Spring rise should not threaten farmers' crop insurance

For almost a decade and a half, the Corps of Engineers has been working with stakeholders to revise the Missouri River Master Manual, the plan that sets guidelines controlling water releases from upstream dams and reservoirs. For those of us from states along the Missouri River basin, establishing a balanced river management policy is critical.

Through the years, Missourians have actively demonstrated a serious interest in ensuring that responsible water flows are maintained on the Missouri River.

Because the river is so vital to the State of Missouri, I keep a close eye on the Corps of Engineers' plans to manage the river each year.

I believe that establishing a management scheme that minimizes risks to farmers and honors the Corps' central flood control mission must be our priority. So when the Corps released its draft operating plan for 2006, I was extremely disappointed to see that the proposal included two government sanctioned spring rises -- in March 2006 and again in May 2006.

These spring rises are bad news for Midwestern agriculture and other river interests.

While I reminded the Corps of Engineers of my opposition to the spring rise proposal by submitting testimony to last month's public meeting in Jefferson City, I recently learned of another potential problem that could prove devastating to farmers who work the river bottomland. Because the Corps' actions to create a spring rise are likely to cause flooding, I am concerned that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Risk Management Agency may not be willing to insure risks associated with these government sanctioned water releases.

Although this may be an unintended consequence of the spring rise policy, it would still pose a serious problem for farmers who depend upon crop insurance to manage risk.

The decisions made by the Corps of Engineers concerning a spring rise have already angered many Missouri farmers.

RMA must not make matters worse by denying insurance coverage to our agricultural producers.

On behalf of Fourth District farmers, I have asked the Secretary of Agriculture to clarify RMA's position on this matter. I want to know if USDA will provide insurance for the risks associated with government authorized releases of water. Given the RMA's mission to "promote, support, and regulate sound risk management solutions to preserve and strengthen the economic stability of America's agricultural producers" and to "provide crop insurance to American producers,"

I certainly hope that the agency's regulations will not exclude farmers' potential crop losses from this insurance coverage.

Management of water flows on the Missouri River is a complex issue, but we must preserve the ability of America's farmers to work the fertile soil along the river's edge.

As the federal government finalizes the Missouri River operating plan for 2006, I look forward to working with the Corps of Engineers and USDA to protect the interests of Missouri farmers.