Diesels in the Mississippi River Valley

We are Net Irrigate are enthused about the upcoming release of the USDA Farm And Ranch Irrigation Survey next month. The data we analyzed in 2003 revealed some noteworthy characteristics that may have changed due to the shock in fuel prices over the last four years.  According to the results of the last USDA Farm and Ranch irrigation survey, from 1998 to 2003, the irrigated states along the Mississippi River Valley enjoyed some of the lowest energy costs associated with agricultural irrigation.

While low fuel prices and relatively fewer pumping hours helped drive inexpensive pumping, irrigation well characteristics also contributed.

Since fuel expenses are estimated to have more than doubled since the 2003 sampling period; the shock may have helped drive a switch to electric motors. We are curious to see if a decrease in diesel powered pumps occurred within the irrigated regions of the Mississippi River Valley.

We look forward to seeing if the fuel cost factor changed irrigation system characteristics. Stay tuned for our analysis next month upon release of the survey data…

Without Water, “Joe the Plumber” is Out of a Job

The presidential debate on October 15th made “Joe the Plumber” famous. But little was discussed about the most important aspect of plumbing: WATER. As both candidates talked about cutting the budget with hatchets and scalpels, I began to wonder what the future of the U.S. Water and Wastewater Agricultural Segment Budget might be! For those of you unfamiliar with this segment of the federal water budget, I’ll provide a quick overview…

The water budget allocated for the agricultural segment is mostly used to improve the conditions of water systems used for farming and rural consumption. A primary goal of the funds is to reduce water costs and improve water quality for rural users. The 2008 budget is around $2.9 Billion and is comprised of the following seven entities which consume the respective amounts:

• 6% – The Agricultural Research Service
  (www.ars.usda.gov/main/main.htm)
• 2% – The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
  (www.csrees.usda.gov)
• < 1 % – Economic Research Service
  (www.ers.usda.gov)
• < 1% – Farm Service Agency
  (www.fsa.usda.gov)
• 3% – Forest Service
  (www.fs.fed.us)
• 21% – Natural Resources Conservation Service
  (www.nrcs.usda.gov)
• 68% – Rural Utilities Service
  (www.usda.gov/rus/)

The majority of the expenditures are in the forms of loans and grants to address water system improvements. For example, the Rural Utilities Service provided funding for construction projects such as: new water lines, pumping stations, wells, storage tanks, and treatment plants.

As competition for water resources continues to increase in Western States, I urge our presidential candidates to not lose sight of mankind’s most precious resource as they plan their budget cuts. Likewise, I encourage stakeholders to gain an understanding of how these dollars might be being spent in your agricultural community by contacting local representatives of the agencies listed above.