[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 72 (Thursday, June 8, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5654-S5655]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 AGRICULTURE DISASTERS IN SOUTH DAKOTA

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, extreme weather conditions pounded much 
of South Dakota in 2005, leaving nearly 60 out of the State's 66 
counties eligible for Federal disaster aid. Many family farmers and 
ranchers have had little reprieve from the previous year of harsh 
weather conditions, as blizzards and drought have already hampered the 
2006 production year. On top of natural disasters, low commodity prices 
and skyrocketing energy costs are forcing producers to make tough 
decisions in order to keep their operations afloat. I believe we can do 
more to help ease the burdens that our producers bear, and I want to 
draw the Senate's attention to a handful of South Dakota counties 
devastated by natural disaster in 2005 and into 2006.
  In 2005, 59 South Dakota counties were included in Presidential or 
Secretarial emergency declarations as either primary or contiguous 
disaster counties. These counties experienced natural disasters such as 
drought, high winds, extreme heat, flash flooding, hail, prairie fires, 
spring frost, severe storms, and blizzards.
  For example, 2005 marked the fourth consecutive year of experiencing 
drought conditions in central South Dakota, including Hand, Hughes, 
Hyde, Stanley, and Sully counties. Inadequate snowfall, meager spring 
rains, high temperatures, and desolating winds led to sparse pastures 
and a lack of forage crops necessary for feeding livestock. Without 
adequate precipitation, producers were forced to reduce the size of 
their livestock herds. Of the 57,500 acres planted or growing in 
Stanley County, losses ranged from 35 to 70 percent. In Sully County, 
50 to 70 percent of 280,075 acres planted or growing were lost due to 
drought conditions. Hyde County's corn, soybean, and sunflower crops 
experienced yield losses ranging from 50 to 80 percent.
  In southern South Dakota, Charles Mix County experienced much of the 
same drought conditions. While drought typically wreaks havoc on an 
area over an extended period of time, one day of particularly extreme 
temperatures and strong winds on top of severe drought can devastate 
already struggling crops. On July 23, 2005, the temperature reached 114 
degrees Fahrenheit with 45-mile-per-hour winds. These conditions led to 
a 60 percent loss of corn yields, 50 percent loss of soybean yields, 
and 30 to 35 percent of yield losses in sorghum, alfalfa, mixed forage, 
and grass. Neighboring county, Hutchinson County, experienced 100 
percent loss of prevented corn and soybean yields and 50 percent loss 
of corn and soybean yields.
  We are now in the middle of the 2006 production season and Farm 
Service Agencies, FSA, in parts of the State report conditions edging 
toward severe drought and fear that without adequate precipitation 
soon, many counties will be faced yet again with another difficult year 
of production. Livestock producers are increasing supplemental feeding 
early this year due to poor pasture conditions and lack of water in 
dams and dugouts. Farmers are left with very little to work with, as 
both the topsoil and subsoil lack the necessary moisture to produce 
operation-sustaining crops. This cycle of drought conditions has 
created a new element of synergism in the agriculture industry, 
compounding year upon year of devastating effects not only on 
producers' pocketbooks, on livestock and land conditions.
  Campbell County, in north-central South Dakota, is one among many 
counties experiencing drought again this year. Entering into its fourth 
year of drought conditions, with only 1.54 inches of rainfall to date 
for 2006, Campbell County is currently 63 percent below the normal 
precipitation for the area. Today, many water sources are dry due to 
below normal snowfall during the winter months yielding no runoff, and 
below normal rainfall this spring. In addition to drought, frost has 
forced producers to shorten grazing time on native pastures and native 
and tame greases.
  In central South Dakota, drought is rearing its ugly head for the 
fourth and fifth consecutive years. Hand County is experiencing yet 
another extremely dry year, with approximately 330 livestock producers 
affected and an estimated $210,000 needed in Emergency Conservation 
Program, ECP, funds to correct the damage. In Lyman County, winter and 
spring wheat yields will likely yield zero to 40 percent of normal. Row 
crops, which were planted into dry ground, are not germinating and will 
likely fail unless adequate precipitation is received soon. While most 
livestock producers in these areas have not liquidated as of yet, 
should these conditions persist, they will be forced to sell their 
entire herd.
  On the opposite end of the spectrum is Clay County, which experienced 
a series of heavy rains, flooding, hail, and frost in 2005. Much of the 
alfalfa affected by the excessive rain incurred a significant quality 
loss, because most of the first cutting was not able to be marketed as 
dairy-quality hay. The majority of producers affected suffered a 20 to 
40 percent of yield losses, while 100 to 125 producers experienced 
greater than 30 percent in losses. Of those with greater loss, some 
producers received assistance from the FSA Farm Loan Division in order 
to keep their farm in operation.
  Counties throughout the State have also been impacted by frost or 
freezing temperatures. Haakon County, in western South Dakota, had 
frost hit winter wheat and alfalfa crops in March of 2005, only to 
experience freezing temperatures two months later. Eighty percent of 
yield losses affected the 15,800 acres of alfalfa and 10 to 20 percent 
of winter wheat yields were lost. Among other counties affected by 
frost or freezing temperatures were Brown, Gregory, McPherson, Hyde, 
Potter, Brookings, Perkins, Clay, and Sully.
  Dealing with winter storms is certainly not new to South Dakotans. 
However, from time to time the combination of unusually high winds, 
freezing rain, and large snow accumulation results in the temporary 
paralysis of communities and agriculture operations. Not only did 
severe winter weather in 2005 and the spring of 2006 take a toll on 
livestock, but many producers were without electricity for days and 
even weeks. Producers' pocketbooks took an extra hit because of the 
high fuel costs it took to run generators around the clock.

[[Page S5655]]

  From November 27 through November 29, 2005, severe winter storms 
swept through much of eastern South Dakota. President Bush declared 42 
primary and contiguous counties as emergency designations. In Hamlin 
and Deuel Counties, 30 percent of producers' alfalfa and winter wheat 
were lost in that particular blizzard.
  Western South Dakota was hit with severe blizzard conditions on April 
18 and 19, 2006, dropping as much as 24 inches of snow. Harding, Meade, 
Haakon, and Butte counties were among those hardest hit by the spring 
blizzard, with the total estimate of livestock losses at approximately 
11,732. Harding County experienced the worst losses. According to the 
Harding County FSA office, 60 of the 300 producers contacted reported 
losses totaling 2,500 cows and calves and 6,000 sheep. For one producer 
in northwest Harding County, about one-third of his herd died when 
between 450 and 500 of his sheep piled up against a fence and 
suffocated. Butte County also sustained significant losses to their 
livestock herd.
  I briefly described the agricultural conditions South Dakota's family 
farmers and ranchers have faced over the last year and a half. The 
counties I described are merely a snapshot of the reality that our 
producers experience following a natural disaster. In some cases, 
disasters are limited to portions of one county, while other disasters 
span large parts of the state, affecting all producers.
  Every farmer or rancher knows that each production year is a gamble 
with Mother Nature. Unfortunately, all too often most producers at some 
point lose this gamble and suffer the devastating effects of a natural 
disaster. I understand the financial and emotional hardships that this 
places on many family operations' struggle to survive. Because 
agriculture is the driving force behind South Dakota's economy, it is 
crucial that producers receive the resources necessary to recover from 
their losses.
  In response to the many natural disasters that producers throughout 
the country have suffered, Senator Kent Conrad and I introduced the 
Emergency Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of 2006 on March 16, 
2006. Our relief package would provide emergency production loss and 
economic assistance to agricultural producers for losses sustained 
during the 2005 production year. Assistance for crop production losses, 
livestock assistance, supplemental nutrition, and economic disaster 
assistance to aid with rapidly-increasing production input costs are 
included in our bill. In addition, a number of provisions in the bill 
address agricultural recovery in the areas affected by Hurricane 
Katrina.
  Senators Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan and I worked to fold our stand-
alone bill into the larger spending bill, the Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act, H.R. 4939. On May 4, 2006, the Senate passed the 
$109 billion emergency funding package, of which $3.9 billion would be 
used for agriculture disaster relief. As a negotiator in the conference 
consideration of the bill, I fought to secure meaningful disaster aid 
for producers. However, House leadership demonstrated their priorities, 
leaving America's family farmers and ranchers out to dry yet again. The 
conference report that was presented to the committee contained only 
money for Hurricane Katrina-related agriculture disaster--not a penny 
was included to provide relief for the flooding and drought conditions 
that have plagued so many of our producers in 2005.
  While this administration insists that the 2005 crop year was 
outstanding, if not a record-breaking year, the disaster situations I 
just described indicate otherwise. This agreement was a raw deal for 
our producers and a raw deal for our rural communities.

                          ____________________