LITTLE ROCK — With no further federal funding in hand, the managers of two huge east Arkansas irrigation projects are scrambling to secure enough money to at least keep the projects moving forward once construction and design contracts are complete.
While the Grand Prairie Area Demonstration Project received only $592,000, the Bayou Meto Project didn’t receive any federal dollars during fiscal 2012, which ends Sept. 30.
Work on both projects has been ongoing using appropriations from past years.
So far, about $98 million has been spent on the Grand Prairie project, which will cost an estimated $450 million when complete. Another $81 million has been spent on the Bayou Meto project, which carries a $614 million price tag.
On Tuesday, project leaders said they are hoping that Congress will agree to “reprogramming” about $11.4 million the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has available from other projects that was never spent to keep the two Arkansas projects moving forward.
“With two months left in the fiscal year, we still don’t know what’s going to happen,” Paul Hamm, the Corps of Engineers supervisory project manager for the Grand Prairie and Bayou Meto projects.
Greg Grugett, the Corps’ Grand Prairie project manager, said current contracts being done with earlier appropriations are nearing completion and that all “existing federal money” has been obligated. He said the Corps is trying to get as much design work done as possible to have various aspects of the project “shovel ready,” but if no further federal funds are approved, then steps will have to be taken to protect unfinished facilities, such as pumps and other structures.
The Corps’ manager for the Bayou Meto project, Tracy James, agreed, saying the government would have to protect existing facilities in the event of a shutdown.
The Grand Prairie project involves diverting water from the White River through a pumping station now under construction near DeValls Bluff to a series of reservoirs that will be used by farmers in Arkansas, Jefferson, Lonoke, Prairie and Pulaski counties. It will serve 264,000 acres of farmland through 102 miles of canals and 290 miles of pipelines for a distribution system costing $208 million.
The Bayou Meto project would take water from the Arkansas River to irrigate cropland in the Bayou Meto basin. It also would help with flood control and wildlife habitat. Two pumping stations are nearly complete. When complete, the project will affect 268,000 acres of farmland and involve 465 miles of new pipeline and 107 miles of canals.
Both projects, funded through a 65 percent federal-35 percent state match, call for on-farm reservoirs and waterrecovery techniques to help farmers irrigate crops.
A key hurdle for the projects to overcome is the attitude among some members of Congress against budget “earmarks.”
Both projects have been provided funding through earmarks, the term used to describe money set aside for a particular project in a particular district or districts.
Randy Young, executive director of the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, and Gene Sullivan, project director for the Bayou Meto Water Management District, both said the Arkansas congressional delegation was working to secure additional funding for the two projects.
On Tuesday, a member of the House Agriculture Committee, U.S. Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Ark., noted how important both irrigation projects are to Arkansas farmers and said he’d keep working with other delegation members to secure funding.
“While Congress tries to do more with less, I am working to educate members of Congress from other areas of the country that irrigation systems ensure crop production against losses, and will ultimately save the government money from expensive crop-insurance programs,” Crawford said.
While U.S. Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark., a member of House Appropriations Committee, said he is “completely at home” in the House’s noearmark environment, it needs to be balanced with the “rightful role” of lawmakers determining what’s best for their districts.
U.S. Sen. John Boozman, RArk., said he worked closely with fellow Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor, a Democrat, to get Senate approval for the reprogramming of the money, which he said was requested by the Corps of Engineers.
Now, Boozman said, both senators are ready to help Crawford push the House to fund the projects.
“The region desperately needs a reliable agricultural water supply but also to protect the groundwater,” Boozman said. While the Corps has given the Arkansas projects a lot of support, it has had to divert funds for problems such as flooding earlier this year. Even then, Boozman called the two projects “pretty noncontroversial.”
The lack of federal dollars comes at a time when farmers in Arkansas and around the nation are seeing crops fail or a drop in yields because of the severe drought.
Farmers “are pumping the Sparta aquifer hard because that’s what’s left,” said Dennis Carman, chief engineer and director of the Grand Prairie Irrigation District, referring to a major source of water in the region. With little or no rain, farmers have seen other water sources, such as on-farm reservoirs, go dry or nearly dry as they try to water crops.
“Farmers are pumping groundwater at a rate 50- to 60-percent greater than natural recharge,” said Young, the Natural Resources Commission director.
Carman said making better use of surface water can ease the burden on the state’s aquifers, giving farmers a reliable source for irrigation water and enabling aquifers to recharge.
While waiting for word on the “reprogrammed” money, project managers are hoping to capitalize on a different federal program that will steer $37 million over the next four years for irrigation work that must be done for both projects.
The work is being overseen as part of the Mississippi River Basin Initiative that is attempting to reduce the flow of nutrients and farm pollutants into the Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico.
Business, Pages 25 on 07/25/2012