VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:15:11 05/17/08 Sat
Author: SS
Subject: ******************ARIVERLOST2NDREPORT****************

Noah Eaton
May 11, 2008
Science 354U

A River Lost: Second Report


Chapter 6

1) What are the various “subsidies” that farmers in the Columbia River Irrigation Project have received?
- According to the Bureau of Reclamation‘s calculations, as Harden cites: “every 960-acre farm in the Columbia Basin Project has been blessed with at least $2.1 million in federal infrastructure subsidies.” (119) where more “than nine out of every ten dollars needed for profitable irrigated farming in the Columbia River” (119) being supplied by “federal taxpayers or electricity consumers who live somewhere else.” (119)
As is cited on the footnote on page 128, under the Reclamation Act of 1902: “money spent on irrigation projects was to be repaid within ten years---without any interest.” already giving them a 14% subsidy on project costs at that time. However, particularly for political reasons by incumbent members of Congress who recognized that farmers “never could come close to paying back the government for the real cost of their water.” Thus, the rules were revised continuously; from 1914 when Congress stretched the repayment period to twenty years which increased the interest subsidy to 42 percent, followed by a provision in 1939 that said that “all reclamation costs that exceeded a farmer’s ‘ability to pay’ could be borne by other water users, such as consumers of hydroelectricity.” (129) In 1963, the percentage of construction costs Basin farmers had to pay was again cut from 18 percent to 12 percent, and the repayment period was stretched to sixty years.
Thus, by the 1980’s, according to the Bureau of Reclamation, twelve of eighteen major irrigation projects in the region had 80 percent of their construction costs not being paid by farmers, including 96.7% on one of the twelve.
Despite that, “one of every four farmers went broke in the first four years of the Project.” (130) and more than half failed to profit. Thus, irrigators began demanding more federal subsidies, which included a $171 million program to correct a draining problem by the Bureau of Reclamation, as well as various construction costs including sprinkler technology and the right to sell electricity generated through turbines installed on their canals.

2) Who are the other stakeholders (other than irrigators) in the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project, and how does the project affect their objectives?
- Other stakeholders in the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project include other farmers, the Bureau of Reclamation (who up until 1969 had primary management responsibilities of the Project, until farmers began taking over management, where they then “reduced the annual operating and maintenance fees they paid for delivery of water from thirty dollars per acre to twenty dollars.” (133), neighboring non-Project communities to who Project farmers sell their conserved water to, state and federal lawmakers, dam operators and engineers (especially the Grand Coulee Dam), mapmakers, hydrologists and soil experts. Native American tribal communities and environmentalists are also important challengers regarding the Project, who claim the increasing consumption of water from the Columbia River at lower prices are threatening the survival of salmon runs.
With Congress repeatedly decreasing the percentage of construction costs farmers had to pay, as well as stretching their repayment periods, the Bureau of Reclamation and other federal engineers have lost authority in the decision-making process over the past century, while farmers have gained. Therefore, as farmers and irrigators’ gross returns and profits continue to increase overall, and have immense muscle in terms of water-marketing, and state and federal officials continue to generally coax these constituencies for political reasons, federal engineers have been at an impasse, recognizing that under their original 1939 agreement it suggests that farmers have the right to reclaim water and sell the water that generates power at a deeply subsidized price, thus not getting the revenue they desire for projects the Bureau originally built and owned.
Harden also alludes to a “voluminous Dogma of Irrigation” beginning on page 123, rooted in the notion that “the only godly work a man can do is grow food.” and that “the American taxpayer has an obligation---economic, patriotic, and religious---to deliver cheap water to farmers so they can continue to do God’s work.” (123) which in result also has aggressive lobbying muscle behind it and an antagonistic stance towards environmentalists, Native Americans and salmon advocates, thus placing these three stakeholder constituencies in a constant defensive positioning regionally (note Osborne’s accusations of Native Americans documented on page 131, for instance)

3) What were the political role of Senators Magnuson and Jackson?
- Considered by Harden “perhaps the most successful pair of irrigation boosters in American history.” (132), they frequently “bullied” the Bureau of Reclamation over a span of four decades to provide for their farming constituents.
Some of their primary accomplishments included a 1956 law that lifted limits on land ownership for the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project that were at the time strictly enforced under the Bureau of Reclamation, a 1961 reversal for complete financial responsibility regarding the irrigation draining issue from the farmers to the Bureau, and having Washington State become the state with the highest percentage of irrigated land (54 percent).


Chapter 7

4) How does the use of water by the Columbia River Irrigation Project affect utility customers and customers?
-

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.