[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 112 (Friday, August 3, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8878-S8881]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WASHINGTON STATE AGRICULTURE
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the Senate is about to adjourn for a
summer recess, clearly doing so after having moved this morning on an
Agriculture supplemental bill that does not truly understand the plight
of American farmers and the impacts in my home State of Washington.
The impact on Washington State farmers and the impact they have on
our State economy and the national economy is clear. There are over
40,000 farmers in our State covering 15 million acres of land.
Washington State apples are 50 percent of our Nation's apples, and
Washington State is the third largest wheat-producing State in the
country. We export about 90 percent of that wheat internationally.
Farmers in our State have been struck by a series of disasters this
year. They have suffered a drought, they have suffered a destructive
storm, and this morning they are left with an Ag supplemental bill that
does not do enough for the farmers in my State. In fact, this bill we
have passed, compared to the Harkin bill, leaves my State with hundreds
of millions of dollars less resources for both wheat and apples.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a document produced by
the State of Washington that details the elements and impacts of the
drought.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
How Is Agriculture Affected
The drought largely is the result of reduced snow pack in
the Cascade Mountains, which acts as storage for water that
is released during the spring and early summer. This water is
captured in rivers and reservoirs where it is distributed via
irrigation systems to farmers. This relatively reliable water
supply has allowed the arid fields of eastern Washington to
become some of the most productive and diverse agricultural
lands in the United States.
The drought affects not only the water available from
rivers and reservoirs for irrigated crops, but may affect
non-irrigated crops as well. Insufficient soil moisture of
prolonged dry conditions will reduce yields for those crops.
Agriculture is the core industry of rural Washington and
supports the small towns and cities of eastern Washington. In
1997, the food and agriculture industry--farming, food
processing, warehousing, transportation and farm services--
employed over 183,000 people. Farming, excluding farm owners
and families, employs about 84,000 people in Washington.
In, 1999 farmers harvested over $5.3 billion while food
processors sold $8.9 billion worth of products. Washington's
food and agricultural companies exported $3.5 billion of
products. The most valuable of these crops come from
irrigated land. About 27 percent of Washington's cropland is
irrigated, yet this acreage produces more than 70 percent of
the total value of all of Washington State's harvest. This
includes the most valuable crops: apples; cherries and other
tree fruit; vegetables; onions; and potatoes. All of the 20
most valuable crops, by harvest value per acre, are
irrigated.
Agriculture also is potentially affected by disruptions in
transportation, especially barge traffic due to lower river
levels. In the case of wheat, for example, there is
insufficient truck and rail capacity to absorb the load if
barge transportation is curtailed.
The current drought, unlike other recent droughts, is
occurring at a time when farmers are facing many other
serious challenges. Many smaller farms are likely to face
bankruptcy or leave farming. The weak condition of many
segments of the agriculture industry in the state makes the
industry more vulnerable to the effects of the drought. Most
farmers are in their third year of net losses due to poor
market conditions. Many farmers lack the credit to either
survive a year without a harvest or make the investments
necessary to mitigate the impacts--such as drilling deep
wells or upgrading irrigation and distribution systems.
Impacts on the production of crops also may affect the
market prices for those corps, which will affect farmers in
different ways. For example, Washington produces half of the
U.S. apple crop and a significant reduction in harvest may
increase the price for those farmers who remain in business.
Therefore, some farmers may suffer while others who have
water may actually see improved revenue.
The extraordinary rise in energy costs exacerbates the
problem for farmers. Farmers rely on diesel fuel for their
equipment. Current diesel prices are up 20 percent to 30
percent over last year's levels. The cost of electricity to
run pumps is expected to rise as much as 150 percent. The
price of natural gas, which is used to make fertilizer, has
risen sharply. Most of the irrigated crops are either stored
in controlled atmosphere warehouses or processed (canned,
dried, frozen, etc.) Cold storage and processing require
large amounts of energy (especially electricity and natural
gas) and water. If these costs force closure of the
processing plants, farmers may have no place to sell their
products.
Increased risk of disease, insects, noxious weeds, erosion,
and fire resulting from abandoned fields, are also concerns.
Without maintenance of the fields or removal of abandoned
orchards, the risk of damage to adjoining fields is
significant. The Washington State Department of Agriculture
(WSDA) has requested funds to assist local Weed Boards to
deal with these problems, while state and federal fire
officials are preparing for a potentially record year for
forest and range fires.
Ms. CANTWELL. It reads in part:
The current drought, unlike other recent droughts, is
occurring at a time when farmers are facing many other
serious challenges. Many smaller farms are likely to face
bankruptcy or leave farming altogether. The weak condition of
many segments of the agriculture industry in the state makes
the industry more vulnerable to the effects of drought. Most
farmers are in their third year of net losses due to poor
market conditions. Many farmers lack the credit to survive
another year without a harvest or make the investments
necessary to mitigate these impacts--such as drilling deep
wells or upgrading irrigation and distribution systems.
From Ritzville to Yakima, from Chelan to Wenatchee, the family farms
in my State are hurting. Just this past week I met with farmers from
Ritzville; they are wheat farmers. Wheat farmers are seeing a 14-year
low in wheat prices. They made it clear they need help and they need
help now.
Part of our discussion is what is the sentiment for support of the
family farms across our country.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an article from a
local Walla Walla newspaper about the impacts.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Poll: Voters Support Farm and Ranch Conservation Efforts
Walla Walla.--America's farms and ranches are important to
the nation's voters, and not just for their locally grown
food.
A new poll released today shows that voters value farms and
ranches for the conservation benefits they provide, such as
cleaner air and water and wildlife habitat. And not only do
voters want the federal government to support programs that
secure those values, by linking conservation practices with
farm payments, but voters are willing to pay to ensure
conservation benefits from farms and ranches.
A poll, a telephone survey of 1,024 registered voters
nationwide, uncovered strong support for American
agriculture, with 81 percent of voters saying they want their
food to come from within the United States.
[[Page S8879]]
Americans professed a close connection to farmers and
ranchers, with 70 percent reporting that they have bought
something directly from a farmer during the last year, such
as at a farm stand or a farmers' market. Voter concern about
farm environmental issues registers almost as high as for
current ``hot'' political issues.
For example, 71 percent are concerned about pesticide
residues on food and 69 percent of American voters say they
are concerned about loss of farmland to development, compared
with more than 80 percent of voters concerned about public
education and gas prices.
Seventy-eight percent of the American electorate report
they are aware of government income support programs for
farmers. Voters strongly approve of these programs when they
are used to correct low market prices or in cases of drought
or flood damage.
The addition of conservation conditions to farm supports,
however, received overwhelming approval, as 75 percent of
American voters feel income support to the American farmer
should come with the stipulation that farmers are required to
apply ``one or more conservation practices,'' such as
protecting wetlands or preventing water pollution.
``We were struck by how many voters make the link between
agriculture and conservation benefits,'' said Ralph Grossi,
president of American Farmland Trust. ``The public
feels strongly about all the values they see in American
agriculture; not only do they appreciate America's bounty
on their tables, they also realize farms and ranches
provide environmental benefits and they are willing to
share the cost.''
Several programs exist to support conservation on farms and
ranches, among them the Farmland Protection Program,
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and the Wetlands
Reserve Program.
For each of these programs, demand has far outstripped
federal funding in 2001. For WRP alone, unmet requests from
farmers totaled $568 million. This year FPP was only
allocated $17.5 million in funding--leaving a gap of $90
million and hundreds of farmers waiting in line to protect
their land.
``As expected, when we asked voters about how they wanted
to increase federal spending, they placed a high priority on
addressing pressing needs like finding cures for cancer,
educating our children and ensuring adequate energy
supplies,'' said Grossi. ``What we did not expect was the
finding that a majority of voters--53 percent--feel
increasing funds to keep productive farmland from being
developed should be a national priority.''
And voters are willing to spend their own money to help
farmers protect the environment. When asked whether they
would like to get all or some of possible $100 tax refund, 63
percent said they'd forego some of that money to protect
waterways, wetlands or wildlife habitat.
``With such strong support for agricultural conservation,
policymakers should triple conservation spending in the next
farm bill,'' Grossi pointed out. ``The programs are there,
and they work. With $21 billion allocated annually to farm
support payments by the budget agreement, half should be
reserved for conservation programs. It's just a question of
putting some financial muscle into making conservation
happen.''
``Over the past 19 year I have repeatedly surveyed farmers
and found them very willing to conserve natural resources.
These new results strongly indicate that conservation-
oriented farm programs will please not just farmers, but most
voters,'' said Dr. J. Dixon Esseks, a political scientist
from Northern Illinois University who directed the poll.
The telephone survey of 1,024 registered voters nationwide
was conducted June 2-21, 2001, with a margin of sampling
error of +3.1 percent in 95 out of 100 cases.
Ms. CANTWELL. This article discusses what Americans really want to do
to help family farmers. Actually, a poll was taken to understand
American support for what we might do in the Senate. It said that 78
percent of the American electorate report that they are aware of
government income support programs for farmers, and voters strongly
approve of these programs when they are used in a fashion to correct
low market prices or in case of drought or flood damage. We should be
secure in knowing that our constituents want to help family farms.
The family farms in my State are on the brink. They are on the brink
because our Governor has declared a drought in Washington State. The
drought, along with an energy crisis, is having a catastrophic effect
on agriculture. In many cases water is not available for irrigation;
the farmers have been unable to get the irrigated water supply they
need. Right in the middle of this trouble, a severe storm occurred and
greatly impacted the fruit tree industry in the State, ruining various
orchards throughout the central part of Washington.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an article from the
Yakima Herald that reads in part:
Silent and unyielding, drought stalks Central Washington. .
. . Crops are wilting, jobs are evaporating, income needed to
sustain family farms and rural communities is vanishing,
stolen away by this drought like a thief in the night.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Yakima Herald-Republic, July 29, 2001]
Dry, Dry Again
(By David Lester)
Silent and unyielding, drought stalks Central Washington
during this unsettling summer of 2001. Crops are wilting,
jobs are evaporating and income needed to sustain farm
families and rural communities is vanishing, stolen away by
this drought like a thief in the night.
The drought could mean staggering losses, estimated in one
analysis at more than $270 million in reduced income for
farmers, lost jobs and less money circulating through the
local economy.
Some of those effects already are being felt. Farm
employment is down. Farm service businesses are reporting
steep declines in sales and have laid off workers to
compensate.
Land has been idled in some parts of the Yakima Valley
because there isn't enough water to go around, or the water
has been transferred to another district suffering a worse
shortage. The Roza Irrigation District, among the most
severely affected, has drained its reserves of $2 million to
buy precious water.
And like victims of theft, area residents are sensing a
loss of confidence and an eroding optimism about the future.
They also are grieving.
Carelessness may have lit the match, but drought fueled the
fire that took the lives of four young area firefighters July
10 in a tinder-dry and remote part of the Okanogan few people
had ever heard of.
The entire Northwest has many weeks yet during which it
must deal with the threat of raging forest fires, much as
during the Chelan-area Tyee Creek and the Lakebeds complex
fires in Klickitat County in 1994.
``Locally in Central and Eastern Washington, we have the
potential to have fires like the ones in Montana last
summer,'' said Mick Mueller, an ecologist for the U.S. Forest
Service's Leaveworth Ranger District.
Wildfire blackened more than 600,000 acres in Montana and a
similar amount in Idaho last year. It was the worst wildlife
season in the West in 50 years.
preparing for the worst
When Gov. Gary Locke declared a drought emergency March 14,
the outlook statewide was bleak for municipal water supplies,
irrigation, migratory fish and power production. But spring
rains eased drought worries in Western Washington and the
dryland wheat country in the far eastern part of the state.
Doug McChesney, state Ecology Department coordinator for
drought response, said the Yakima Basin continues to suffer
because of its reliance on a limited water-storage system
that places a premium on a healthy snowpack every year. Also,
a greater percentage of Central Washington farmland relies on
junior water rights than the rest of the state.
When the snowpack doesn't come during the winter, the basin
suffers, as it has this year.
The numbers tell the story: As of June 1, the amount of
water in the snow was just 22 percent of average. All snow
was gone by July 1. The total amount of water produced in the
watershed through July was just 46 percent of average and the
second-lowest in 75 years, second only to 1977. Reservoir
storage on July 1 was just 66 percent of average, the second-
lowest in 60 years.
``The west side of the state is clearly better off. It's
the band down the middle of the state from the Cascade crest
to the east where the worst of the problems are,'' McChesney
said.
When higher energy costs, higher fertilizer costs and three
years of poor marketing conditions for apples and other crops
are added in, Central Washington farmers are carrying most of
the burden for the rest of the state.
``They are getting clobbered. There is no doubt about
that,'' McChesney added.
The region went through a nearly identical drought in 1994,
but as McChesney suggested, this year's record drought
couldn't have come at a worse time.
search for storage
Already reeling from several years of poor market prices,
the 2001 drought is staggering the area with another body
blow.
``Farmers are survivors, but they are being pushed about as
far as they can be pushed,'' observed Tom Carpenter, a
longtime Granger farmer on the Roza Irrigation District.
Carpenter and other basin farmers are once again pushing
for new water storage to insulate the basin from drought. The
five Cascade lakes in the Yakima Irrigation Project can store
less than half the water used in the basin each year.
No new storage has been constructed since 1933. In the
intervening years, the basin went through a natural maturing
process with the planting of more perennial crops like apples
and other tree fruits, mint, grapes, and hops that must have
water every year to survive. Also, a relatively new demand
for water to protect threatened fish is taxing the system
further.
Carpenter, a diversified grower and an active player in
basin water issues for many
[[Page S8880]]
years, said the people who built the basin found ways to get
things done.
``I wonder what's wrong with us. Why don't we have the
vision to do what we need to do and take care of everyone's
interests?'' he asked. ``We are just fighting over the
crumbs.''
The impacts aren't being felt solely on the 72,000-acre
Roza or the 59,000-acre Kittitas Reclamation District, where
farmers are receiving barely a third of a normal water
supply.
They are at the end of the line in a water-rights system
that favors those who were here first. The first homesteaders
have what are called senior water rights. Their rights are
satisfied first when there isn't enough to go around. Later
arrivals, known as juniors, share what's left.
It is a system that has led to the most restrictive
rationing in the Yakima Irrigation Project's 96-year history.
In 1994, junior users were limited to 38 percent of a full
supply.
But because the large irrigation divisions in the 464,000-
acre project have a combination of senioor and junior rights,
farmers in other parts of the basin, like the sprawling
Wapato Irrigation Project, are struggling with too little
water to have a successful harvest.
Adding Up the Dollars
A 4-year-old economic-impact analysis prepared by Northwest
Economic Associates of Vancouver, Wash., an agriculture and
natural resources economics consulting firm, suggests a water
shortage like 2001 would cut farm income in the Yakima River
Basin by $136 milllion, or 13 percent of the total in an
average year.
When the effect of smaller crops on processors, farm
suppliers, trucking and retail are included, the figure
balloons to more than a quarter of a billion dollars.
The firm prepared the report for the Tri-County Water
Resource Agency, a Yakima-based consortium of counties,
cities and irrigation districts working to meet all water
needs in the three-county basin.
William Dillingham, a senior economist for the state
Employment Security Department, said the agency is trying to
track the effects of a historic water shortage on employment
in Central Washington counties.
``Yakima County has a huge amount of its employment
associated with agriculture. When you tie in food processing,
transportation and ag services, that number begins to get
pretty big, pretty quickly,'' he said.
State officials have taken a stab at just how big. Using
the Northwest Economic Associates study as a basis for their
estimate, four state agencies in late June projected the 2001
drought could cut statewide farm production by up to $400
million, or about 12.5 percent of total farm production. In
addition, up to 7,500 farm jobs would be lost, as would up to
1,400 jobs in the farm-related processing, trucking,
wholesaling and warehousing industries.
The projection recognizes the local losses would not be
mirrored statewide because other parts of the state have
near-normal water supplies and would have average crop
production.
In the midst of all this, Central Yakima Valley fruit
growers suffered millions of dollars in crop damage from a
freak and powerful wind-and-hail storm in late June, with
gusts clocked at 108 mph in one Zillah orchard.
Looking at the growing tale of woe, a state official asked
privately: ``What's next, a plague of locusts?''
Fish are Suffering, Too
River flows depleted to record lows in some places because
of too little winter snow are threatening the Northwest's
multimillion-dollar investment in savings its declining
salmon and steelhead runs. More water is being used to turn
Columbia River power turbines to generate needed power,
exposing more fish to a near-certain death.
The Yakima Valley's celebration of a huge returning run of
adult spring chinook this year, the largest in at least 50
years, is tempered by the prospect that some of these fish
won't spawn successfully in low September river flows.
Also, young chinook salmon and threatened steelhead trout
starting their dangerous journey to the Pacific Ocean are
being subjected to higher water temperatures and more
predators as the Lower Yakima River, southeast of Prosser,
rides along slightly above minimum streamflows.
Higher fish losses this year would mean a smaller run of
adults in two to three years. Dwindling numbers could turn up
the pressure for more fish protective measures.
``Rising water temperatures may not kill fish by itself,
but predators are more active eaters when temperatures are
higher,'' said Dale Bambrick of Ellensburg, the Eastern
Washington habitat team leader for the National Marine
Fisheries Service. ``It's a double whammy. The salmon and
steelhead critters aren't functioning well.''
Drought Effect Reach Far
The struggle on the farm is being felt in town, too.
City residents in parts of Yakima and Kennewick are being
required to rotate water use to make an inadequate supply
stretch.
Workers in industries that supply farmers and process the
commodities they produce are being laid off because there is
too little work.
Duane Huppert, who has owned Huppert Farm and Lawn Center
in Ellensburg for 17 years, said he canceled a farm implement
order this spring when the initial water forecast came out in
March.
``When that came out, it was like turning off the business
as far as ag sales are concerned,'' Huppert said. ``It really
stops any farmer from buying anything when you look at a year
like this.''
``As a farm equipment dealer, our sales were cut
drastically,'' he added.
Huppert, who sells John Deere products, said he is
concerned about the lingering effects of this drought into
next year and beyond.
``This community is an ag community whether people like it
or not,'' he said, ``We get a lot of income from farmers, and
the money they spend goes through a lot of businesses.''
In the heart of the Yakima Valley in Sunnyside, Bleyhl Farm
Service, a supplier of feed, fuel, fertilizer and equipment
to farmers, also is feeling the pinch.
Verle Kirk, the firm's Sunnyside store division manager,
said the firm cut its work force in Sunnyside by about 14
percent to some 70 employees in response to a cut in sales.
Sales of irrigation equipment dropped when the Roza shut
down for three weeks in May to stretch its water supply.
Sales have not recovered, Kirk said.
Farmers are also buying less nitrogen fertilizer because of
higher costs for natural gas used to produce it. Corn seed
isn't moving because the crop requires more water.
``It seems like these guys are shopping harder.
Profitability hasn't been good the last two years,'' he said.
``It hasn't been good this year. If they don't make money, it
won't get any better next year.''
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the article goes on to state that the
drought could mean staggering losses of more than $270 million in
reduced income from farmers, lost jobs, and less money circulating
through our local economy.
The most critical stories are emerging from my State, including those
of the apple industry. An agricultural assistance bill such as the one
we passed that does not support apple growers fails to understand a
very important part of our agricultural sector. You heard from many of
my colleagues from New York, Michigan, and Maine about the fact that we
need to do something to help America's apple growers who are
experiencing the worst economic losses in more than 70 years.
Currently prices are as low as 40 percent below the cost of
production. Between 1995 and 1998, apple growers lost approximately
$760 million due to questionable import practices involving such
countries as China and Korea, in addition to the stiff export tariffs.
Growers like to be self-sufficient and would not ask for help if it
did not mean their survival. Many growers in financial crisis are being
pushed off their farms. One study has estimated that the numbers of
those leaving their farms could be as high as 30 percent.
We need to stop this exodus from the family farms by providing
farmers this year with the support and money they desperately need. The
Harkin bill would have done that. Instead, as the Senator from Iowa
stated earlier, with a gun to our head and without the recourse of
getting cooperation and support from the President or from our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we passed an Ag supplemental
bill that will mean hundreds of millions fewer dollars to the State of
Washington and to family farmers. We need to do better.
Many of my colleagues have talked about the shortcomings of this
legislation. So as we prepare for adjournment, as wheat farmers begin
their harvest, as apple growers deal with drought and suffer from storm
loss, as communities throughout Washington State and the country deal
with the economic impacts being felt by the agricultural industry, I
hope my colleagues will think hard about these issues and return in
September to do more for family farmers and to show our appreciation
for that industry.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Washington has
expired.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
[[Page S8881]]
____________________