On Sep 21, 6:36*pm, JR wrote:
DaveS wrote:
Spent the last 5 days on the river place. Some good, some sad.
........

I've been traveling. *Only now catching up on this. *You're doing a lot of
things right, there, Dave (and making me really jealous in the process......).

Sometime we'll have to talk about the economics of your river place (by
email). *Sounds wonderful.

- JR

My model should produce a 2-2.5% return. Its composed of CREP leased
riparian strips taken out of grazing or crop production, leasing most
of the water rights to a non-profit trust ($ probably comes from BPA
fish $), and a small, fixed rent farmer handshake on the cropland.
On bigger wheatland you could get 1/3rd share of proceeds minus costs,
but you share the risks. If you had wheatbase you could collect the
payment and still farm some other dryland crop, maybe barley(?) not
sure what else, (poplar?). I think there is also a possible revenue
source from participation in state or private hunting access
arrangements but I haven't done that. (Yet ?)

Not a way to get rich. However, IF the property has the rec potential
a person wants, it is a way to 1), keep it in ag, 2), and therefore
keep the taxes low, and 3), generate a modest cash flow to fund
environmental fixes. And if a person wanted to live on the land, only
the 1 acre homesite would be taxed at the residential rate, as long as
the rest of the land was kept in ag, or conservation equivalents.

Alternatively, if you could get 5% money, its a way to get maybe 1/2
the payment coaxed from the property itself.

The other part of the economics, for me at least, is to not buy motive
equipment. Everybody in farm country has tons of the right equipment
already, and will trade for work or a little cash. These folks know
how to get things done without paying a fortune so I listen to their
advise. Every ag idea thats worked so far I got from the farmers, the
FSA, or the Water Trust.

Dave
Think other parcels, Eastern Oregon