[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16059-16061]
[From the U.S. 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.
       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

[[Page 16060]]

     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 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

[[Page 16061]]

     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.

                          ____________________