Should farmers plant?  

March 18, 2010

   To plant or not to plant?

   To insure or not to insure?

   Will there be water, or won’t there be?

   There are more questions than answers for Klamath Basin producers trying to mitigate financial damage from the looming water shortage.

   A meeting last week conducted by the Farm Service Agency and two insurance representatives gave producers information about qualifying for government programs, and what they could still do to protect themselves this year.  

   Insurance window

   For wheat and forage growers, time ran out last year to purchase income and crop insurance.

   For barley and oats producers, a short window of time remained to purchase the insurance. Even if the insurance doesn’t pay, it is required to qualify for the 2008 Farm Bill’s Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments. Most policies must   have been purchased by March 15, and will take 10 days to kick in.

   The timeline is important because if the Bureau of Reclamation makes an announcement about water deliveries prior to the date the insurance takes effect, it could jeopardize farmers’ coverage, said Matt Hurley of Great Basin Insurance.

   “I hope they don’t come out with a designation too soon,” Hurley said. “It would add a lot of validity to these policies.”

   Merrill-area farmer Donnie Heaton spent nearly $12,000 on a new policy that will insure his income for the year. The actual cost, Heaton said, was $44,000, but the insurance was subsidized by the government, and he got a discount for already having some crop and no-plant insurance.  

   Heaton grows potatoes, wheat and alfalfa. He obtained a lease on land with well access so he could plant potatoes this year. The land is 30 miles from his farm. He will still give alfalfa a chance this year,   and said he would have been planting grain right now if he knew when, and if, water would be delivered to the Klamath Reclamation Project.

   “We would probably be planting if we knew,” he said. “The most damage is by not telling us anything. If they say no water, I’m OK with that. Then we could move on.”

   Water clauses

   Most policies have a clause stating farmers must have a reasonable assurance of water before they plant. Since there has been no official word on whether water will be delivered to the Klamath Reclamation Project, farmers could have purchased policies on the assumption water will be available.  

   “If you’re following normal farming practices, then you’re within the guidelines,” Hurley said.

   There are other considerations. To qualify for many programs or to make claims on lost revenue on rented ground, most producers will need to retain control of the   leased property. That often means paying rent and irrigation fees for land producers may not be able to farm.

   That was one of Heaton’s issues. Heaton farms between 600 and 1,000 acres each year, but only 50 acres of that is his own ground.

   The rest is leased. He had the right to renew a lease in the federal lease lands inside the wildlife refuges at Tulelake, but chose to let those lands go because there was no certainty for water.

   “The longer this drags on, it’s only making it worse,” he said. “You’re basically paying all that money out for the ground and you’re not going to plant it.”

   Heaton said waiting for word from the government on anything is a waste of time.  

   “The best plan you could have right now is to get a plan. Go at it like you’re not going to have any water,” he said. “If you’re going to wait on the government to figure it out, that’s not a very good plan. When and if they do (figure it out), most of the time, it’s too little, too late.”