VAL MARIE, Sask. – Pat Hayes was out feeding his cattle following an overnight snowfall of 20 centimetres that turned the hillsides white.
Until that healthy dump of moisture, Hayes’ cattle backgrounding and finishing operation at Val Marie, Sask., had received little moisture this fall.
He, like many other southwestern Saskatchewan producers, relies on irrigation to provide a guaranteed feed source for his 1,200-head herd.
With the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration’s plan to pull out of irrigation projects in southwestern Saskatchewan within the decade, producers are concerned about what it means to their farms, said Hayes.
Read Also
U.S. government investigates high input costs
The USDA and DOJ are investigating high input costs, but nothing is happening in Canada.
“When you talk about changing it, it devalues our whole operation,” he said. “If you take the winter feed away, you can’t afford to keep the cows.”
PFRA first brought irrigation to the area in the dry years of the 1930s and has operated the system continually since, with farmers paying a per acre operations and maintenance fee.
Next spring, area farmers will assume responsibility from PFRA for paying the ditch riders, who manage the water supply to the farms.
Farmers are also being encouraged to form irrigation boards to manage the system, but it’s a daunting and new frontier, said Hayes.
“PFRA had done it before. It puts us in an unknown area,” he said, comparing it to a city dweller being told they are now responsible for getting water to their kitchen tap.
He expected that some people now using the border dike irrigation, more commonly called flood irrigation, will seek some kind of buyout if available, while others will just stop irrigating. Hayes wants to continue his farm that is framed by gently rolling hills and started by his Iowa grandfather in 1906. He hopes to see his son take over one day.
Before he can look ahead, Hayes said producers need answers on water rights and licensing agreements, how much the irrigation will cost, what operating structures will look like, who will be liable for aging infrastructure and whether any funding will be available for conversions to more efficient irrigation systems.
“How do you negotiate when you don’t get answers?”
Hayes said the uncertainty is hurting sales and local land values. Without irrigation his irrigated land would drop to $100 an acre from the current $1,000.
He said irrigation benefits farmers and the town of Val Marie, whose aquifer rises with springtime irrigation.
“If the project quits, there’d be no natural recharge of the aquifer,” said Hayes.
The irrigation flows are now gravity fed, so changing the project to pivots and fuel-powered pumps is not feasible, he said.
“It makes no sense to burn a non-renewable resource to replace something that runs naturally.”
Hayes said his district produced about two tonnes of feed valued at $850,000 off 4,000 irrigated acres, while 2,700 irrigated acres west of Val Marie produce about $575,000 worth of feed.
Irrigators in the Val Marie area irrigate for 21 days in May, and 60 percent of the time a second irrigation happens in July.
Comparing the U.S.-Canada border region to a desert, he said temperatures during the growing season can soar during the day and plummet at night. The area is dependent on winter snow and for the last two years, there has been no spring runoff.
Irrigation water supplies are inconsistent so growing crops other than forage is risky.
“Due to the type of land, we are limited to what we can grow,” he said.
Rob Wiebe of the PFRA at Swift Currrent said producers will have to weigh the costs of irrigation and determine whether it’s viable.
“If this has become part of a farm operation and you’re not going to have it, they will have to make alternate arrangements,” he said.
Wiebe said some area lands can produce the same amount of hay whether irrigated or not.
Of the five PFRA projects servicing 20,000 acres and 250 patrons in the southwest, he said Rush Lake is the furthest along in organizing for the switchover. Producers in the region near Swift Current have an irrigation board in place and also have good water and soil.
He said the PFRA pullout stems from a need to be consistent in providing services across the province. Other districts operate their own systems.
PFRA is assessing the viability of existing structures and the costs of decommissioning, while encouraging producers to form irrigation boards.
Roger Pederson, outgoing president of the Saskatchewan Irrigation Projects Association, said PFRA needs to give the southwest the full 10 years to get ready for the changes.
