95 



THE commercial horticultural industry in Iowa, which was affected by the great floods of 1993, wishes to make 

 the following recommendations concerning the administration of the Federal Disaster Assistance Program. 



WE as an industry contend that the following issues place an undue hardship on horticultural growers. Inequities 

 exist between different production regions and the treatment given different national disasters. In addition, horticultural 

 production is a unique and entirely different cropping experience, as compared to traditional row crops, and should be 

 afTorded suitable methods of calculating loss. 



ISSUE 1: The practice of using a producer's historical records to establish a cap on total eligible yield for a given crop 



is unjustly restrictive. 

 Argument: Allowing ASCS to adopt the practice of using a producer's historical records solely to identify total eligible yield 



per producer, based on past marketed quantities, unjustly ignores total crop loss. This penalizes a producer with 



increased/additional production, which did or would have possessed a market value if not for the destruction 



by the natural disaster. 

 Remedy. Recognize all acres in production or designated for production that were damaged by the natural disaster. 



ISSUE 2: The price differential between marketing channels on fruits & vegetables Is not afforded the producer In 

 determining eligible assistance. 



Argument: The Disaster Assistance Law specifies thai there be recognition of appropriate marketing channels in 

 determining the rates for calculating crop loss payments. Currently the only marketing channels recognized 

 include the processing market and wholesale market. This totally ignores the direct from grower to consumer 

 (retail) market where the highest prices are realized and where the majority of Iowa horticultural products are 

 sold by Iowa producers. 



Remedy: ASCS should acknowledge, identify & utilize direct-to-consumer marketing prices, when applicable, on all 

 horticultural products. 



ISSUE 3: The March 4. 1994 filing deadline is premature with respect to perennial crops In northern regions. 



Argument: Perennial plant materials are still dormant in the northern growing regions of this country at the time of the 

 filing deadline. In addition, it can take up to two years for the true extent of damage to be known on plant 

 materials following exposure to adverse conditions, due to a plant's ability to minimally survive on stress. 



Remedy. Extend the filing date under all provisions of the Disaster Assistance Act, for perennials, until July 1, 1995. 



ISSUE 4: Trees must be totally dead to be eligible for crop loss assistance. 



Argument: The Tree Assistance Program (TA.P.) recognizes that severely damaged trees, stunted to the extent that their 



market value has been significantly reduced, are considered a loss and eligible for assistance. 

 Remedy A definition of eligibility, like that under TA.P., should transcend to the crop loss program. 



ISSUE 5: A perennial that is Itself the end product (i.e.. shrubs) or one in which a crop Is to be harvested (I.e.. 



strawberries) that is damaged by a natural disaster is not eligible for replacement assistance. 

 Argument: Significant loss exists if the future income generating capability of a perennial plant has been prematurely 



destroyed and unexpected additional investment is required of the grower in terms of time and cost in order to 



again reach that level of production which existed prior to the disaster. 

 Remedy Assistance should be given for plant replacement on all dead or significantly damaged perennials, regardless 



of when the last crop is harvested from a crop producing perennial. 



ISSUE 6: Any tree that was planted prior to 1992 is ineligible for assistance under TAP. 



Argument: This provision of assistance is regressive in that the producer who has more than 2 years of investment in a tree 



crop, prior to the loss, is excluded while someone with less than 2 years of investment in a tree crop receives 



assistance the smaller the loss the greater the assistance. 



Remedy: Provide replacement assistance on all trees regardless of age. 



ISSUE 7: Nursery trees do not qualify under TAP. 



Argument: Nursery producers impacted by Hurricane Andrew were afforded coverage under the TA.P. 



Remedy. Allow nursery trees affected by the 1993 floods to qualify under TA.P. 



Iowa State Horticultural Society 



Iowa Christmas Tree Growers Association 

 Iowa Nursery & Landscape Association 



Iowa Fruit & Vegetable Growers Association 

 Society of Iowa Florists & Growers 



For more information contact: Dan Cooper, State Horticulturist, (515) 281-5402 



