Department of Agriculture

[Taem]

I was having dinner with my father the other day when the conversation of drought came up; I was listening to NPR news and overheard farmers who didn't have "crop insurance" having to sell their lands because they didn't have the resources necessary to keep a farm running. So naturally, I pondered why farmers don't sue the department of agriculture for not providing water for them, especially for the farmers that pay for crop insurance?

Whats the logic in that, you say? Well I was curious as to how much money is doled out for a typical crop insurance claim (but couldn't find any useful information) as opposed to providing a running Desalination Plant that runs on mostly Solar Power? And how is that, you ask? As an example, Santa Barbara county pays a water tax to have water from the Los Angeles area basin pumped into it's lake for us locals. If the pump were reversed, so that a Desalination Plant here on the coast were to provide water for the other counties, they could pay a water tax to Santa Barbara, but dig this, the more counties getting water, the less water tax they would have to pay, thus ultimately the expense of running the plant (combined with the Solar Power) would be negligible to the local community despite needing new filters all the time, and perhaps even profitable, and the cost to demanding counties would also be minimal. Given this logic, there could be Desalination Plants in many coastal communities on the East and West coast filling the lakes inland and being a small price to pay to everyone involved . When you compare this to the cost of failed crop yields on the economy as a whole, not to mention what is paid out in Crop Insurance, you have grounds for negligence on the part of the Department of Agriculture for, instead of "preparing for the future" - which is part of what their website says they do: link - causing a monetary loss through lack of preparation. This provable monetary loss from negligence = lawsuit to me.

But of course, something that seems so simplistic on the outside must have it's flaws, so I really must be missing something. Besides, I think if I'm not mistaken, each state has it's own department. That would definitely complicate things. Thoughts?

[Jester]

I was having dinner with my father the other day when the conversation of drought came up; I was listening to NPR news and overheard farmers who didn't have "crop insurance" having to sell their lands because they didn't have the resources necessary to keep a farm running. So naturally, I pondered why farmers don't sue the department of agriculture for not providing water for them, especially for the farmers that pay for crop insurance?

Interesting question. I can't say I know enough to really offer much of an opinion. I do, however, have a few questions.

1) If the government is functioning as an insurer, then how can they be sued for negligence? It isn't their obligation to provide water, is it? It's their obligation to pony up money in the event of drought.

2) Desalinization is expensive. Solar power is expensive. Are you sure that putting the two together would be cheaper than just accepting that crops will fail some years? Perhaps in some more food-scarce, water-abundant world, but I'm doubting it for this one.

-Jester

[Treesh]

The biggest problem is that, while it may help out the coastal areas, the majority of the farms are in the midwest and too far away from really large saltwater bodies for it be effective, especially since we don't have the infrastructure in place to physically transport the water into the heartland so there's yet more added cost to your plan.

[DeeBye]

Whenever I hear of water shortages in the US I get really paranoid about the fact that Canada has a huge amount of fresh water. We'd gladly let you have (or buy) any excess and renewable fresh water that would otherwise drain into the ocean. I just worry that an evil person in the US would have the idea of tapping into the US side of the Great Lakes and drain everything dry.

There is no way that the US would ever just TAKE resources from another country - right?

[LochnarITB]

Whenever I hear of water shortages in the US I get really paranoid about the fact that Canada has a huge amount of fresh water. We'd gladly let you have (or buy) any excess and renewable fresh water that would otherwise drain into the ocean. I just worry that an evil person in the US would have the idea of tapping into the US side of the Great Lakes and drain everything dry.

There is no way that the US would ever just TAKE resources from another country - right?

It's supposed to be a secret, but I know you're a good guy and would never tell on us so I'm OK with letting you in on our secret. The farmers here in Minnesota have taken some of their equipment that would be useless on the dried up farms and they used some good old farmer engineering to turn them into tunnelers. They're just gonna make small holes in the bottom of a bunch of the Canadian lakes north of us and then they're going to run them into bigger tunnels down to all their dried up crops. You've got so much water with all that snow melting into the lakes all year, you'll never notice unless you stick your head under the water to listen for the sucking sound.

Just don't tell anyone, OK?

[LavCat]

There is no way that the US would ever just TAKE resources from another country - right?

No need to worry about Zangarmarsh. If we want the resources we'll just annex the lakes.

[Taem]

1) If the government is functioning as an insurer, then how can they be sued for negligence? It isn't their obligation to provide water, is it? It's their obligation to pony up money in the event of drought.

I don't know. According to wiki, crop insurance can be purchased through private entities or, as you said, from the USDA. My issue is with the USDA claiming it's goals are:

promote agricultural trade and production, work to assure food safety, protect natural resources, foster rural communities and end hunger in the United States

It seems to me that to accomplish these goals successfully would require preventative planning on the USDA's part. I'm sure many would argue that same points the USDA does on their website:

Disaster and Drought Assistance
Drought is a weather phenomenon plaguing agriculture since civilizations began farming and ranching as organized ways to feed themselves. Drought that affects growing or grazing quality affects about a third of the nation's counties each year.

However, I'd counter that if you can't deliver what you promise, then perhaps there is credence to a lawsuit. "A third of the nations counties each year..." You'd think this might be an issue to address!

2) Desalinization is expensive. Solar power is expensive. Are you sure that putting the two together would be cheaper than just accepting that crops will fail some years? Perhaps in some more food-scarce, water-abundant world, but I'm doubting it for this one.

I don't believe initially the costs would offset. But firstly, it seems your looking at the picture of crop failures VS payout, as opposed to crop failures = raising prices for food = higher cost for everyone doing damage to an economy already in a recession VS the cost of the plant. In real life, a desalinization plant is without a doubt expensive to not only run, but maintain, and equipping a factory to run on at least 50% solar power, even with all of technologies leaps and bounds in the industry, would also be expensive as a start up. The payoff would not come for years down the road for the coastal cities which built the plants; collecting a water tax from the inland counties would take a long time to repay the costs. Which company would be insane enough to start a venture which would most likely cost millions, and not offer a return for years, if ever? None, of course, so this would have to be a national issue, something the US government decided was mandatory. Are we at that point now? Obviously not, but my theorycrafting was merely to point out that drought *is* preventable (part of the argument for the supposed lawsuit), and I believe the costs to maintain the desalinization plants by the coastal cities would be near nothing after the water tax and solar energy. The real issue would commissioning the plants to be built in the first place. But then again, I could be completely incorrect and the cost to run a desalinization plant might be so prohibitively expensive, that they would always run in the red regardless of how much solar energy or tax help they received. I really don't know; it was just a thought.

---

The biggest problem is that, while it may help out the coastal areas, the majority of the farms are in the midwest and too far away from really large saltwater bodies for it be effective, especially since we don't have the infrastructure in place to physically transport the water into the heartland so there's yet more added cost to your plan.

Indeed, and this could be the *real* deal-breaker. Brokering water-pipes from coastal cities to the nations inner-lakes would not only cost billions to build, but of course there would be geographical impact studies to fund, private properties that would have to be moved/bought... and new laws made on a national scale for who paid whom what. Yes, it would be a mess indeed.

[Jester]

But firstly, it seems your looking at the picture of crop failures VS payout, as opposed to crop failures = raising prices for food = higher cost for everyone doing damage to an economy already in a recession VS the cost of the plant.

Surely a direct subsidy is a cheaper way to counteract the problems of rising food prices? Or, dare I touch the third rail, just lower the tariffs on foreign agricultural production?

Desalinization is not really commercially viable at present. If it was, we'd see businesses doing it for profit. To solve exceptional droughts, you'd need spare capacity. Adding to that the pipeline problem, I think this would be prohibitively expensive. Now, for the future? I'm sure we'll start doing this sometime, as water stocks dwindle, and desalinization tech improves. (And droughts become more frequent, depending on the climate scenario.) I'd be interested to see it costed out, but I doubt this is feasible.

-Jester

[Maitre]

But of course, something that seems so simplistic on the outside must have it's flaws, so I really must be missing something. Besides, I think if I'm not mistaken, each state has it's own department. That would definitely complicate things. Thoughts?

edit: yeah, I just reread this post, and I'm realizing that it is meandering, argumentative, just slightly on-topic, and frankly not my best work. However, I don't have time right now to write something shorter and better, so y'all get the first things that came to my mind.

Mmmmm. Water rights...

First, I think you'd be barking at the wrong tree with this focus on the Ag dept. I believe natural resources come under the Department of the Interior (which is, in fact, responsible for things outside).

And then...
Let me pose the following situation: the state of Maryland owns the water rights for the Potomac River from the Maryland shore to the Virginia shore. However, tributary-front communities in the Commonwealth of Virginia tenaciously defend their rights to a) withdraw water from, and b) discharge into contiguous waters up until the point that the tributary ends, and the Potomac begins. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality is charged with preserving the ecosystems of these tributaries, but does not have jurisdiction over the river itself. VADEQ conducts inspections of regulated entities on riverfront property: do they have the power to regulate pollution discharged into the Potomac river directly? If the facility declares that they hold a discharge permit from the appropriate authority in MD, does VADEQ have a responsibility to investigate?
- What about facilities in Arlington county and the City of Alexandria? The shore on the other side is not the state of Maryland (it is Washington DC for those not familiar with Northern Virginia geography): this section of the river is controlled by neither MD nor VA, and falls to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency, a federal body).
- What about federal facilities along the river (like the various military bases in the area)? Their use of water is technically regulated by the state or commonwealth that regulates the water in question, however, in practice, the facilities in general view their control of the land as granting them control of the related waters.

I guess that was all to illustrate a particular point: Water rights are like minefields - best not set foot in there, unless you've got the right protective gear to clean up the whole thing.

The American view of natural resources as being owned by the first person to stake and defend a claim is not the most open to sharing resources across jurisdictions. As you say, buying and selling of resources does fit this mindset, but I imagine that there will be a number of entities who would line up against the redistribution of natural resources simply because it sounds like the redistribution of wealth.

Oh, and be ready to revive and consolidate all the discussion we've had, and others have had about invasive microorganisms.

Oh, another thing, who actually gets paid for the water that gets sold? Who does ocean water belong to? Local governments, state governments, and the federal government, along with private landholders might lay a claim to coastal waters.

Don't get me wrong: bringing water to areas suffering drought could solve a number of problems. My concerns are about how many of those problems represent root causes. On some fundamental level, the impact of drought is driven by the need for food (or ethanol depending on the crop that's drying up). If there were simply fewer people in the world, there would be less demand for food (and ethanol), making it easier to abandon agriculture in the drought prone areas of the world. But I'm not sure the modern human spirit is inclined to settle for anything less than total comfort, regardless of how much it may impact their future.

[kandrathe]

I was listening to NPR news and overheard farmers who didn't have "crop insurance" having to sell their lands because they didn't have the resources necessary to keep a farm running.

So, your first problem was listening to just NPR. Their slant will take you one way (we are all victims).

The government pays up to 60% of their crop insurance. Much like health insurance offered by your employer, the farmer should always have crop insurance -- especially when someone else is footing most of the bill for you. At the beginning of the year, well before you need to choose your crop and buy your seeds, the government sets the per bushel / ton strike price for certain commodities. The farmer is still free (and most do) use commodity hedges to further offset potential losses. (link to USDA RMA FCIC info)

So naturally, I pondered why farmers don't sue the department of agriculture for not providing water for them, especially for the farmers that pay for crop insurance?

Sure. If the government can tax you for not having health insurance, why not sue the government for their negligence in not forcing farmers to also carry crop insurance.

In fact, it would be so much easier for us if the government just took all of our income, and gave us an allowance for what they deem we should have for "spending money". <-- that was sarcasm btw.

Whats the logic in that, you say? Well I was curious as to how much money is doled out for a typical crop insurance claim (but couldn't find any useful information)

The FCIC, since 1985, has doled out $1.7 billion per year on average to pay farmers for losses. But, it is separate from Crop Revenue Coverage, which protects them against low prices. My calculations show an average premium was about $6640 per year. If the ratio of premium volume to crop value insured holds, then the cost per year is about 10% of the gross potential crop value.

...as opposed to providing a running Desalination Plant that runs on mostly Solar Power? And how is that, you ask? As an example, Santa Barbara county ... This provable monetary loss from negligence = lawsuit to me.

If I fail to use my safety restraint and are propelled through the windshield, is the automobile manufacturer liable? You are saying that the government failed to provide rain, or its equivalent (a complicated water infrastructure) to prevent farmers from loss. Where, they could have just bought the insurance, heavily recommended and subsidized by the government. On another front, California's attempts at irrigating their desert resulted in a big ecological disaster (Salton Sea).

But of course, something that seems so simplistic on the outside must have it's flaws, so I really must be missing something.

The latter, I'm afraid.

Thoughts?

All in all, it's a mess.

Some farmers have it too easy --

1) They get low interest loans and have a special ag bank infrastructure designed just for farmers -- it's not quite the same for your mom and pop corner store. Yes, farmers have huge capitalization start ups getting $5 million combines, with planter, and harvester heads. Then again, your mom and pop store doesn't start with the floor space of your local Walmart store either.

2) Tax treatment -- Certain agricultural income, such as unharvested crops, qualify for taxation as capital gains rather than ordinary income and, therefore, benefit from the lower tax rate (15%).

3) See my 1st paragraph above on crop insurance.

4) Grain stores -- smarter farmers invest (individually or collectively) in their local storage systems to safely stow away bumper crops in the high yield years -- when prices are low, and sell that grain at high prices during lean years. Easier to do for grains, not so much for oranges, carrots or watermelons.

5) The government has various means of price supports -- a $5 billion-a-year handout to grain and cotton farmers whether they need it or not. Livestock producers, and the growers of non-subsidized commodities are actually hurt by government price supports. Cheap grain would be a boon to cattle farmers, but the government keeps the average price higher than it might be naturally.

6) A federal ethanol mandate that will consume 40% of this years corn crop driving the price of both corn and fuel higher. The Renewable Fuel Standard requires that 13.2 billion gallons of corn starch-derived biofuel be produced in 2012. This is a huge boon for farmers of crops converted to ethanol and for the heavily subsidized ethanol producers and bad for everyone else. When you find the price of meat (and other food) is too high in the market, you can thank the ethanol subsidy.

Some of this is not all bad, in that ethanol blends will reduce smog in heavily congested parts of cities. But, the federal "one sized fits all" mandate treats rural Idaho like downtown Chicago. We've discussed here before how overall ethanol is a bad thing when it converts food into fuel (and water pollution). I'm actually hugely in favor of plant based ethanol where it uses switch grass, or other biomass taken from otherwise untillable land. That would be a benefit. But, it needs to operationally stand on its own without subsidies (and mandates) or it will distort markets (i.e. hurt us all).

7) There are many government programs promoting biofuel -- so, while the US energy policy is driving petrol (and coal) costs higher, and higher. The government is promoting special rural development aid for biorefineries to convert farm land into a means to produce bio-diesel to provide enough fuel to continue farming. If you caught the circular nature of this, good.

8) I have issues with the left hand and the right hands of government -- not only do we pay farmers to grow certain crops, we also pay them to plant no crops (Conservation Reserve Program), and to not harvest some of their crops. We subsidize certain crops, like tobacco, then turn around and use government intervention to tear down the market that consumes the product. It's too much of a health problem for us, so we'll export it to China.

So, when it comes to water projects (Great Lakes, draining Canada, or desalinization), I'm in support if a) everyone is on board, b) it makes economic sense, c) it makes ecological sense today and for 100 years.

[Jester]

Sure. If the government can tax you for not having health insurance, why not sue the government for their negligence in not forcing farmers to also carry crop insurance.

They can't force people to buy crop insurance. They can only fine (tax) you for not having it. That was the whole thrust of Roberts' argument.

Plus, sovereign immunity. You can't sue a government for not using its sovereignty the way you'd prefer.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

They can't force people to buy crop insurance. They can only fine (tax) you for not having it. That was the whole thrust of Roberts' argument.

Plus, sovereign immunity. You can't sue a government for not using its sovereignty the way you'd prefer.

Right, and right. I didn't get into sovereign immunity, but I was thinking it. They tried to force farmers to buy crop insurance or be disqualified for any other federal benefits, but it was unpopular and abandoned.

[Taem]

Some of this is not all bad, in that ethanol blends will reduce smog in heavily congested parts of cities. But, the federal "one sized fits all" mandate treats rural Idaho like downtown Chicago. We've discussed here before how overall ethanol is a bad thing when it converts food into fuel (and water pollution). I'm actually hugely in favor of plant based ethanol where it uses switch grass, or other biomass taken from otherwise untillable land. That would be a benefit. But, it needs to operationally stand on its own without subsidies (and mandates) or it will distort markets (i.e. hurt us all).

I don't have time to do the research, but wanted to make a quick comment: I was told South America uses switch grass for ethanol and has completely gotten rid of their dependence on oil. I also heard switch grass won't grow out here in North America, else farmers would have used that instead of corn. I'll check into it more when I get back from JURY DUTY...

[Mavfin]

I also heard switch grass won't grow out here in North America

Funny you would say it won't grow here. We had twenty acres seeded to it and other 'native' type grasses across the road from the house I grew up in, in north Missouri. Stuff would grow really high, too.

[kandrathe]

Funny you would say it won't grow here. We had twenty acres seeded to it and other 'native' type grasses across the road from the house I grew up in, in north Missouri. Stuff would grow really high, too.

It must be a rumor spread by corn farmers.

[Kevin]

I don't have time to do the research, but wanted to make a quick comment: I was told South America uses switch grass for ethanol and has completely gotten rid of their dependence on oil. I also heard switch grass won't grow out here in North America, else farmers would have used that instead of corn. I'll check into it more when I get back from JURY DUTY...

Almost all of Brazil's ethanol comes from sugarcane, and they are the only oil independent nation I know of.

Switch grass grows in the US (it's native to North America and grows from southern Canada down to middle Mexico). It's also fairly drought resistant. From what I've read it would be better than corn (corn is actually one of the worst crops to use for ethanol because of how badly it leaches nitrogen from the soil and it's a fairly low rate of return on fuel from biomass). It's my understanding that a few test farms have been set up to test commercial viability of switch grass for ethanol. One of it's other big advantages is that you can get moderate to high yields in soil that couldn't sustain most other "row crops". It can be used as feedstock for cattle, but it has issues for horse, sheep, and goats. It doesn't really have any direct human consumption.

So the main issue with it, and corn as well, is that you end up having energy production in direct competition with food production (only so much land and the entire edible part of the plant is used to produce ethanol). Sugarcane works in Brazil because most of the sugar cane is used as feed stock and it's the cane waste that is then used to produce the ethanol. With corn they use the grain. With switchgrass the whole plant. Sugarcane you get to extract the food part and either refine it (though humans don't actually consume that much of it so most goes to feedstock) or make feedstock and then what is left over can be used to make ethanol.

I'm not sure there is another plant that can have the acreage used to produce both food and energy at least in commercially viable processes. If you could make ethanol from everything but the kernel of corn then you would have the situation you have with sugarcane, but currently you get so little that it's a net loss to do so.

[kandrathe]

So the main issue with it, and corn as well, is that you end up having energy production in direct competition with food production (only so much land and the entire edible part of the plant is used to produce ethanol).

The issue is using tillable land that might otherwise be used to grow food, not with switchgrass.

I also have an issue with the government subsidizing land non-use, or the conservation reserve program, where they pay farmers to not farm putting tillable land into reserve, while on the other hand allowing the misuse of wetlands and marginal lands better suited for conservation. The result is more erosion, more flooding, and more social insecurity. It's madness.

You are right about corn based ethanol -- we actually lose energy in the process of making a more expensive less powerful fuel and suffer profound pollution as well. It is the quintessential case of ecological political correctness gone insane.

At least with solar panels and wind mills there is a hope of an energy return within the systems life cycle if they are used in suitable environments (and set their ecological factors aside). One of my gripes with Obama is the lack of progress on an public energy policy, and investment in this type of infrastructure. And to bring this back to topic, it would be a far better investment than paying farmers to grow more corn (or fail to grow more corn) to waste on ethanol.

[shoju]

I once read an article that said if one (government) were so inclined, they could take a 100 SQ Mile section of desert (the article proposed somewhere in New Mex/Ariz/Southern California) and with the use of solar panels, batteries, and the like, they could power the lower 48 indefinitely.

The resulting jobs would be a boon, the power would be a boon.

The article cited issues with getting it up and going, and the startup costs being massive as major hinderances. I'm sure that there are also fantastic logistical concerns, science problems, and the like with the proposal, and 100sq miles of solar panels = how much space to handle the rest of it?

But, it was nice food for thought.

[kandrathe]

I once read an article that said if one (government) were so inclined, they could take a 100 SQ Mile section of desert (the article proposed somewhere in New Mex/Ariz/Southern California) and with the use of solar panels, batteries, and the like, they could power the lower 48 indefinitely.

The resulting jobs would be a boon, the power would be a boon.

The article cited issues with getting it up and going, and the startup costs being massive as major hinderances. I'm sure that there are also fantastic logistical concerns, science problems, and the like with the proposal, and 100sq miles of solar panels = how much space to handle the rest of it?

But, it was nice food for thought.

The solar power hitting the Earth is about 1000 Watts per square meter in full sun at sea level. The efficiency of solar panels is increasing, but let's assume 15% of that power can be converted to electricity. Early in the morning and late at night solar panels have a much reduced output with maximum output near noon. A good rule is you can get the equivalent of about 42% of maximum output per 12 hours of sunlight - less on cloudy days. So a one square meter solar panel should provide 0.42 x 12 hours x 150 watts = 756 Watt-hours per day.

The US consumed 3961559000000000 Watt-hours in 2009. So, 3961559000000000 Watt-hours / 365 days) / 756 (assuming 12 hours of sun every day) works out to 14356595640 square meters, or ~5540.3 square miles. That works out to a square area about 74.4 miles across. And, that would be a solid collection surface. Realistically you could double that for spacing of collectors, and what not. I believe in distributive networks, so rather than one mega site, I'd rather see about 20 or so distributed sites.

The down side is that the first 6 years would be used to pay back the energy costs of building the solar panels. After that, free energy. Well, perhaps not entirely free with maintenance (keeping the dust off them and etcetera... Then, they'd need to be replaced at end of life which may be 15 to 20 years I would guess. The approximate cost per square meter is £250 or about $390. That works out to a project cost just for the panels of 14356595640 * $392 = ~ $5.620 trillion

So, lets for simplicity we need about $7.5 trillion every 20 years to build and maintain the infrastructure to provide power for about 312 million people. That's $7.5 trillion / 20 years = $370.5 billion per year, and for 312 million people is about $1200 per person per year. Pretty good expensive. And, due to weather and seasons, and nighttime, we'd still need some other form of power production or storage for the non-sunny times.

Edit: Multiplied everything by 10... Thx Jester.

[Taem]

So, lets for simplicity we need about $750 billion every 20 years to build and maintain the infrastructure to provide power for about 312 million people. That's $750 billion / 20 years = $37.5 billion per year, and for 312 million people is about $120 per person per year. Pretty good. And, due to weather and seasons, and nighttime, we'd still need some other form of power production or storage for the non-sunny times.

Interesting suggestions going on in here. Your math is lacking a 3% yearly inflation on the final 15-20 year replacement cost which would have to be factored into the end cost, and the cost of labor to upkeep the utility. I'd say a flat 0.1% federal tax would cover the labor costs. You want to start an online petition to start this project ?