "look" like a viable source for irrigation.

    Oh it gets better.....this person also spear-headed a Consevation and Development Area that would basically move water out of that marsh and water "down" stream" that filled to make the marsh more full ....not decades apart either, at the same time-ish! How can you want both an irrigation source AND move water out down stream at the same time?!?!?!.

    One word.....HYDROCEPHALUS

    I wish I was making this up because some of my land is being levied for the C&D but am currently furthest away from the ground zero pilot project if the f-en thing EVER gets off the ground. The water course meanders across the highway, railway and a MAJOR pipeline corridor.....4 TIMES!!!!!! Good luck.

    So I'm levied C&D tax on land that will never benefit on a nearly impossible development of any work being done on a C&D......because it's in the greater drainage area and a one in 200 year chance it might contribute to downstream flow....lmfao. I agreed I have about 5 quarters that contribute more often but not regularly....but Mr. Hydrocephalus blind-sided me and had 13 quarters out of 16 we own included in the tax roll upon establishment of the C&D.....without consulting me. He learned I can be a valuable co-operative ally but a horrible antagonist!

    Even one thin dime of my federal or provincial tax dollars better not have "subsidized" that pivot sucking out of that dry marsh. If it did I want to have a discussion with the person who approved it!!!! Reply With Quote
    Jul 2, 2020 | 23:31 18 How about a subscription cost....$500 million for 80000 acres on the west side is 6250 dollars per irrigated acre...

    How about the farmer pick up 1500 an acre as a subscription plus post dated cheques every year as a ROI to the province...at 1% ROI on the remaining balance...

    4000 an acre at 1% is only 40 bucks an acre....see the recurring theme here....thats what the government is still paying the existing districts...its a no win for the province ...

    Every cheque would bounce. Reply With Quote
    Jul 2, 2020 | 23:35 19
    Quote Originally Posted by farmaholic View Post
    I sure would have liked to fire up some pumps before we got 1.09 inches with that last rain event!!!

    Like bucket says there is barely a bankable risk management program or insurance plan for dryland farmers worth talking about.

    A guy in the neighboring community set up a pivot sucking water out of a "marsh", yes a MARSH, that doesn't cover a very very large area. So it basically relies on run-off. But once that shallow marsh is dry it doesn't accumulate water from year to year that made it "look" like a viable source for irrigation.

    Oh it gets better.....this person also spear-headed a Consevation and Development Area that would basically move water out of that marsh and water "down" stream" that filled to make the marsh more full ....not decades apart either, at the same time-ish! How can you want both an irrigation source AND move water out down stream at the same time?!?!?!.

    One word.....HYDROCEPHALUS

    I wish I was making this up because some of my land is being levied for the C&D but am currently furthest away from the ground zero pilot project if the f-en thing EVER gets off the ground. The water course meanders across the highway, railway and a MAJOR pipeline corridor.....4 TIMES!!!!!! Good luck.

    So I'm levied C&D tax on land that will never benefit on a nearly impossible development of any work being done on a C&D......because it's in the greater drainage area and a one in 200 year chance it might contribute to downstream flow....lmfao. I agreed I have about 5 quarters that contribute more often but not regularly....but Mr. Hydrocephalus blind-sided me and had 13 quarters out of 16 we own included in the tax roll upon establishment of the C&D.....without consulting me. He learned I can be a valuable co-operative ally but a horrible antagonist!

    Even one thin dime of my federal or provincial tax dollars better not have "subsidized" that pivot sucking out of that dry marsh. If it did I want to have a discussion with the person who approved it!!!!
    Go look up the irrigation environmental Efficiency Program on Sask government website....that pivot will be funded up to $300000.00...and with some creative accounting i doubt the farmer will put a penny in on paper ...

    And thanks ...I learnt a new word today...too funny.

    It also sounds like a Ducks Unlimited project....they are that stupid..
    Last edited by bucket; Jul 2, 2020 at 23:41.
    Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jul 2, 2020 | 23:55 20
    Quote Originally Posted by bucket View Post
    Go look up the irrigation environmental Efficiency Program on Sask government website....that pivot will be funded up to $300000.00...and with some creative accounting i doubt the farmer will put a penny in on paper ...

    And thanks ...I learnt a new word today...too funny.

    It also sounds like a Ducks Unlimited project....they are that stupid..
    Would any funding for that project be recorded and published in the Sask Gov Public Accounts or is it hidden and lumped together with others to make them indistinguishable?

    Hydrocephalus.....lol, I have a creative mind some days. Reply With Quote
    Jul 3, 2020 | 00:04 21 Privacy would probably prevent finding the amounts or people receiving the funding. ...

    Make no mistake irrigation is the highest subsidized farming in the country.. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jul 3, 2020 | 07:34 22
    Quote Originally Posted by farmaholic View Post
    If you're from Sask, your current Premier was Minister responsible for "SaskWater". Who oversees Conservation and Development projects..... Phone or write Moe.
    Yes, irrigation brought to you by the same person who f**ked up my drainage. Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Jul 3, 2020 | 08:39 23 Interesting thoughts posted.

    Maybe it’s wiser to just divert the south sask to the usa? No compensation required, but they can build it.

    Don’t forget to shut the lights off.

    Janzen potash mine cost 4 Billion, yes their money, or some of it.

    Future wealth isn’t created by Covid type shut downs. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jul 3, 2020 | 16:05 24
    Quote Originally Posted by Rareearth View Post
    Interesting thoughts posted.

    Maybe it’s wiser to just divert the south sask to the usa? No compensation required, but they can build it.


    Don’t forget to shut the lights off.

    Janzen potash mine cost 4 Billion, yes their money, or some of it.

    Future wealth isn’t created by Covid type shut downs.
    They have been saying that for quite a while but quite amazingly dryland farmers who get zero support keep producing to help the economy....


    No dryland farmer is receiving 40 bucks an acre for the next 5 years....

    Future wealth isn't created by government spending on stupid shit like this....Nothing stopped a group of farmers from using their own money to do the west side project or completing it in the last 40 years except the fact that someone other than the few farmers would have to pay for it.....
    Last edited by bucket; Jul 3, 2020 at 16:09.
    Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • fjlip's Avatar Jul 3, 2020 | 17:08 25
    Quote Originally Posted by bucket View Post
    Go look up the irrigation environmental Efficiency Program on Sask government website....that pivot will be funded up to $300000.00...and with some creative accounting i doubt the farmer will put a penny in on paper ...

    And thanks ...I learnt a new word today...too funny.

    It also sounds like a Ducks Unlimited project....they are that stupid..
    DU is the cause of ALL Quill Lakes floodingcostly everyone one of us MILLIONS in road upgrades...in 2005 OMG the Ducks don't have enough water...F*CK the ducks azzholes! Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like