Order Code RL33075
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
U.S. Agriculture After Hurricane Katrina:
Status and Issues
September 12, 2005
Randy Schnepf and Ralph M. Chite
Specialists in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service { The Library of Congress

---

U.S. Agriculture After Hurricane Katrina:
Status and Issues
Summary
On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast region leaving
behind widespread devastation. This report examines Katrina’s impact on three
important factors affecting the U.S. agricultural sector: marketing infrastructure
based on the Mississippi River waterway and Gulf ports; production losses for major
crop and livestock producers in the affected region; and potential consequences for
agricultural production as a result of high energy costs. It also discusses the federal
government response.
Agricultural producers from the states directly impacted by Katrina have
suffered economic losses, although this varies greatly by crop and locality.
Preliminary estimates by USDA economists project that the greatest farm production
losses caused by Hurricane Katrina are likely to be to the crops of sugar cane, cotton,
corn and soybeans in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama, and nursery and
greenhouse products in Florida. Dairy and poultry production appear to have suffered
losses due to the power cut-off following the hurricane. Accurate estimates of crop
and livestock losses will not be available until flood waters recede to the point that
crop estimators and adjusters can enter the fields.
New Orleans is a major gateway for U.S. oil imports and agricultural exports,
especially corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice. Hurricane damage brought a halt to the
flow of agricultural trade through New Orleans which resulted in falling commodity
prices in interior states that depend on the Mississippi River waterway to move
exports through New Orleans to international markets. It is still unclear how much
time will be required before barge and ship traffic resumes its normal flow, however,
many grain export facilities have already resumed partial operations. Agricultural
interests are concerned that, should major delays in barge traffic and shipping extend
into October when harvesting occurs in the major corn and soybean growing regions,
they could disrupt traditional marketing practices with deleterious affects on U.S.
commodity prices, farm incomes, and rural economies.
Energy prices jumped substantially as a significant portion of U.S. petroleum
and natural gas production, import, and refining facilities were damaged and shut
down. There is considerable uncertainty surrounding the permanency of energy price
rises and their potential impact on the U.S. economy in general, and U.S. agriculture
in particular. By raising the overall price structure of production agriculture,
sustained high energy prices could result in significantly lower farm and rural
incomes in 2006.
Certain ongoing federal programs, primarily crop insurance and disaster loans,
are available to eligible producers. The combination of Hurricane Katrina and a
Midwestern drought might also cause Congress to consider supplemental crop and
livestock disaster assistance. This report is intended as an overview of how Katrina
has affected and is likely to continue to affect the agricultural sectors of both the
impacted region and the U.S. It is not intended to provide a day-to-day update of
events. It will, however, be updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Port of New Orleans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Barge-based Inland Waterway Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Commodity Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Farm Production Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Energy Costs and Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Energy Prices Already Trending Higher, Jump After Katrina . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Government Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Current Authorities and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
On-Farm Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Congressional Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
List of Figures
Figure 1. Major U.S. Inland Waterway Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 2. Status of Major Gulf Ports as of Sept. 6, 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 3. September Futures Contract for Corn, Chicago Board of Trade,
Sept. 9, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 4. Monthly Average U.S. Fuel Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 5. Anhydrous Ammonia and Natural Gas Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
List of Tables
Table 1. Exports of Major Agricultural Commodities, U.S. Total versus
District of New Orleans, Average for 2002-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Barge Transport Moves Large Volumes Relative to Truck or Rail . . . . 5
Table 3. Harvest Period for Major U.S. Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 4. Top 5 Agricultural Commodities: Alabama, Louisiana, and
Mississippi, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

---

U.S. Agriculture After Hurricane Katrina:
Status and Issues
On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast region leaving
behind widespread devastation. This report examines Katrina’s impact on three
important factors affecting the U.S. agricultural sector: marketing infrastructure
based on the Mississippi River waterway and Gulf ports; production losses for major
crop and livestock producers in the affected region; and potential consequences for
agricultural production as a result of high energy costs. It also discusses the federal
government response.
Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure Issues
Overview
Hurricane Katrina damaged much of the nation’s grain marketing infrastructure
located in the New Orleans region including port facilities, river traffic infrastructure
(buoys, moorings, channels, etc.), and grain elevators, as well as those barges and
ships in the region at the time of landfall. Agricultural traffic on the Mississippi
River came to a temporary standstill pressuring commodity prices in interior
producing regions.
Agricultural producers are concerned about the rapid resumption of barge traffic
on the Mississippi in advance of the peak harvest-time period, about repair of the
marketing infrastructure, and about rising energy prices in part related to hurricane
damage. In a competitive market, the price that producers receive for their
agricultural commodities is derived from the price established in major markets such
as Gulf port export terminals, less the transportation and handling costs required to
move grain from the farm to those markets. When marketing costs rise, farm-gate
prices usually fall and along with them so do farm and rural incomes.
Key components of the U.S. grain-handling network include on-farm storage,
trucks, railroads, barges, and grain elevators (including county, sub-terminal, and
export elevators). A complex web of local supply and demand conditions determines
how and when grain moves through this network. Price changes at any point along
the chain can result in shifts to alternate transport modes or routes as grain marketers
search for the lowest-cost method of moving grain between buyer and seller.
Port of New Orleans
When Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast region, the storm brought a halt
to the flow of agricultural trade entering and exiting the United States through the
Mississippi River System centered on New Orleans and surrounding Mississippi-

---

CRS-2
River-based Gulf ports. Flooding and power outages stopped operations at most of
the port facilities within the affected region. Concerns for the United States’ ability
to export its surplus agricultural production were immediate.
New Orleans is among the world’s busiest ports. It is served by 6 major
railroads, 50 ocean carriers, 16 barge lines, and over 75 motor carriers.1 More than
6,000 ocean vessels annually move through New Orleans on the Mississippi River.
The port of New Orleans and its surrounding Gulf ports are the primary outlet that
links a vast barge-based inland waterway system centered on the Mississippi River
and its tributaries — the Missouri, Illinois, Ohio, and Arkansas Rivers — to
international markets (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Major U.S. Inland Waterway Systems
Every year a substantial share of the U.S. corn, soybean, and wheat crops are
trucked from farms in interior states to grain elevators located along the Mississippi
River and its major tributaries, then loaded onto barges for the trip down river to a
Gulf port facility where grain shipments are aggregated before being loaded onto
ocean-going vessels for the trip to foreign markets. The Port of New Orleans
reportedly handles 2 billion bushels of grain each year.2 Corn, soybeans, wheat, and
rice are the primary agricultural products exported via the Mississippi River. During
the 2002-04 period, nearly 64% and 67% of U.S. corn and soybean exports (by
value), respectively, passed through Louisiana ports on their way to foreign markets.
In addition, about 23% of wheat and 41% of rice exports passed through the mouth
of the Mississippi during that same period (Table 1).
1 “Hurricane Damage Necessitates Ship-Cargo Diversions,” Truckline Express, Sept. 7,
2005.
2 International Trade Reporter, “Cost to U.S. Farmers from Hurricane Katrina Could Run
to $500 Million in Lost Exports,” Vol. 22, No. 35, Sept. 8, 2005.

---

CRS-3
Table 1. Exports of Major Agricultural Commodities, U.S. Total
versus District of New Orleans, Average for 2002-2004
District of
District of
New Orleans,
New Orleans
Share of U.S. Total
Commodity
U.S. Total
($ Million)
(as %)
Total Exports
744,979
34,329
5
Agricultural Products
57,954
na
na
Corn
5,412
3,608
64
Soybeans
6,751
4,307
67
Wheat
4,257
933
22
Rice
992
410
41
na = not available.
Sources: U.S. Total from World Trade Atlas; District of New Orleans data are from U.S. Census
Bureau, Foreign Trade Division.
The Port of New Orleans provides a major destination for international
containers, rubber, steel, plywood and coffee, and is an important link to the inward
movement of fertilizers, fuel, and other vital farm inputs. The Port of New Orleans
is the nation’s top port for imported natural rubber. In addition, New Orleans is the
nation’s premier coffee-handling port, with 14 warehouses, more than 5.5 million
feet of storage space and six roasting facilities in a 20 mile radius. Two of the most
modern bulk processing operations are located in New Orleans: Dupuy Storage and
Forwarding Corp. (largest in the United States) and Silocaf of New Orleans, Inc. (the
world’s largest).3
The principal concerns regarding the Port of New Orleans are: first, how quickly
can the channel be reopened for river traffic, and second, how quickly can port
facilities for loading and unloading bulk grain resume operation? On September 4,
2005, the communications manager for the Port of New Orleans announced that the
Mississippi River was open in one direction to ships with a draft of 35 feet during
daylight hours. That same day, the Port President and CEO, Gary LaGrange
announced that the Port of New Orleans’ river front terminals had survived Hurricane
Katrina in relatively good shape and, although slightly damaged, they would be
workable once electrical power and manpower were available.4 Although the
channel was usable, most of the port facilities were to be dedicated to military relief
vessels through mid-September. Commercial vessels would be allowed to return to
the Port of New Orleans once electrical power and manpower are re-established. The
U.S. Dept. of Transportation’s Maritime Administration has announced that it is
providing several ships to the Port of New Orleans with the capacity to temporarily
house 1,000 people who will operate the port.
3 The Port of New Orleans, [http://www.portno.com/facts.htm].
4 Seaports Industry Update, September 5, 2005, “Special Announcement,” available online
at [http://www.aapa-ports.org/pressroom/katrina_updates.htm].

---

CRS-4
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns reported on September 7, 2005, that
substantial existing infrastructure was available on the Mississippi River in the New
Orleans area for facilitating port activities.5 In particular, he mentioned three floating
rigs with a loading capability of 30,000 to 60,000 bushels per hour from river barges
directly on to ocean-going vessels or barges, and 10 export elevators with a storage
capacity of 526 million bushels and a loading capability of 970,000 bushels per hour
when fully operational. Secretary Johanns estimated that the operational capacity of
the 3 rigs and 10 elevators was a combined 63% of normal (as of September 7, 2005)
and that slower barge movements and limited staff prevented full utilization of their
loading capacity.
Figure 2. Status of Major Gulf Ports as of Sept. 6, 2005.
In addition to the revival of Mississippi River traffic and port operations, a
significant share of shipping activity has been distributed to alternate Gulf ports to
facilitate the resumption of trade and economic activity in the region. During the first
week in September, most of the 86 ships that were reportedly queued at the
Mississippi River’s entrance just prior to Katrina’s arrival were diverted to ports in
Texas and elsewhere.6
Barge-based Inland Waterway Transportation
Barge transportation represents the lowest-cost transport mode for moving a
high volume of bulk commodities long distances (Table 2). Because barge rates are
generally significantly lower than either rail or truck, the Mississippi River
navigation system provides considerable transportation cost savings to the regional
and national economy.7 Most economists and market analysts agree that inexpensive
barge transportation helps check rates charged by the rail and truck transportation
industries. In addition, low internal transport costs relative to export competitors
5 USDA news release, “Mississippi River Export Grain Industry Recovering from Hurricane
Katrina,” Sept. 7, 2005.
6 New York Times, “Ad-Libbing Many Routes, Ships Return to Mississippi,” Sept. 7, 2005.
7 For a discussion of agricultural transportation issues and the cost advantages of barge
versus truck or rail, see CRS Report RL32470, Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway
Navigation Expansion: An Agricultural Transportation and Environmental Context, pp. 27-
34.

---

CRS-5
such as Argentina and Brazil have helped U.S. products compete in international corn
and soybean markets.8
Table 2. Barge Transport Moves Large Volumes
Relative to Truck or Rail
Capacity
Truck
Type of Transport
Bushels
Metric tons
Equivalents
Truck (large semi)
910
26
1
Jumbo Hopper Car
3,500
100
4
Barge1
52,000
1,500
58
100-car unit train
350,000
10,000
385
15-barge tow
787,500
22,500
865
Panamax vessel2
2,362,074
60,000
2,596
Source: U.S. Tugboat & Towboat Industry.
1Assumes a 9-foot channel as is maintained on the Upper Mississippi River by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. Barge capacity increases with channel depth.
2Panamax vessels are restricted to 60,000 metric tons due to maximum draft requirements. Bushels
are corn-equivalent (1 metric ton = 39.3679 bushels).
A hurricane such as Katrina or any similar weather or catastrophic event that
dramatically slows or severely limits barge traffic will usually have the effect of
raising barge freight rates as the demand for barge services exceeds their supply.
Higher barge freight rates for corn and soybeans will in turn shift these commodities
to alternate uses (feed, food, industrial, or storage), to alternate transport modes (rail
or truck), or to alternate trade routes (e.g., to the Atlantic via the St. Lawrence
Seaway, or overland to Canada, Mexico, or alternate ports along the Gulf coast or as
far away as the Pacific Northwest). Because truck and rail are significantly more
costly than barge transport, shifting bulk commodities to truck- or rail-based routes
can substantially raise the cost of moving grain.
It is still unclear how much time will be required before barge and ship traffic
resumes its normal flow. Preliminary reports suggest that most export facilities did
not sustain major structural damage. The bigger problem is getting power restored,
the channel cleared, and work crews back into the region. The U.S. Coast Guard
reported that about 70% of the navigation aids (such as buoys marking the river
channel) along the Mississippi River were damaged or missing.9 The river channel
itself must be surveyed to guard against possible shoals or other obstructions that
might have been left in the hurricane’s wake. In the early period following the
hurricane, the U.S. Coast Guard focused its full resources on search and rescue
8 Randall D. Schnepf, Erik N. Dohlman, and Christine Bolling, Agriculture in Brazil and
Argentina: Developments and Prospects for Major Field Crops, USDA, Economic Research
Service, Agriculture and Trade Report No. WRS013, (Washington: Dec. 2001), pp. 53-60.
9 New York Times, “Ad-Libbing Many Routes, Ships Return to Mississippi,” Sept. 7, 2005.

---

CRS-6
operations in the areas affected by the hurricane. But gradually, they have begun the
process of damage assessment and repair of the navigation infrastructure.
Commodity Prices
The immediate effect of the slowdown of barge traffic on the Mississippi River
was a reported sharp decline in grain elevator bid prices for corn and soybeans in
interior grain markets. Many grain elevators serving barge traffic were already near
their maximum storage capacity, and felt compelled to reduce their bid prices to
avoid buying grain that they could not store. The problem was made more acute by
the approaching harvest when producers will need all of their on-farm storage
capacity to store their new crop harvests. As a result, many producers are looking to
sell the remaining supplies from last year’s harvest to clear space.
It is expected that this situation will be remedied and elevator bids will
strengthen when barge traffic returns to more normal levels. Near-by futures market
prices for September corn and soybean contracts have held fairly steady in the $2.02-
$2.07 and $5.90-$6.00 per bushel range, respectively, since late August suggesting
that the market anticipates a reprise of normal shipping patterns within a couple of
weeks (Figure 3). The last trading day for the September 2005 contract is September
14.
Figure 3. September Futures Contract for Corn,
Chicago Board of Trade, Sept. 9, 2005
Source: Chicago Board of Trade, September 9, 2005.
Harvest time generally signals the busiest period of export movement for
agricultural products for several reasons. First, supplies are generally most abundant
at harvest time and can often exceed on-farm or local storage capacity. As a result,
both producers and marketers are eager to move surplus production through the
marketing channels. Second, the more northerly inland waterways — the Upper
Mississippi River waterway and the St. Lawrence Seaway — shut down during the
winter months due to freezing conditions. This limits export opportunities and
increases the urgency for moving excess production into marketing channels ahead

---

CRS-7
of the winter. Third, the arrival of surplus agricultural production into marketing
channels at harvest time tends to pressure commodity market prices to their season
lows and frequently offers the best purchasing opportunities for foreign buyers.
Table 3. Harvest Period for Major U.S. Crops
Major U.S.
Southern-Tier
Central-
Northern-
Crop
Growing Zone
States
Tier States
Tier States
Winter Wheat
June-July
May-June
July
Spring Wheat
Aug-Sept
—
July
Aug-Sept
Corn
Oct-Nov
Sept-Oct
Oct
Oct-Nov
Soybeans
Oct-Nov
Sept-Oct
Oct
Oct-Nov
Source: Major World Crop Areas and Climatic Profiles, Agr Handbook No. 664, World Agricultural
Outlook Board and Joint Agricultural Weather Facility, USDA, Sept. 1994.
Farm Production Losses
From a national perspective, the region’s agriculture is dominated by
Louisiana’s sugar cane crop which accounts for nearly one-third of the value of U.S.
annual sugar cane production (Table 4). Poultry in Alabama and Mississippi, rice in
Louisiana, and cotton in Mississippi also have national significance. However,
several crops play a much bigger role at the state level. Broilers and eggs accounted
for over 62% of Alabama’s agricultural output value in 2003, while broilers
represented a 42% share of Mississippi’s agricultural economy. Cotton’s share of
state agricultural output value in 2003 was 15% in Mississippi, 12% in Louisiana,
and 5% in Alabama.
Preliminary estimates by USDA economists project that the greatest farm
production losses caused by Hurricane Katrina are likely to be to the crops of sugar
cane, cotton, corn and soybeans in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama, and nursery
and greenhouse products in Florida. Accurate estimates of crop losses will not be
available until flood waters recede to the point that crop estimators and adjusters can
enter the fields. The Farm Bureau, an independent, national farmer association,
projects that the direct farm production losses caused by the hurricane could be $1
billion. They project an additional $1 billion in indirect costs to agriculture,
primarily caused by waterway transportation problems and rising fuels costs.10 Other
estimates have been significantly lower.
For some crops, particularly sugar cane, the extent of losses will not be known
until harvest. Damage to the region’s sugar cane crop initially appeared to be
extensive because the high winds flattened the crop. Some analysts report that much
of the crop that was downed by the storm was not destroyed and can still be
harvested. The hurricane caused two Louisiana refineries to temporarily halt
10 [http://www.fb.org/news/nr/nr2005/nr0901b.html].

---

CRS-8
operations, which exacerbated what was already a tight supply of sugar. In response,
USDA increased available sugar supplies by increasing the quantity of domestic
sugar that may enter the market under the sugar price support program.11
According to USDA, the largest cotton production areas (east and west of the
storm track) were spared significant crop losses. Mississippi and Alabama, which
account for 10% and 3% of expected U.S. cotton production, respectively,
experienced some damage. Some of the damage to the crop might contribute to
quality losses rather than production losses. Similarly, some rice losses were
experienced, but the storm track was east of the major rice growing areas.
The region’s corn and soybean crops were also affected by the hurricane, but the
region normally accounts for less than 3% of national production of these two crops.
The most serious market effects attributable to corn and soybeans are more
transportation related (as discussed above). USDA also reports that Hurricane
Katrina did extensive damage to southern Florida’s nursery and greenhouse industry
when it passed through southern Florida several days before making a second landfall
in the Gulf states. A Florida trade association projects losses of $370 million in
structural damage and greenhouse and nursery crop losses.12
Industry analysts also report that the Gulf region’s dairy industry has
experienced production and processing losses. The region’s dairy industry has been
hampered by the loss of production caused by power outages in milking facilities,
and the inability to transport milk because of damaged roads and bridges, as well as
the loss of refrigeration and metropolitan retail dairy markets. Alabama, Louisiana,
and Mississippi combined account for less than 1% of U.S. milk production; hence,
market effects should be limited to the region.
USDA also reports losses to cattle operations and broiler production in the
three-state region. The region accounts for about 4% of national beef production, so
national market effects are expected to be minimal. Poultry is a significant enterprise
in the region: Alabama and Mississippi rank third and fifth, respectively, among all
states in broiler production. Most of the broiler losses were concentrated in
Mississippi where facilities were either damaged or without power for an extended
period. Some analysts estimate that large area broiler losses could cause an increase
in market broiler prices in the short term (1-2 months). However, increased
production elsewhere would eventually fill the gap so that market effects would be
minimized by the end of the year.13
11 [http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1RD?printable=true&contentido
nly=true&contentid=2005/08/0338.xml].
12 [http://www.fngla.org/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=504].
13 Global Insight’s Agri-View, September 8, 2005.

---

CRS-9
Table 4. Top 5 Agricultural Commodities:
Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, 2003
Share of
State’s Total
Share of
Total Cash
Farm
U.S. Farm
Receipts
Receipts
Value
($ Millions)
(as %)
(as %)
Alabama
1. Broilers
1,837.7
53.8
12.1
2. Cattle and Calves
425.2
12.5
0.9
3. Chicken Eggs
295.7
8.7
5.6
4. Greenhouse & Nursery
256.9
7.5
1.7
5. Cotton
160.5
4.7
3.2
All Alabama Farm Commodities
3,415.3
1.6
Louisiana
1. Sugar cane
329.2
16.5
32.8
2. Cotton
238.0
11.9
4.7
3. Cattle and calves
178.3
8.9
0.4
4. Rice
165.6
8.3
13.6
5. Soybeans
163.4
8.2
1.0
All Louisiana Farm Commodities
1,993.4
0.9
Mississippi
1. Broilers
1,424.1
41.8
9.4
2. Cotton
517.4
15.2
10.3
3. Soybeans
309.4
9.1
1.9
4. Aquaculture
244.7
7.2
31.3
5. Cattle and Calves
208.1
6.1
0.5
All Mississippi Farm Commodities
3,411.0
1.6
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service.

---

CRS-10
Energy Costs and Agriculture
Following the damage inflicted by Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf region’s oil
and natural gas production, refining, and importing capability, energy prices —
gasoline, diesel fuel, and natural gas — have risen sharply.14 Considerable
uncertainty surrounds the longevity of recent energy price rises, and the implications
for U.S. agriculture hinge on their permanency. Fuel prices have been trending
higher over each of the past three years, and farmers were already likely to see record
high fuel costs before the post-Katrina runup in prices struck (Figure 3). In the near-
term, it is likely that such strong energy price rises will significantly increase
energy’s share of total production expenses and could significantly alter the farm
income outlook for affected farm households and rural economies.
Energy Prices Already Trending Higher, Jump After Katrina
The national average annual retail price for No. 2 diesel fuel has been rising
steadily from $1.32 per gallon in 2002 to $1.51 per gallon in 2003, and $1.81 per
gallon in 2004. In August, 2005, it hit a record $2.50 per gallon. Gasoline prices
followed a very similar pattern. In September 2005, post-Katrina concerns have
spiked both diesel and gasoline prices well above $3.00 per gallon.
Figure 4. Monthly Average U.S. Fuel Prices
3
12
9
2
6
1
Diesel ($/gal)
3
Gasol ine ($/gal)
Natural Gas, Wellhead ($/mcf)
0
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
Source: DOE, Energy Information Agency.
14 For a discussion of energy supply issues See CRS Report RS22233, Oil and Gas: Supply
Issues After Katrina. For information on energy prices see the U.S. Dept of Energy’s
Energy Information Administration’s website at [http://www.eia.doe.gov/].

---

CRS-11
Natural gas prices have also experienced substantial demand-driven price rises
over the past 3½ years. After hovering just below $2.00 per 1,000 cubic feet (mcf)
through most of the 1990s, natural gas (wholesale or wellhead) prices moved
upwards to average $2.95 per mcf in 2002, then surged to a $4.98 per mcf average
in 2003. Wellhead prices continued rising in 2004, averaging $5.49 per mcf. Since
April 2005, natural gas prices have been above $6.00. During the final week of
August (August 24-31), Henry Hub spot market prices (Henry Hub is a primary
wholesale market location for natural gas) sky rocketed in anticipation of Katrina’s
disruption to an average of $12.70 per mcf. During the first week in September
2005, after Katrina had moved through the Gulf Coast region and analysts had a
chance to better assess the damage to production facilities, natural gas prices
retreated slightly to average $11.05 per mcf.
Evaluating the potential effect of such volatile energy price movements on U.S.
agriculture hinges greatly on their permanency.15 The relative importance of energy
costs as a share of total agricultural production expenses varies greatly by both
activity and region. Although there are many kinds of operations performed by the
different farm types, nearly all mechanized field work, as well as marketing and
management activities involve machinery, trucks, and cars that are dependent on
petroleum fuels. Dryers and irrigation equipment are often more versatile in that they
can be powered by petroleum fuels, natural gas, or electricity, while electricity is the
primary source of power for lighting, heating, and cooling in homes, barns, and other
farm buildings. Some activities such as dairy and poultry production, that require a
constant supply of energy for refrigeration or cooling are particularly vulnerable to
a cut-off of energy supply as evidenced by the damage sustained in the hurricane-
affected region.
In the immediate term, the first priority is to restore power to all affected regions
so that normal operations may resume. Looking further out, higher diesel fuel and
gasoline prices will raise the cost of harvesting and post-harvest treatment (e.g.,
drying, moving, and storing) of crops still in the field. For those farms that have been
indirectly impacted by Katrina’s damage to the region’s marketing infrastructure,
higher fuel prices will make the overall cost of marketing products more expensive,
while making rail and truck more costly options relative to barge transport. Such
higher marketing costs inevitably result in a widening farm-to-market basis and lower
prices received at the farm gate. This, in turn, would alter the farm income outlook
for affected farm households and rural economies.
In the longer term, sustained high energy prices through the winter could lead
to significant regional shifts in agricultural activities as early as 2006. High natural
gas prices are particularly troublesome because of their relationship with nitrogenous
fertilizer production. Natural gas accounts for a substantial portion (75% to 90%) of
nitrogen fertilizer production costs, either directly as a feedstock or indirectly as a
fuel to generate the electricity needed in production. Because U.S. fertilizer
manufacturers are at a competitive disadvantage with foreign producers when U.S.
natural gas prices rise, the high prices of recent years has contributed to a substantial
15 For a broad discussion of energy use and U.S. agriculture see CRS Report RL32677,
Energy Use in Agriculture: Background and Issues.

---

CRS-12
reduction in its U.S. nitrogen fertilizer production capacity — over a 23% decline
from 1998 to 2003. In addition, higher natural gas prices have contributed to
significantly higher nitrogen fertilizer prices (Figure 5).
The post-Katrina jump in U.S. natural gas prices casts a cloud of uncertainty
over the future of the U.S. nitrogen fertilizer industry as well as raising concerns
about the potential supply and price of nitrogen fertilizer for crops in 2006.
Producers are undoubtedly eyeing fuel and fertilizer price developments and will
consider shifting away from crops that rely heavily on fuel-dependent field work or
fertilizer applications and towards those crops and activities that are less energy
dependent. Corn is perhaps the most vulnerable crop due to its high per-acre energy
usage rates.16
In the longer term, a sustained rise in energy prices may have serious
consequences on energy-intensive industries like agriculture by reducing profitability
and driving resources away from the sector.
Figure 5. Anhydrous Ammonia and Natural Gas Prices
4 5 0
1 2
1 0
3 0 0
8
6
1 5 0
A n h y d ro u s A m m o n i a
4
($ /t o n )
2
N a tu r a l G a s , c o m m e r ci a l
($ /m c f)
0
N a tu r a l G a s , w el l h ea d
0
($ /m c f)
1 9 9 0
1 9 9 5
2 0 0 0
2 0 0 5
S ou r c e : U S D A , N A S S , A g ri c u ltu ra l P r ic e s , A p r il is s ue f o r
f e r til iz e r p ri c e s; D O E , E I A , f o r n a tu r a l g a s p r ic e s .
16 For more information on energy use variations by region and crop, see CRS Report
RL32677, Energy Use in Agriculture: Background and Issues.

---

CRS-13
Government Response
Current Authorities and Programs
USDA has at its disposal three major ongoing programs designed to help crop
producers recover from the financial effects of any natural disaster:
! federal crop insurance,
! non-insured assistance program (NAP) payments, and
! emergency disaster loans.
All three of these programs have permanent authorization and available funding.
For background information on these and other farm disaster programs, see CRS
Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance.
For the 2005 crop year, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana crop producers
purchased just over $1 billion in crop insurance coverage, with nearly 70% of the
value of coverage being for cotton, soybeans, and rice. According to preliminary
reports from USDA, the three-state region has relatively high participation rates in
the crop insurance program (in some cases 80% of eligible acreage). However, much
of that coverage is at the catastrophic level, which provides an indemnity payment
only on losses in excess of 50% of normal production. For those producers who
grow a crop that is not eligible for crop insurance coverage, USDA makes NAP
payments available for catastrophic losses, as long as the producer signed up for
coverage and paid an administrative fee in advance.
Agricultural producers in a county that has been declared a disaster area may be
eligible for low-interest emergency disaster (EM) loans available through USDA’s
Farm Service Agency. USDA currently has authority to provide just over $150
million in EM loans. An eligible producer must be a family-sized farmer who
suffered a minimum crop loss of 30%, and is unable to qualify for a loan from a
commercial lender. EM loan funds may be used to help eligible farmers, ranchers,
and aquaculture producers recover from production losses (when the producer suffers
a significant loss of an annual crop) or from physical losses (such as repairing or
replacing damaged or destroyed structures or equipment, or for the replanting of
permanent crops such as orchards). A qualified applicant can then borrow up to
100% of actual production or physical losses (not to exceed $500,000) at a below-
market interest rate.
USDA announced on September 8, 2005, that $20 million in Emergency
Conservation Program funding will be given to Louisiana ($12.45 million),
Mississippi ($7.1 million), Alabama ($855,0000) and Tennessee ($25,000) to help
these states clean up debris, and restore fences and conservation structures. Eligible
participants can receive cost-share assistance of up to 75% of the cost to implement
these practices.
On-Farm Storage. On September 7, 2005, USDA announced changes to its
Marketing Assistance Loan Program to help alleviate the urgency of marketing grain
at distress-level prices. USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is

---

CRS-14
implementing changes to allow producers to obtain loans for “on-farm” storage on
grain stored on the ground in addition to grain bins and other normally approved
structures. This action is designed to alleviate short-term logistical problems and
support local cash prices above the distressed levels that have resulted from the
slowdown of barge traffic on the Mississippi River.
Congressional Response
Since 1988, Congress frequently has supplemented the regularly funded disaster
assistance programs with additional emergency aid. Funding for these programs
generally are provided in emergency supplemental appropriations bills. Among
these major ad-hoc farm disaster programs are (1) direct disaster payments, (2)
livestock assistance, (3) tree assistance, and (4) emergency conservation assistance.
Most recently, the FY2005 Military Construction Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-324)
contained supplemental funding to provide an estimated $3.5 billion in assistance for
2003 and 2004 crop, livestock, and tree losses, primarily in response to ongoing
drought in the West and a series of 2004 hurricanes that damaged or destroyed
agricultural production in the Southeast. (For more information on the ad-hoc
agricultural assistance that was provided in response to the 2004 hurricanes, see CRS
Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance.)
Prior to Hurricane Katrina, portions of the Midwest were experiencing
significant 2005 crop losses caused by a prolonged drought. The combination of the
Midwest drought and losses caused by Hurricane Katrina is expected to provide
momentum for Congress to consider emergency crop and livestock assistance for
2005 production losses.

---