Farmers subjected to water fees for second farming cycle in year

[snoop1130]

 

BANGKOK (NNT) - The Office of National Water Resources has explained water fee collection from farmers, as mandated by the Water Resources Act, saying this fee will only apply to the second crop cycle or beyond, to discourage excessive water use.

 

The Office of National Water Resources (ONWR) Secretary General Somkiat Prajamwong has clarified agricultural water fee imposition, as mandated in the Water Resources Act BE 2561, that no fees will be collected for water used for general consumption or the first farming cycle of the year, regardless of volume. However, the fees will be applied for water used beyond the first farming cycle of each year, including animal farming.

 

Mr. Somkiat said the intention of this law is to encourage users to save water, and make a comprehensive plan for its use.

 

During the dry season however, the fees will be applied to rice farmers who farm on the land over 10.56 hectares, as water availability is more scarce during this time.

 

The ONWR Secretary General said this amount of farmland has been calculated from the overall income, minus costs, which shows a household of farmers can survive from the money they receive from rice harvested on 10.56 hectares.

 

He said this new regulation will help reshape the practice and awareness of Thai farmers on how they can use water more appropriately during the dry season.

 

-- © Copyright NNT 2021-04-08

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Venom]

How about a feild burning fee for the horrendous 2.5 air pollution they subject the population to for six months of the year? ????

[RichardColeman]

19 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

The ONWR Secretary General said this amount of farmland has been calculated from the overall income, minus costs, which shows a household of farmers can survive from the money they receive from rice harvested on 10.56 hectares.

The important word in that paragraph is 'survive'.

[kwonitoy]

 the fees will be applied to rice farmers who farm on the land over 10.56 hectares,

 

10.56 hectares = 26.09 acres,

26.09 acres = 65.22 Rai.

 

So farmers who plant less than 65 Rai do not face a water fee, which is probably the vast majority of them.

Lovely Thai solution that does SFA 

[spidermike007]

4 hours ago, Venom said:

How about a feild burning fee for the horrendous 2.5 air pollution they subject the population to for six months of the year? ????

Thank you. I suggest:

 

1. Fine the farmers 5,000 baht for a first offense, and give them a stern warning, that burning is now prohibited, and the second fine will be very harsh.

2. For a second offense, fine the farmer 100,000 baht, and warn them that if the burning continues, their land will be confiscated.

3. On the 3rd offense, confiscate their land. Period. No questions. No legal proceeding or appeals on the part of the farmers. Allow others to come in and purchase the land at a fair price, with the caveat that sugar is prohibited as a crop to be grown on that land.
The news would travel faster than the toxic smoke, and farmers would change their ways overnight, and move into the 21st century.
 

[Scott Tracy]

On 4/8/2021 at 5:16 PM, snoop1130 said:

During the dry season however, the fees will be applied to rice farmers who farm on the land over 10.56 hectares, as water availability is more scarce during this time.

 

I wonder how many artisan farmers hold 66 rai? Not many, I would suggest. This will not reduce water consumption by much, I think.

[dinsdale]

4 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Thank you. I suggest:

 

1. Fine the farmers 5,000 baht for a first offense, and give them a stern warning, that burning is now prohibited, and the second fine will be very harsh.

2. For a second offense, fine the farmer 100,000 baht, and warn them that if the burning continues, their land will be confiscated.

3. On the 3rd offense, confiscate their land. Period. No questions. No legal proceeding or appeals on the part of the farmers. Allow others to come in and purchase the land at a fair price, with the caveat that sugar is prohibited as a crop to be grown on that land.
The news would travel faster than the toxic smoke, and farmers would change their ways overnight, and move into the 21st century.
 

Do you know why they burn (talking rice)? Are there alternatives? Will the govt pay or heavily subsidise farmers for a greener way? These are things you should check out before your thought bubble suggestions. 

[spidermike007]

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

Do you know why they burn (talking rice)? Are there alternatives? Will the govt pay or heavily subsidise farmers for a greener way? These are things you should check out before your thought bubble suggestions. 

There are so many crop alternatives. The best alternative is to avoid growing rice, which is a horrendous crop on so many levels, and virtually assures a lifetime of poverty for the rice farmer. 

 

But if they insist, the researchers suggest that the government and the private sector can play an active role in increasing the adoption of no-burn practices. Currently, the Indian  government provides a significant subsidy to farmers to buy machines to manage crop residue.

 

https://researchmatters.in/news/alternatives-stubble-burning-not-only-possible-profitable-shows-study

 

So, why doesn't Thailand get with the program? 

 

 

 

 

[Venom]

14 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Do you know why they burn (talking rice)? Are there alternatives? Will the govt pay or heavily subsidise farmers for a greener way? These are things you should check out before your thought bubble suggestions. 

Subsidise? Here's a thought for your bubble.

 

The National Rice Policy Committee has earmarked about Bt100 billion to provide subsidies for rice farmers for the 2020-2021 crop year. ... Rice traders who stockpile rice, will also get a 3 per cent subsidy on interest rates, which will cost the government a total of Bt610 million.

[gunderhill]

Somchai  will  just dig a  big  hole and fill it  up  in the first cycle.

[gunderhill]

15 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Do you know why they burn

yes, theyr'e  lazy  buggers and cheapskates, in the end EVERYONE  pays with their  health and the costs associated to the govt will be astronomical over time.

[dinsdale]

1 hour ago, gunderhill said:

yes, theyr'e  lazy  buggers and cheapskates, in the end EVERYONE  pays with their  health and the costs associated to the govt will be astronomical over time.

Well the paddy can be ploughed after the crop but the problem seems to be that the plough disks get damaged which the rice farmers have to pay for. No cost to the farmer to burn.