[Vision2020] 65 acre feet of water equals $2 million of food

[Garrett Clevenger]

Good points, Gary.  I agree things are stacked against
my proposal.  Since you are a business owner, I'm sure
you realize how much work it takes to succeed at any
endeavor.  I don't know how you got to where you are,
but I assume you do what you do because you want to
and feel it's worth it, despite the headache you may
have of being a business owner and landlord.

The point of my proposal, though admittedly
far-fetched, is mostly to get people to think about
the cost of business as usual.  We can continue on the
path we are on, forcing our grand-children to inherit
the debt from our continued short-sighted lifestyle,
or we can make individual choices to do something to
insure they will have a quality of life we would want
as well.

The fact is, as fuel prices increase, food prices will
increase.  People can continue to purchase shiny,
tasteless tomatoes shipped in from Chile that are
probably grown using pesticides farmers in the US are
banned from using, or we can start to support local
farmers who want to grow you food.

Anybody who eats locally-grown organic food knows it
tastes way better than conventional food.  While there
may not be a majority of Muscovites who wants to eat
organic food at this point, there may come a time when
they grow tired of eating bland "Food Server of
America" food not only because it will be just as
expensive to truck in as to buy locally-produced
organic produce, but because organics taste better,
don't have toxic pesticide residue and have less of a
ecological impact compared to conventionally grown
food trucked in from California.

Considering the subsidies many food producers get, the
price we pay for food does not reflect the true cost
of growing that food.  Americans have some of the
cheapest food in the world not only because of our
highly mechanized and high yielding fields, but
because the government provides subsidies to many
growers.  People who grow organics should be on a
level playing field, but that is not the case, so
organics can be more expensive.  But that won't
necessarily always be the case, particularly if that
food is consumed locally.  Locally-grown food will
probably be cheaper, organic or not.  

We have the land here, 2 land-grant universities to
supply skilled labor, and seeing as how a retail mall
can swallow 65 af of water, we must have plenty of
water to increase irrigated farming.

While my proposal won't solve all our problems, I
believe it is a step in the right direction to
insuring a more sustainable future.

Gary also mentioned Hawkins Phase II which leads me to
remind people that the 714,000 square foot mall is
Phase I.  They have plans to develop the rest of their
204 acres, which means an even bigger impact than
Phase I will have.

gclev

--- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:

> Wednesday 080305 at 5:25A.M.
> 
> What do you imagine the difference is between WSU's
> organic farm and the 
> imaginary Hawkins development farm that you seem to
> think would solve all 
> the health, economic, and environmental woes or the
> Palouse?
> 
> Why do you imagine that a local entrepreneur hasn't
> acquired 204 acres of 
> "some of the most fertile farm land in the world"
> and become the fresh 
> organic produce king of the Moscow-Pullman corridor?
> 
> Could it be that WSU's quaint little farm has some
> very distinct advantages 
> that a privately operated concern doesn't?
> 
> WSU's organic hobby farm has:
> 
> >Tax free land, provided to the operator at no cost.
> 
> >All seed, supplies, and equipment are provided at
> no cost by the state.
> 
> >No need to service the debt of an operating line of
> credit or mortgage.
> 
> >No cost for labor or services, not just farm hands
> but lawyer, accountant, 
> >fuel distributor, etc.
> 
> >Most importantly, no requirement to generate a
> profit.
> 
> If you think that these minor little considerations
> are of no consequence, I 
> encourage you to join together with a couple of your
> pals, purchase some 
> land in the corridor, and give it a go. I'll
> completely leave aside for now 
> the questionable notion that you'll be able to find
> 20,400 like minded 
> people who are anxious to devour puny, bug nibbled
> veggies for a premium 
> price. I'm guessing that after a few years (very
> few) of dealing with real 
> world requirements of profit and loss  you'll be
> only too happy to sell your 
> little gold mine to whoever will give you enough to
> retire your accumulated 
> and ever expanding debt. Perhaps by then Hawkins II
> will be ready for 
> development.
> 
> g
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
> To: "vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 10:28 PM
> Subject: [Vision2020] 65 acre feet of water equals
> $2 million of food
> 
> 
> >I spoke with the manager at WSU's organic farm
> about
> > their water use and income, and did some
> calculating
> > to put a figure on what the water Moscow agreed to
> > give Hawkins would be worth in terms of growing
> food.
> >
> > WSU uses about 500,000 gallons to irrigate 3 acres
> of
> > organically grown produce.  They produce food for
> 300
> > people who subscribe to their Community Supported
> Ag
> > (CSA) service, and sell a bit at farmers markets,
> the
> > Coop and WSU Hospitality.
> >
> > They brought in $45,000 in 2007.  Since they are a
> > teaching farm, they are not producing as much as
> they
> > could, so this is a conservative figure.
> >
> > Based on the 65 acre feet of water Moscow may sell
> > Hawkins, and the 204 acres that Hawkins plans to
> buy
> > from Whitworth College for their development, here
> are
> > the numbers if that water and land were used
> instead
> > to produce locally consumed organic food.
> >
> > 65 af = 21,180,315 gallons.  This divided by
> 166,666
> > gallons needed to irrigate 1 acre times $15,000
> income
> > per acre equals:
> >
> > $1,906,228 worth of locally produced produce,
> money
> > made from something made here, as opposed to most
> food
> > that is trucked in, which adds a whole other layer
> of
> > costs.
> >
> > 204 acres times $15,000 per acres equals:
> >
> > $3,060,000 worth of produce.
> >
> > Another interesting number is if the 65 af were
> used
> > to produce food, 12,708 people would be fed.  If
> the
> > 204 acres were used to produce food, 20,400 people
> > would be fed, about the size of Moscow.
> >
> > If this water and/or land were used for something
> > everybody needs (food) in a way that insures
> > freshness, a cheaper cost (CSA subscribers
> generally
> > receive more produce then they would be able to
> buy in
> > a store at the same cost) and that money stays
> local
> > (as opposed to most of the products that will be
> sold
> > at Hawkins, which are often produced overseas,
> adding
> > a whole layer of hidden costs) it seems to me we
> > should be refocusing our priorities on how we are
> > allocated precious and limited resources.
> >
> > The Palouse has some of the most fertile soil in
> the
> > world, yet most of the wheat grown here is shipped
> > overseas.  On top of all the development that is
> > swallowing farmland, we are not utilizing for the
> best
> > something that has way more value then is
> currently
> > given.
> >
> > What a boon it would be for our health, economy
> and
> > environment if we irrigated this farmland to
> produce
> > food for ourselves, instead of bringing in stuff
> most
> > people don't need, and shipping out the food that
> is
> > now grown here.  Who doesn't understand how
> > short-sighted it is to use this land and water for
> > retail sprawl instead of food?
> >
> > gclev
> >
> >
>
=======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step
> Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >               http://www.fsr.net
> >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >
>
=======================================================
> > 
> 
> 
>