Stofbak

Stofbak


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


Befondsing word verskaf deur Bank of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, The Arthur Vining Davis Foundation, National Endowment for the Humanities, The Rockefeller Foundation, Wallace Genetic Foundation en lede van ... More

Finansiering word verskaf deur Bank of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, The Arthur Vining Davis Foundation, National Endowment for the Humanities, The Rockefeller Foundation, Wallace Genetic Foundation en lede van The Better Angels Society, waaronder die Dana A. Hamel Family Charitable Trust en Robert en Beverly Grappone.


Stofkom - GESKIEDENIS

Oklahoma was en word geïdentifiseer as 'die Dust Bowl State', alhoewel dit minder oppervlakte gehad het in die gebied wat deur die Soil Conservation Service as die Dust Bowl aangewys is as die aangrensende state Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico en Texas. Die kennis van die Dust Bowl sirkuleer steeds om die beeld van Oklahoma net so fel soos die stofstorms wat deur die panhandvatsel waai.

Sondag 14 April 1935 begin as 'n helder dag in Guymon, Oklahoma. Die temperatuur was in die boonste tagtigerjare, en die burgers, in hul vierde droogtejaar, het na die Metodistekerk gegaan vir 'n 'reëndiens'. Die gemeente het die kerk volgepak en gebede opgehef op soek na goddelike ingryping vir vog, die predikant het gesê dat "goeie reën binne drie weke 'n oes beteken wat God oor almal regeer, en ons laaste uitweg is gebed." Teen die middag was die lug donker, maar nie deur reënwolke nie. In plaas daarvan het Guymon die ergste van die swart blizzards getref.

Regdeur die suidelike High Plains het die temperatuur binne slegs 'n paar uur meer as vyftig grade gedaal, aangesien wind tot 70 km / h swart grond uit Kanada en noordelike vlaktestate gewaai het. Totale duisternis het veertig minute geduur en gevolg deur drie uur gedeeltelike duisternis. Die relatiewe humiditeit het tot minder as 10 persent afgeneem. Aangesien die land bewus geword het van die stofstorms, was joernaliste soos die Associated Press -skrywer Robert Geiger in Guymon besig om 'n reeks artikels te skryf. In sy vrystelling van 15 April vir die Washington, D.C. Aandster hy skryf: "Drie klein woorde - pynlik bekend op 'n Westerse boer se tong - heers vandag oor die lewe in die stofbak van die kontinent. As dit reën."

Geiger gebruik die term "stofbak" vir die eerste keer in druk. Binne drie maande word 'stofkom' in die hele land gebruik. Hy het spesifiek verwys na "die westelike derde van Kansas, suidoostelike Colorado, die Oklahoma Panhandle, die noordelike tweederde van die Texas Panhandle en noordooste van New Mexico." Die gebied is byna identies aan die Dust Bowl -grens, wat formeel in 1939 deur die Soil Conservation Service aangewys is as die geografiese omvang van die ernstige windskade teen 1939.

Om verskillende redes het die woord "Oklahoma" vinnig sinoniem geword met die term "stofbak". In werklikheid het die provinsies Texas en Cimarron, in die hartjie van die Dust Bowl, die ergste skade gely, die ergste storms en die mees dramatiese sanddrifte. Toevallig, toe Geiger die term 'stofbak' in April 1935 die eerste keer in druk geplaas het, en toe ander joernaliste die storm van 'Black Easter' berig, het hul datums 'Guymon, Oklahoma' gesê. Hierdie geografiese verwysing het die Oklahoma -Dust Bowl -verbinding stewig in die openbare gedagtes geplant.

Toe die stofstorms begin, woon die sanger-liedjieskrywer Woody Guthrie in Pampa, Texas. Hy was 'n inwoner van Okemah, Oklahoma, maar die stofstorms het ver van sy tuisdorp in Oklahoma voorgekom. Sy opnames uit 1940, waaronder "The Great Dust Storm", "Talking Dust Bowl Blues", "Dust Pneumonia Blues", "Dust Bowl Refugee" en "So Long, It's Been Good to Know You", vrygestel onder die titel Dust Bowl Ballades, het hom bekend gemaak as "Oklahoma's Dust Bowl Balladeer." Hierdie liedjies het egter eintlik put uit sy ervarings in die Texas Panhandle in die vroeë 1930's.

Guthrie het ook liedjies geskryf oor die Dust Bowl -migrante, en die meeste van hulle was eintlik uit Oklahoma, maar nie uit die Panhandle -Dust Bowl -gebied nie. Voorbeelde is "Tom Joad" en "Do-Re-Mi." Katoenboere uit die oostelike en suidelike Oklahoma, die trekhelde van Guthrie, was meestal 'n boerdery en huurders het die grond afgedwing deur verbeterde gemeganiseerde boerderytoerusting, uiters lae pryse vir katoen en die Groot Depressie. Omdat die New Deal se oesverminderingsprogram die eienaars van die plase betaal het om onder hul grond te ploeg, is die deelnemers en huurders wat die grond werk, dakloos gemaak en migrante geword.

Gesegdes en verhale oor die weer in Oklahoma, sowel as die liedjies van Guthrie en die roman van John Steinbeck Die druiwe van toorn, het gehelp om die beeld van die stofkom van Oklahoma te bestendig. Sommige van die meer kritiese stellings sluit in: "Oklahoma het vier seisoene, dikwels binne dieselfde week." Verhale het versprei dat selfs met al die deure en vensters toe die stof so dik was dat 'n sterk gloeilamp 'soos 'n sigaret brand wat lyk en u nie u hand voor u gesig kan sien nie'. Een verhaal beweer dat 'n man se motor deur die sand vasgesteek is toe hy die deur oopmaak, en hy skiet grond eekhorings oor die tonnel vir lug. Die windsnelheid was so goddeloos dat een man gesê het: 'Jy kan 'n houthakie aan 'n heiningpaal of boom vasmaak, en as dit nie reguit waai nie, is dit 'n rustige dag.' Sommige mense het gesê dat boere aangeraai word om nie hul gewasse te draai nie, want die wind sal dit vir hulle doen. Mense het na stofstorms verwys as 'Oklahoma reën'. Vroue hou hul panne teen 'n sleutelgat en laat die wind en sand dit skoonmaak. Dit was so lank droog dat paddas nie kon leer swem nie en sou verdrink as hulle in water gesit word. Sommige het eerlik gesê dat "die wind die plaas weggewaai het, maar ons het nie alles verloor nie - ons het steeds die verband gekry."

Ander weerberigte het gesê dat 'stof in 'n man se gesig gegooi moes word om hom te laat herleef nadat hy flou geval het toe 'n druppel reën sy gesig tref', en 'die wind waai soveel grond weg dat postgate bo die grond staan, een boer het sy span en wa bymekaargemaak, die postgate bymekaargemaak en in sy skuur gebêre vir toekomstige gebruik. " Dit is slegs 'n paar van die vele wrange gesegdes en beskrywende oordrywings wat uit die Dust Bowl -era ontstaan ​​het. Woody Guthrie het die probleme en lewe in die stofkom saamgevat met "stof raak soms so dik dat jy jou trekker kan laat loop en onderstebo kan ploeg. So donker dat jy nie 'n sent in jou sak kan sien nie, 'n hemp op jou rug, 'n maaltyd aan jou tafel, of 'n dadgum -ding. Die enigste ding wat hoër is as die stof, is jou skuld. Stof lê, maar skuld nie. "

Die woord wat sinoniem geword het met die migrante wat na die werk na die weste gereis het, was 'Okie'. Na verneem word, is Ben Reddick, 'n joernalis met die Paso Robles Press in Kalifornië, het talle "ou motors met Oklahoma -kentekens met" OK "in trekkampe gesien." Agter op 'n foto wat die kampe en die motors uitbeeld, skryf hy die woord "Okies", wat as onderskrif gepubliseer is. Daarna het die term versprei van toepassing op trekarbeiders. Iets tong-in-die-kies het Will Rogers en ander soms facetiously gesê dat die migrasie van Okies na Kalifornië die intellektuele vlak van beide state verhoog. In baie westerse state word Okie steeds as 'n neerhalende term gebruik, ondanks die talle pogings van Oklahomans om dit in 'n komplimentêre term te verander. Diegene wat hier woon, beskou hulself egter oor die algemeen as 'Oklahomans', nie 'Okies' nie. Alhoewel 'Okie' gebruik is voordat die stofstorms getref het, het dit een van die tradisionele elemente geword wat verband hou met die Dust Bowl -era. Ongelukkig, ongeag hoeveel navorsing en hoeveel boeke en artikels daar ook al oor die Dust Bowl geskryf word, bly Oklahoma in die gedagtes van baie as "die Dust Bowl State".

Bibliografie

James N. Gregory, American Exodus: The Dust Bowl Migration and Okie Culture in California (Herdruk van 1989, New York: Oxford University Press, 1991).

Woody Guthrie, Gebind vir heerlikheid (New York: E. P. Dutton en Co., 1943).

Caroline Henderson, Briewe uit die stofkom, red. Alvin O. Turner (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2001).

Kenneth E. Hendrickson, Jr., red., Harde tye in Oklahoma: die depressiejare (Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Historical Society, 1983).

Guy Logsdon, Die stofkom en die migrant (Tulsa, Okla: Thomas Gilcrease Institute of American History and Art, 1971).

Donald Worster, Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in die 1930's (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979).

Geen deel van hierdie webwerf mag as 'n openbare domein beskou word nie.

Kopiereg op alle artikels en ander inhoud in die aanlyn- en gedrukte weergawes van Die ensiklopedie van die geskiedenis van Oklahoma word gehou deur die Oklahoma Historical Society (OHS). Dit bevat individuele artikels (outeursreg op OHS volgens outeuropdrag) en korporatief (as 'n volledige werk), insluitend webontwerp, grafika, soekfunksies en lys-/blaai -metodes. Kopiereg op al hierdie materiaal word beskerm onder die Amerikaanse en internasionale wetgewing.

Gebruikers stem in om nie hierdie materiaal af te laai, te kopieer, aan te pas, te verkoop, te verhuur, te huur, te herdruk of andersins te versprei nie, of om na hierdie materiaal op 'n ander webwerf te skakel, sonder toestemming van die Oklahoma Historical Society. Individuele gebruikers moet bepaal of hul gebruik van die materiaal onder die Amerikaanse kopieregwetgewing se "quotair gebruik" -riglyne val en nie inbreuk maak op die eiendomsreg van die Oklahoma Historical Society as die wettige kopiereghouer van Die ensiklopedie van die geskiedenis van Oklahoma en gedeeltelik of geheel.

Fotokrediete: Alle foto's word in die gepubliseerde en aanlyn weergawes van Die ensiklopedie van die geskiedenis en kultuur van Oklahoma is die eiendom van die Oklahoma Historical Society (tensy anders vermeld).

Aanhaling

Die volgende (volgens Die Chicago Style of Manual, 17de uitgawe) is die voorkeuraanhaling vir artikels:
Guy Logsdon, & ldquoDust Bowl Lore, & rdquo Die ensiklopedie van die geskiedenis en kultuur van Oklahoma, https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=DU012.

© Oklahoma Historical Society.

Oklahoma Historical Society | 800 Nazih Zuhdi Drive, Oklahoma City, OK 73105 | 405-521-2491
Webwerfindeks | Kontak ons ​​| Privaatheid | Perskamer | Webwerf Navrae


Stofkom - GESKIEDENIS

Die Dust Bowl het sy naam gekry na Swart Sondag, 14 April 1935. Meer en meer stofstorms het in die jare voor daardie dag opgeblaas. In 1932 is 14 stofstorms op die Vlakte aangeteken. In 1933 was daar 38 storms. Teen 1934 word geraam dat 100 miljoen hektaar landbougrond die grootste deel van die bogrond in die wind verloor het. Teen April 1935 was daar weke van stofstorms, maar die wolk wat daardie Sondag op die horison verskyn het, was die ergste. Die wind was teen 60 km / h. Toe tref dit.

"Die impak is soos 'n graaf fyn sand wat teen die gesig gegooi word," het Avis D. Carlson in 'n New Republic -artikel geskryf. "Mense wat in hul eie erwe vasgekeer is, tas voor die drumpel. Karre staan ​​tot stilstand, want geen lig in die wêreld kan die wervelende troebel binnedring nie. Ons leef met die stof, eet dit, slaap daarmee, kyk hoe dit ons van besittings stroop en die hoop op besittings. Dit word werklik. "

Die dag na Swart Sondag gebruik 'n verslaggewer van Associated Press die term "Dust Bowl" vir die eerste keer. "Drie klein woorde wat pynlik bekend is op die Westerse boer se tong, heers oor die lewe in die stofbak van die kontinent en as dit reën." Die term steek vas en word deur radioverslaggewers en skrywers gebruik in privaat briewe en openbare toesprake.

In die sentrale en noordelike vlaktes was stof oral.

Herman Goertzen onthou hoenders wat in die middel van die dag gaan slaap het omdat die stofstorm dit so donker gemaak het dat die hoenders gedink het dit is nag.
LeRoy Hankel onthou 'n wind wat so sterk gewaai het dat 'n vragmotor 30 tot 40 voet in 'n straat afgewaai het.
Elroy Hoffman onthou hoe winde sade uit die grond waai.
Stan Jensen onthou hoe dit onmoontlik was om huise skoon te hou.
Walter Schmitt onthou hoe die winde tuimelkruie in heinings waai. Toe dryf die stof agter die tuimelkruide op en bedek die omheinings.
Harvey Pickrel het probeer om 'n trekker te koop –, die enigste truuk was dat hy dit uit die stof sou moes grawe voordat hy dit huis toe kon neem.

Die impak van die Dust Bowl is oral in die VSA gevoel. Gedurende dieselfde April as Swart Sondag 1935 was een van FDR se adviseurs, Hugh Hammond Bennett, in Washington DC op pad om voor die kongres te getuig oor die noodsaaklikheid van grondbewaringswetgewing. 'N Stofstorm het in Washington gekom van die Great Plains af. Terwyl 'n stowwerige somberheid oor die hoofstad van die land versprei en die son uitvee, verduidelik Bennett: 'Dit is waaroor ek gepraat het, menere.' Die kongres het dieselfde jaar die Wet op die Beskerming van Grond aanvaar.

Geskryf deur Bill Ganzel van die Ganzel Group. Die eerste keer geskryf en gepubliseer in 2003.


Stofbak

Droogte was niks nuuts vir die boere in die weste van Kansas nie. Sedert hul vaders en grootvaders hulle daar in die 1870's gevestig het, was daar droë periodes afgewissel met tye van voldoende reënval. Maar die droogte wat in 1931 op die sentrale vlaktes neergedaal het, was erger as wat die meeste kon onthou.

Baie faktore het tot die Dust Bowl gelei. Die toenemende vraag na koring tydens die Eerste Wêreldoorlog, die ontwikkeling van nuwe gemeganiseerde plaasmasjinerie tesame met die dalende koringpryse in die twintigerjare, het daartoe gelei dat miljoene hektaar inheemse grasveld vervang is deur swaar beskutte landerye met reguit rygewasse. Vier jaar van droogte het die gewasse laat krimp en die los boonste grond aan die genade van die ewige winde oorgelaat.

Op Sondag, 14 April 1935, genaamd Swart Sondag, het 'n massiewe front uit die noordweste oor die Groot Vlakte beweeg. Met los winde van 60 myl per uur, is die los bogrond opgeskep en in wolke stofwolke wat honderde voet hoog is, opgehoop. Mense het haastig huis toe gegaan, want om buite vasgevang te word, kan versmoring en dood beteken. Die stof en duisternis het alle vorme van vervoer gestuit en die fyn slik wat deur enige skeur of gewrig gesif het, het die sluiting van hospitale, meelmolens, skole en besighede genoodsaak.

Sommige het hierdie ongelooflike swaarkry teëgekom en tou opgegooi. Ander het gebly en leef op hoop, humor en koppigheid. Boere het geluister na die advies van die Amerikaanse grondbeskermingsdiens en begin met strookboerdery en kontoerboerdery, die herstel van weivelde en die aanplant van honderde kilometers se windbreuke. Met gesamentlike inspanning en gunstige weersomstandighede het die land weer as die broodmandjie van die land begin blom.

Foto's en ander items wat verband hou met stofstorms is beskikbaar op Kansas Memory.

Inskrywing: Stofbak

Skrywer: Kansas Historical Society

Skrywer inligting: Die Kansas Historical Society is 'n staatsagentskap wat die staat se geskiedenis aktief beskerm en deel.

Datum geskep: Junie 2003

Datum gewysig: Maart 2016

Die skrywer van hierdie artikel is alleen verantwoordelik vir die inhoud daarvan.

Indien Kansapedia inhoud

Ons nooi u uit om verdere besonderhede oor bestaande artikels te stuur of artikels oor ander onderwerpe in die geskiedenis van Kansas in te dien.

Kansas geheue

Ons aanlynversamelings bevat meer as 500 000 beelde van foto's, dokumente en artefakte, wat daagliks groei. Vind u verhaal in Kansas deur middel van hierdie ryk bron!


20 Tragiese foto's uit Amerika se stofkom in die dertigerjare

The Dust Bowl was 'n reeks erge stofstorms wat 100,000,000 hektaar van die Amerikaanse weiveld geraak het as gevolg van droogte en swak boerderytegnieke. Die droogte het die Midde-Weste van 1934 tot 1940 geteister. Om gewasse te plant, het boere die diepgewortelde grasse verwyder wat die grond vogtig gehou het tydens periodes van min reën en sterk wind. Die ontwatering van die grond is vererger deur meer samelewende boerderytegnieke van nuut ontwikkelde gemeganiseerde boerderymasjiene soos die trekker en maaidorser.

Die federale regering het die vestiging en ontwikkeling van die Midde-Weste aangemoedig. Die Homestead Act van 1862, die Kinkaid Act van 1904 en die vergrote Homestead Act van 1909 het groot stukke grond gebied vir setlaars wat bereid was om na die Great Plains te verhuis. Na 'n buitengewoon nat en vrugbare seisoen in die 1920's, het die regering en klimaatwetenskaplikes die teorie gepropageer dat die lug die ploeg volg om die weste te versnel. Hierdie teorie verklaar dat menslike bewoning en landbou -ontwikkeling die klimaat in dorre streke permanent verander, wat dit meer vogtig maak.

Tydens die droogte het die blootgestelde, geploegde grond weggewaai in groot stofwolke genaamd & acirc € ˜ black blizzards & rsquo or & acirc € ˜ black rollers & rsquo. Op 9 Mei 1934 was daar 'n storm so erg dat 12 miljoen pond stof in Chicago neergelê het. Die swart sneeustorms verminder die sigbaarheid tot minder as 3 voet en storms kan soms stofwolke so ver oos as Washington DC en New York stuur. In die winter van 1934-1935 was die sneeu in New England rooi.

Gesinne regoor die weiveld is verplaas deur die droogte en storms. Tussen 1930 en 1940 verhuis 3,5 miljoen mense uit die Plains -state, waarvan die meeste na Kalifornië is.

Stofbak. Dallas, Suid -Dakota 1936. Wikimedia 3 Stofwolke trek terug, Dodge City, 1933, SC. Pinterest Black Roller nader klein plaashuise. PBS Vermoeide migrerende gesin op pad na Kalifornië. ebaumsworld Titel: Stofbakboer wat trekker ry met jong seun naby Cland, New Mexico. Dorothea Lange Foto van 'n stofstorm in Tyrone, Okla., Geneem op 14 April 1935. Die Dust Bowl van die 1930's het meer as 'n miljoen inwoners van die gebied na Kalifornië gestuur. Pinterest Motor begrawe deur 'n stofstorm. Gilmore Car Museum Omstreeks 1935: Drie meisies wat verskillende stofkommaskers modelleer om te dra in gebiede waar die hoeveelheid stof in die lug asemhalingsprobleme veroorsaak. Getty Images Migrerende gesin uit 1940 wat aan die stofkom ontsnap het. History.com Migrerende gesin stap na Kalifornië. Pinterest


‘Plag On the Land ’: Scenes From an American Dust Bowl, 1954

Die dreigende storm het bokant 'n plaas naby Hartman, Colo, gestyg, en dit was amper verwoes deur koringboerdery.

Margaret Bourke-White/Life Pictures/Shutterstock

Die verskynsel bekend as Dust Bowl was 'n verskrikking in die middel van die vorige eeu en die gevolg van 'n vernietigende mengsel van wrede weer en oningeligte landboupraktyke wat landbougrond kwesbaar gelaat het.

Hier kyk LIFE.com terug, deur die lens van die groot Margaret Bourke-White, op 'n tydperk toe daar soos 'n LIFE dit in 'n uitgawe van Mei 1954 verwoord het 'n “Dusty Plague Upon the Land. ”

Die delikate, dodelike poeier versprei in 'n bruin mis oor die prairiehorison. In Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas en New Mexico het die verdonkerende wervels van losgemaakte bogrond oor die vlaktes gekou en 16 miljoen hektaar grond vernietig of beskadig. Die mens het teruggeveg met tegnieke soos beitel. . . . om 'n ploeg van 6 sentimeter in die grond te ry om vuil te voorkom wat die kosbare land van die bose wind kan weerhou. Teen die stowwerige gety het hierdie swak pogings te min en te laat gekom. Twee dekades na die land se grootste droogtejaar in die geskiedenis, 1934, is die suidelike vlaktes weer amptelik deur die Amerikaanse regering gemerk met twee bekende woorde “Dust Bowl. ”

Die dreigende storm het bo 'n plaas naby Hartman, Colo, opgestaan. Dit was eers verwoes deur koringboerdery.

Margaret Bourke-White/Life Pictures/Shutterstock

'N Beskermingspatroon is deur 'n boer met twee trekkers (regs bo) oor 'n plaas naby Walsh, Colo, versprei.

Margaret Bourke-White/Life Pictures/Shutterstock

'N Boerderygesin in Colorado tydens die 1954 Dust Bowl.

Margaret Bourke-White/Life Pictures/Shutterstock

Die teen-stofmaat van grond wat deur 'n bewaringsgerigte boer in die Baca-distrik geneem is, het niks gedoen toe 'n buurland se onbewakte grond oor sy plaas waai en 'n oes winterkoring doodmaak nie.

Margaret Bourke-White/Life Pictures/Shutterstock

'N Besproeiingsloot naby Amity is van stof skoongemaak, wat dit 20 myl gevul het tot 'n diepte van ses voet.

Margaret Bourke-White/Life Pictures/Shutterstock

Colorado stofbak, 1954.

Margaret Bourke-White/Life Pictures/Shutterstock

Colorado Dust Bowl, 1954.

Margaret Bourke-White/Life Pictures/Shutterstock

Colorado Dust Bowl, 1954.

Margaret Bourke-White/Life Pictures/Shutterstock

Colorado stofkom, 1954.

Margaret Bourke-White/Life Pictures/Shutterstock

Colorado Dust Bowl, 1954.

Margaret Bourke-White/Life Pictures/Shutterstock

Colorado Dust Bowl, 1954.

Margaret Bourke-White/Life Pictures/Shutterstock

Coloradans Art Blooding en sy gesin het hul nuutgekoopte plaas in wind van 50 km / h geïnspekteer.

Margaret Bourke-White/Life Pictures/Shutterstock

Colorado stofkom, 1954.

Margaret Bourke-White/Life Pictures/Shutterstock

Wilde eende wat aan die stof doodgesteek het, het 'n begraafplaas gemaak van wat op 'n tyd 'n stop was vir hul lentemigrasies.

Margaret Bourke-White/Life Pictures/Shutterstock

Gevelde besemel lê naby Walsh, eens ‘Broomcorn Capital of U.S.A. ’

Margaret Bourke-White/Life Pictures/Shutterstock

Colorado stofkom, 1954.

Margaret Bourke-White/Life Pictures/Shutterstock

'N Plaashuis is beskadig deur 'n stofstorm, Colorado, 1954.

Margaret Bourke-White/Life Pictures/Shutterstock

Colorado Dust Bowl, 1954.

Margaret Bourke-White/Life Pictures/Shutterstock

Colorado stofkom, 1954.

Margaret Bourke-White/Life Pictures/Shutterstock

Colorado stofkom, 1954.

Margaret Bourke-White/Life Pictures/Shutterstock

'N Boerderygesin in Colorado tydens die 1954 Dust Bowl.

Margaret Bourke-White/Life Pictures/Shutterstock


Die Grondbewaringsdiens in die Groot Vlaktes

Herdruk uit Landbougeskiedenis 64 (lente 1990): 58-73.

Hugh Hammond Bennett, vroeg in April 1935, was op die punt om 'n ambisie te bereik wat jare lank sy professionele lewe oorheers het, die oprigting van 'n permanente agentskap wat hom toespits op grondbewaring. Sy tydelike grond -erosiediens in die departement van binnelandse sake het wel 'n deel van die geld ontvang wat die kongres bewillig het om mense tydens die depressie weer aan die werk te sit, wat hom die geleentheid gebied het om 'n paar van sy idees oor grondbewaring in demonstrasieprojekte aan die gang te sit. land. Maar dit was nog nooit die uiteindelike doelwit wat hy van die begin af gesoek het na iets wat die depressie sou oorleef en gronderosie sou aanval totdat dit as 'n nasionale probleem uit die weg geruim is nie. 1 Vriende van die grondbewaringsbeweging het wetsontwerpe by die kongres ingedien om 'n spesifieke agentskap vir hierdie doel te stig. Terwyl Bennett voor die Senaat Openbare Grondkomitee sit, moes hy 'n oortuigende saak maak. Die lug verdonker toe stof van die vlaktes kom. Die aankoms van die stofwolk was voordelig, maar nie heeltemal onverwags nie-ten minste nie vir die hoofgetuie nie. Die senatore het die verhoor vir 'n oomblik opgeskort en na die vensters van die kantoor van die Senaat gegaan. Beter as woorde of statistieke of foto's, het die afnemende daglig die bewys van Bennett bewys dat die bewaring van grond 'n openbare verantwoordelikheid is wat ondersteun moet word en volgehoue ​​toewyding om een ​​van die landelike Amerikaanse probleme op te los. Bennett onthou dit: "Daarna het alles goed gegaan."

In die begin, soos so dikwels in die toekoms die geval sou wees, was die Groot Vlaktes die middelpunt van ontwikkelinge in grondbewaringsbeleid. Waarskynlik sou die grondbewaringswetsontwerp in elk geval geslaag het. Die ywer van Bennett se kruistog het saamgekom met die geleentheid wat die Depressie gebied het om die werk aan die gang te kry, maar die situasie in die Groot Vlakte het die finale stukrag vir wetgewing gebied. Die depressie het die land wakker gemaak vir die onderling verwante probleme van armoede en swak grondgebruik. Die publiek het 'n blik op hierdie lyding in die Suide op die foto's van die Farm Security Administration en die in Walker Evans en James Agees, Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, wat 'n verhaal vertel van arm grond, arm mense, bemoeilik deur huur en rassisme . Maar dit was die Groot Vlaktes wat die nasionale aandag getrek het. Koerantberigte oor stofstorms, die deur die regering geborgde dokumentêre klassieke, The Plough That Broke the Plains, en John Steinbeck se roman, Grapes of Wrath, het kragtige beelde ontlok. Vir Amerikaners stel die Dust Bowl die beeld van die menslike toestand wat gekompliseer word deur die probleem van gronderosie. Dit bly 'n kragtige historiese toetssteen vir die idees van die publiek oor gronderosie. Ons kan data versamel, ontleed en argumenteer, soos ons doen oor die relatiewe erns van gronderosie in ons produktiefste landbougebiede, soos die mielieband of die koringstreek in die Palouse. Af en toe verskyn verhale in koerante oor soutgehalte op besproeiingsgrond. Maar nie een van hierdie situasies kan vergelyk word met die onvermydelike vraag wat met elke langdurige droogte in die Groot Vlaktes gepaardgaan nie: kom die & quotStofkom & quot terug?

Die Dust Bowl was ook die gewildste gebied in die Verenigde State vir historici wat gronderosie bestudeer het. Binne die afgelope dekade het historici drie boeke oor die Dust Bowl geproduseer-die gedeelte van die vlaktes wat Wes-Kansas, suidoostelike Colorado, noordooste van New Mexico en die panhandles van Oklahoma en Texas insluit. As die koring en die gras soms verdor in die vlaktes, lyk dit asof historiese interpretasie floreer waar die lotgevalle van mens en land so verweef is en onderwerp word aan die weelde van die klimaat. Om die temas kort op te som, Donald Worster in Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in die 1930's het bevind dat die Dust Bowl die gevolg is van 'n sosiale stelsel en 'n ekonomiese orde, kapitalisme, wat die omgewing ontwrig en dit sal aanhou totdat die stelsel verander word. 3 Vir Paul Bonnifield in The Dust Bowl: Men, Dirt en Depression, het vlakteboere suksesvol gesukkel, nie net teen droogte en depressie nie, maar ook teen te veel regeringsidealisme, waarvan die grondbewaringsdistrik die gevaarlikste was, met die potensiaal om vlaktes te maak & quotantboere vir 'n obskure en verre afwesige verhuurder. & quot 4 R. Douglas Hurt in The Dust Bowl: An Agricultural and Social History het geglo dat boere in die algemeen uit die Dust Bowl geleer het en hul boerderypraktyke aangepas het, sodat wanneer droogte in die 1950's terugkeer. so ook winderosie, maar nie die swart sneeustorm nie. & quot 5 Hierdie volumes beskryf baie van die spesifieke boerderypraktyke wat die Grondbewaringsdiens in die Groot Vlakte bepleit het. In hierdie artikel sal ek konsentreer op sommige van die latere ontwikkelings sedert die stofkom. Ten slotte, oor die pyn dat ek 'n geografiese determinis genoem word, wil ek 'n paar punte noem oor hoe die Groot Vlaktes die nasionale grondbewaringsprogramme en -beleid beïnvloed het.

Die totstandkoming van die Grondbewaringsdiens het 'n plek geskep om al die inligting oor die beste boerderymetodes bymekaar te maak, maar om veilig binne die land se vermoëns te boer. Die Grondbewaringsdiens het eers demonstrasieprojekte en die Civilian Conservation Corps -kampe deurgewerk. President Franklin Roosevelt het die state in 1937 aangemoedig om 'n standaard grondbeskermingsdistrikwet te aanvaar. Daarna kan die Amerikaanse departement van landbou 'n samewerkingsooreenkoms met die distrik onderteken. Baie van die SCS se bydrae tot die distrikte het personeel aan die distrik verskaf. Op hierdie manier het 'n agentskap wat hom op bewaring toespits, 'n teenwoordigheid op die platteland gevestig, wat direk met boere en boere werk in 'n verhouding wat twee gelukkige resultate behaal het. Eerstens het dit al die dissiplines laat werk aan algemene probleme. By die demonstrasieprojekte het dit die ingenieurs, agronomiste en spesialisbestuurders saamgestel. Hulle sou saamwerk aan algemene probleme eerder as om slegs op hul eie dissipline te konsentreer. Tweedens het die Grondbewaringsdiens 'n manier gebied om te werk aan wat ons nou tegnologie -oordrag van beide kante van die spektrum noem. Dit het veral gepas gelyk in die vlaktes waar boere met winderosie gesukkel het en 'n aantal metodes bedink het om dit te bekamp. Staatslandbou -eksperimentstasies en later USDA -stasies wat spesialiseer in gronderosie, het antwoorde gegee. Toe SCS begin werk, was daar reeds 'n paar idees oor antwoorde. Om vegetatiewe dekking te bied, bepleit SCS waterbesparing deur aanhouding, omleidings- en waterverspreidingsstrukture en deur kontoerbewerking van landerye en kontoervore op weiveld. Die vegetatiewe stroke in die strook en die grense van gras, gewasse, struike of bome het as windversperrings gedien. Die jong grondbewaarders het ook die aanpassing van gewasse en kultuurpraktyke aangemoedig om aan te pas by die verskillende topografiese, grond-, vog- en seisoenale toestande. Organiese residue moet gebruik word om die organiese inhoud te verhoog, en dit moet ook op die oppervlak gehou word, soos in die geval van stoppels, om winderosie te voorkom. Krities uitroeibare grond moet op 'n permanente plantegroei teruggekeer word. Rangelands kan verbeter word deur goeie reeksbestuur deur verspreiding, rotasie en uitstel van weiding. Die mees verreikende aanbeveling was waarskynlik dat boere oorgaan van uitgebreide kontantgewasboerdery, veral koring, na 'n gebalanseerde vee- en boerderybedryf, of dat hulle oorgaan na 'n veebedryf en slegs die verbouing van veevoer. 6 Alhoewel tegnologie deur die jare verander het, is hierdie noodsaaklike elemente steeds die riglyn vir die grondbewaringsprogram.

Terugskouend blyk die vordering met die gebruik van veldveld binne sy vermoëns een van die ooglopendste prestasies sedert die dertigerjare. Volgens die meeste maatreëls het die toestand van die veld in die Great Plains en elders sedert die 1930's verbeter. Henry Wallace se voorwoord tot die Western Range -verslag in 1936 het voorspel dat dit vyftig jaar sou neem om die reeks te herstel tot 'n toestand wat 17,3 miljoen vee -eenhede sou ondersteun. Die doelwit is in die middel van die sewentigerjare bereik. Ander evaluerings deur die Grondbewaringsdiens oor die afgelope twintig jaar toon verbeterings in veldtoestande aan. 7

Dit sal moeilik wees om verantwoordelikheid hiervoor toe te ken aan spesifieke agentskappe, hetsy federaal of staatsagtig. Selfs vandag werk SCS saam met ongeveer die helfte van die boere in die Groot Vlakte, hoewel baie van die wat nie deelneem nie, deeltyds boerboere is, met ander inkomstebronne. Wat duidelik is, is 'n groeiende waardering vir die beginsels van reeksbestuur in veeteelt. Dit is 'n definitiewe verskuiwing van die houding van die vroeë twintigste eeu toe die konsep dat weiveld te intens bewei kon word, vir baie beestelers 'n afsku was. Die kontroversie oor weidingsintensiteit was sodanig dat minister van landbou, James Wilson, in 1901 oor die manuskrip van 'n USDA -bulletin oor die onderwerp geskryf het: & quotall too true, but not best for us to take a position now. & Quot 8 Kort na die stofstorm in 1935, Walter C. Lowdermilk, mede -hoof van SCS, spreek 'n groep kleinvee toe om hulle die vergadering te beëindig toe hy die balale term & quotovergrazing & quot 9 noem

Dit was 'n taamlike reis van die houding na die algemene aanvaarding van veldbestuur as in belang van die land en die boer. Verskeie elemente was van kardinale belang vir die ontwikkeling. SCS -mense wat saam met plaaslike grondbewaringsdistrikte en boere werk, moes hulle oortuig dat die bestuur van bestek in hul beste belang is. Die veldmense werk meestal saam met eienaar-operateurs en gevolglik in 'n minder teenstrydige klimaat as die spesies van die Bosdiens en die Departement van Binnelandse Sake, wat die toestande van die vee moes probeer verbeter deur die veekoerse en weidingsgelde op federale lande op te lê. . Omdat hulle weet dat 'n opvoedkundige werk voorlê, moes die spesialis -spesialis 'n stelsel ontwikkel om die bestuur van die reeks te bevorder, wat vir die SCS -veldtegnici sowel as boere verstaanbaar was. Hierdie noodsaaklikheid het die wat algemeen as 'n navorsingsaktiwiteit beskou is, na die plaas en boerdery geneem. Die sleutel vir boere om verstandig te gebruik, was om die toestand van die reeks te ken, om te weet wanneer en hoeveel dit bewei kan word sonder verdere agteruitgang. Daarom moes SCS 'n stelsel van omvangtoestandsklassifikasie ontwikkel, gebaseer op wetenskaplike beginsels, wat veldpersoneel van SCS en boere kon verstaan ​​en gebruik.

Vroeë baanbestuurspioniers het erken dat die samestelling van die reeks met swaar weiding verander het, aangesien beeste die groter, smaakliker grasse gekies het, en die korter, minder smaaklike. 10 Na dertien jaar se navorsing oor nasionale bosveld in die Weste, het Arthur W. Sampson hierdie konsep uitgebrei en opgemerk dat die sekerste manier om oorbeweiding op te spoor, is deur die opvolging of die vervanging van een planttipe deur 'n ander. & Quot die weidingswaarde van veldlande was die hoogste, waar die dekking 'n stadium in die omgewing van die kruidagtige klimaks verteenwoordig en die laagste in die tipe wat die meeste van die klimaks af was. praktiese reikwydte probleme. Clement, 'n pionier in die prairie -ekologie, het teoretiseer dat grasvelde 'n gemeenskap van plante was in verskillende stadiums van plantopvolging wat na 'n klimaksfase vorder.

Range -kundiges in die Soil Conservation Service het 'n klassifikasiestelsel nodig wat in die veld gebruik kan word om met boere te werk. Most range management systems in the 1930s and 1940s recognized the validity of ecological concepts for range management. The distinctiveness of the SCS system was that it would be a quantitative system that applied ecological concepts to range classification and management. Other systems were judged to be too qualitative for practical application in the field. The idea was to develop floristic guides of plant population for the various range condition classes. For instance, as rangeland is grazed by animals certain plants will show an increase in the percentage of cover under heavy grazing others will decrease, and in other cases heavy grazing leads to an invasion of plants onto the site. Thus, SCS field staff learned to inventory rangeland for particular "decreasers, increasers, and invaders" in determining whether the range condition fell into one of four categories--poor, fair, good, or excellent.

So as not to make too general a recommendation that would be of limited value, SCS added the concept of "range site" to the study of range management and improved range management practices. Foresters had originally developed the concept of site as an ecological or management entity based on plant communities. 12 Soil type, landscape position, and climate factors would be involved in determining the climax vegetation and should be taken into account when making recommendations for using rangeland following general instructions the local SCS soil conservationists had to delineate range sites in their soil conservation district. Field staff could then work with ranchers to develop a conservation plan that included advice on how best to use the land for grazing and at the same time maintain or improve range condition. In working with farmers SCS tried to ensure that ranchers understood the key plants and their response to light or heavy grazing and deferment. Overall the system was not supposed to focus solely on those plants that benefited cattle most. In concept it adhered to the suggestion of Clement that "There can be no doubt that the community is a more reliable indicator than any single species of it." 13 Advice to farmers might also include information on fencing, development of water supplies, and rotation grazing as range management theories changed over the years. But the reliance on range site and condition as the foundation has persisted to the present.

The range management experience illustrated two important points about the desirability of an interdisciplinary approach to problems and the need to link scientific theory to practical application. Because of its large field staff, SCS was able to test its ideas about using ecological quantification for range classification at numerous sites in the Great Plains. Isolated researchers have no such means for testing theory and classification in practice. The other point involves the emphasis on soil in range classification. Certainly the early ecologists emphasized soil as a part of the biotic environment. Nonetheless, it is quite likely that having both soil scientists and range managers in the same agency led to greater recognition of the importance of soil in site identification than might have been the case otherwise. Range management was but one of the cases in which the so-called action agencies such as SCS had to translate the scientific into the practical. In so doing it removed the prejudice often held toward what was considered strictly research or theoretical musings. The ecological emphasis and the recognition of the other values of rangeland for wildlife and water, not just the forage produced, seem to have increased the popularity of range management with ranchers.

Cultural practices, especially tillage methods, that reduced wind erosion found favor with farmers. Subsurface tillage, or stubble-mulch farming, eliminated weeds that depleted moisture during the summer fallow period while at the same time leaving wheat stubble on the surface to control wind erosion. Farmers employed the rotary rod weeder, or the large V-shaped Noble blade, or smaller sweeps in this work. Developments in planting and tillage equipment and in herbicides have added a whole array of planting and cultural methods that leave crop residues on the surface as well as increasing the organic content of the topsoil. These practices, such as no-till, ridge-till, strip-till, mulch-till, and reduced tillage fall under the general rubric "conservation tillage." The Conservation Technology Information Center, which promotes conservation tillage, estimated in 1988 that 23 percent of the acreage in the southern plains and 32 percent of acreage in the northern plains was planted with conservation tillage. 14 Larger farm equipment can have some adverse effects on conservation, but the powerful tractors make for timely emergency tillage operations to bring moist soil to the surface to control wind erosion.

SCS's work in the Great Plains always emphasized retiring the most erodible soils to grass. Thus they worked on introducing grass and devising planting methods for the range. The land utilization projects provided a means to test some of these methods. But some plains farmers and absentee owners have continued to use erodible soils for cropland that would be better suited to rangeland or pasture. Nonetheless, as farmers have learned about their land through the hazards of erosion or poor crop production potential, or perhaps through the teachings of the Soil Conservation Service, there have been some adjustments from the homesteading days or the World War I era of wheat expansion. The system of land capability classification developed by the Soil Conservation Service in the late 1930s and recent surveys of land use provided some clues to this shift. In making recommendations to farmers, SCS learned to classify land. In class I are soils with few limitations that restrict use, class II soils require moderate conservation practices, class III soils require special conservation practices, and class IV soils have very severe limitations that require very careful management. Soils in class V and VI are not suited to common cultivated crops. The system takes into account several limitations on use. Where the major limitation is susceptibility to erosion, the subclass designation "e" is used. Generally less than 20 percent of the land in the worst classes, VIIIe and VIe is currently used for cropland, and less than half of the IVe land is used for cropland. 15 So there have been some adjustments.

Wind erosion is still a problem on the plains. While dust storms are not common generally, several years of drought, such as occurred recently can still set the stage for dust storms such as the one that occurred in Kansas on March 14, 1989. 16 The 1988-1989 wind erosion season was the worst since 1954-1955 when SCS started keeping records. 17 Nonetheless, one can perceive the cumulative effects of conservation practices that break up the flat, pulverized landscape and thus prevent dust storms from gathering force uninterrupted. Chief among them seem to be leaving crop residues on the surface, higher organic content of the soil, wind stripcropping, field windbreaks, and interspersed grasslands. The Conservation Reserve Program, authorized in the 1985 farm bill, that pays farmers to keep highly erodible land in grass has proven most popular in the Great Plains. This is not surprising, because the plains influenced it as they did so many other conservation programs. 18

The drought that struck the Great Plains in the 1950s led once again to emergency drought measures, but also eventually to new soil conservation programs and policies. The Colorado legislature made $1,000,000 available to plains farmers in March 1954. The U. S. Department of Agriculture spent $13.3 million on emergency tillage in 1954, and another $9,275,000 in 1955. The Agricultural Conservation Program spent $70,011,000 on drought emergency conservation measures in twenty-one states during 1954-1956. Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas used $37,848,000 of the funds. Additional funds went to other drought relief measures. 19

As it turned out, the 1950s drought provided an opportunity for SCS to promote a new program for dealing with conservation and drought in the Great Plains. They suggested to USDA's drought committee that any financial assistance be used to assist farmers to convert cropland back to grassland by paying 50 percent of the cost with the proviso that it remain in grass at least five years. 20 The full committee's report seized on the idea of long-term contracts for restoring grass. It went even further in saying that to discourage a subsequent plow-up it might be necessary to use "restrictive covenants and surrender of eligibility for allotments, loans and crop insurance." 21 Meanwhile, USDA representatives met with members of the rejuvenated Great Plains Agriculture Council to work on a program. It called for measures it was hoped would prove more lasting than the cyclical assistance in emergency tillage and emergency feed and seed programs. The report called for "installing and establishing those practices which are most enduring and most needed but which are not now part of their normal farm and ranch operations." 22 President Eisenhower introduced the bill that was to become the Great Plains Conservation Program into Congress on June 19, 1956. Under the bill, the Secretary of Agriculture could enter into contracts, not to exceed ten years, with producers. No contract could be signed after December 31, 1971. The Secretary was to designate the counties in the ten Great Plains states that had serious wind erosion problems. The contracts were to stipulate the "schedule of proposed changes in cropping systems and land use and of conservation measures." The House Committee reported favorably on the bill with a few reservations. Only one major farm group showed up to testify in favor of the bill. John A. Baker of the National Farmers Union favored the bill, but even he reported that plains' farmers and ranchers had "some qualms and some apprehensions about these master plans." 23

After the President signed the bill on August 7, 1956, (Public Law 84-102) Assistant Secretary Ervin L. Peterson designated the Soil Conservation Service to implement the program. 24 Cyril Luker, a native Texan who had worked in Amarillo in charge of erosion control practices, chaired an inter-agency group that would write the basic guidelines and program structure. Jefferson C. Dykes, Assistant Administrator and a student of the history of the Great Plains, chaired the work group on farm and ranch planning. Donald Williams, Administrator of the Soil Conservation Service, ordered the state conservationist of the ten Great Plains states to make proposals to the inter-agency group. 25 The government officials also held meetings with cattle- and sheep-raising groups as well as farm groups. 26

In working with the inter-agency committee, SCS wrapped nearly two decades of experience into the program guidelines. Essentially, they wanted the individual contracts with farmers to bring about soil conservation while at the same time assisting in the development of economically stable farm and ranch units. Though he did not work on the Great Plains program, H. H. Finnell, former head of SCS's regional office at Amarillo, wrote in Soil Conservation, the official magazine of the Soil Conservation Service:

A more logical and permanent remedy would be the development of an intermediate type of agriculture to use marginal land. This land is just as capable of being efficiently operated as any other lands, provided the demands made upon it are kept within its natural moisture and fertility capabilities. Ranching is not intensive enough to resist economic pressures while grain farming is too intensive for the physical limitations of the land. A special type of agriculture for marginal land is needed. It must use the land more intensively than ranching and at the same time more safely than grain farming. Men of stable character and more patience than those who ride on waves of speculation will be needed to work this out. 27

The contracts with farmers certainly did not dictate what was to be done there would be mutual agreement. But it would nonetheless be a contract, and the contract would promote the idea of soil conservation and stability. The idea of risk reduction through diversification was certainly not new in the plains, or to other agricultural areas of the United States. Diversification helped farmer-ranchers withstand fluctuations in weather and prices. Surveys during the 1930s showed that failure in the plains came primarily among two groups, strict dry farmers who had no cattle, and cattlemen who grew no feed. Those who combined ranching and farming most often succeeded. 28 SCS people such as Luker and Dykes recognized that stability was good for soil conservation. The Great Plains Conservation Program was to aim for both. The debate in the work group about farm and ranch planning over sharing the cost of irrigation illustrated the emphasis on the stability of operating units. Many members of the work group believed irrigation should be ineligible for cost-sharing, since it could not be considered a soil conserving practice. Dykes, however, argued that irrigation would be needed on some of the small ranches to achieve the goal of economic stability by providing supplemental feed. 29

Irrigation was of course only one of the farming and ranching practices that contracts with the Great Plains Conservation Program would include. USDA would share the cost of some of these practices with the farmer. Assistant Secretary Patterson also decided that SCS should be responsible for making the cost-sharing payments for soil conservation practices to farmers and ranchers. It was a decision to which SCS attached the utmost importance. USDA began paying part of the cost of soil conservation practices under the Agricultural Conservation Program which was provided for in the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936. USDA seized on the soil conservation rationale to reenact production controls after the Supreme Court invalidated portions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. Farming practices that were eligible for conservation payments became a point of contention between SCS and the agencies responsible for administering the Agricultural Conservation Program. Currently it is the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. SCS regarded some practices, such as liming, as annual production practices. SCS preferred sharing the cost of "enduring" soil conservation practices, such as terracing, that brought long-term benefits. Another long-held preference SCS people brought to their task was the matter of the whole farm conservation plan. Since the 1930s they taught that farmers should regard all their needs and concerns in planning for soil conservation while at the same time taking the need for cash crops, pasture, forage, and other needs into account. Of course, farmers could start using this plan at the rate they preferred. But the Great Plains program would involve a contract that provided for rather generous cost-sharing. Thus, it was required that the farmers and ranchers have a plan for the whole farm and that they install all the conservation measures, though the government might not be sharing the cost of all of them.

The three- to ten-year contracts called for a number of conservation practices--field and wind stripcropping, windbreaks, waterways, terraces, diversions, erosion control dams and grade stabilization structures, waterspreading systems, reorganizing irrigation systems, wells and water storage facilities, fences to distribute grazing, and control of shrubs. But by far the greatest emphasis was on converting cropland on the erodible sandy and thin soils back to grassland and improving rangeland and pastures to further diversified farming-ranching in the plains. 30 A recent program appraisal revealed that 53 percent of the GPCP contracts had been with combination livestock-crop farms, 30 percent with principally livestock farms or ranches, and just over 10 percent with crop and cash grain farms. About 85 percent of the units were under the same management when the contracts expired. 31

The Great Plains, and more especially the Great Plains Conservation Program, influenced national soil conservation policies and programs as the long-term contracts to maintain cost-shared conservation practices became the standard procedure in other conservation programs. Soil conservation district people and SCS looked on the concept of a special program designed for a special conservation problem area as a model that could be used in other sections. Congress never approved any of the proposed programs for other sections of the country. The Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 included a section on Special Areas Conservation Program based in part on the GPCP experience. USDA did not request funds for the special areas, but did target some problem areas for extra funds.

The Great Plains, its climate, geography, and history, influenced another national program, the small watershed program as it is generally called. The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 made USDA one of the federal participants in flood control work. SCS took the leadership in working in upstream tributary watersheds of less than 250,000 acres. The flood control side of the project provided federal funding for floodwater retarding structures, channel modifications, and other engineering works to reduce flooding along streams. Watershed protection involved soil conservation practices on farms and ranches in the watershed to reduce the sediment moving to the streams and reservoirs. For much of its history, SCS has generally added soil conservationists to these watershed project areas to assist farmers with the soil conservation practices. USDA has been involved in 1,387 projects covering more than 87 million acres.

The Flood Control Act of 1936 gave USDA authority to work on flood control in the upstream areas. Some SCS people certainly favored retarding structures as part of the program to be submitted to Congress for approval, but they were stymied at the department level. The Flood Control Act of 1944 authorized eleven projects for work by the Department of Agriculture. SCS did build a few retarding structures, but the USDA General Counsel ruled against building any additional ones. In the late 1940s and early 1950s SCS was having difficulty getting additional programs approved. There the matter rested until floods hit the Missouri River in the early 1950s. Kansas City, Topeka, and Omaha demanded completion of the Pick-Sloan plans for flood control on the tributaries of the Missouri. Farmers and residents who would lose their farms and homes stridently resisted. They offered soil conservation and small dams in the headwaters as an alternative. The most vocal were the residents of the Big Blue Valley, north of Manhattan, Kansas. They were joined by residents of Lincoln, Nebraska, who had formed a Salt-Wahoo group to promote a small watershed program. Elmer Peterson, a journalist from Oklahoma, promoted small dams as an alternative in Big Dam Foolishness. 32

That this debate should emanate from Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska was in part related to the climate and geography of the plains where farmers could raise corn in the moist bottomland to supplement the hilly grasslands that were too dry to support crops. A small watershed program would provide flood protection to land already used for agriculture, while large dams would inundate the best agricultural land and leave the land suited to grazing or wheat. Because of soil type and moisture the flood plains of the Missouri River tributaries were prized by farmers. Consider the case of N. A. Brubaker, who had 283 acres of land on the Vermillion River in Kansas. The 83 acres of bottom land that supplied feed for his livestock were about to be lost to the Tuttle Creek Dam. His 200 acres of hill land was nontillable. He posed this dilemma to Senator Arthur Capper, "Now if my bottom land will be effected by the water from the Dam, and taken away from me, what use would I have for the 200-acre pasture, as I would not have any land to raise feed for the live stock, and as there would be so much pasture land left in the same way, there would not be much chance of leasing it." 33 A chemistry professor at nearby Kansas State College believed similarly, that the bottomland was the only productive cropland in the Blue River watershed. "The Flint Hills upland provides grazing for cattle but is useless for cropping. There farmers must raise corn on bottomland to finish their cattle. This combination of bottom land for corn and truck farming, and upland for grazing has made the Blue Valley a productive, prosperous region. Without bottom land the entire region will be impoverished and depopulated." 34 The Tuttle Creek Dam and others of the Pick-Sloan plan were built, but the small watershed forces persisted. They met with President Eisenhower and secured his blessing. The small watershed program, authorized in the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, spread to the rest of the country. In addition to flood control on agricultural land, it has been used for protection of rural communities, small towns, recreation, water supply, irrigation, and drainage.

The Great Plains also influenced the conservation provisions in the recent Food Security Act of 1985. The plains have been central to questions of landowners' responsibilities to neighbors in not letting erosion impact on their farms. This, of course, can happen with water erosion, with one farmer in the upper part of the watershed influencing the runoff and sedimentation taking place on a farm in the lower part of the watershed. But the most dramatic examples are usually wind erosion from cropland affecting a neighbor's fields. Generally the cases cited have laid the blame on outside investors looking for a quick profit in wheat. Whether this is an accurate portrayal in all cases, the breaking of rangeland for cropland did in part speed passage of some drastic changes in soil conservation laws and policies. It was undoubtedly one of the factors influencing the conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985.

Probably the opening wedge in events that would change the conservation programs took place with the rise in grain prices following the large Soviet grain deals in the early 1970s. Grain exports for 1973 were double those of 1972, and the price quadrupled from 1970 to 1974. 35 At the time Secretary of Agriculture Earl L. Butz released production controls, including the annual set-aside acres. He declared, "For the first time in many years the American farmer is free to produce as much as he can." 36 Farmers in many sections of the country responded, but the plains received the most publicity, mostly for the removal of wide windbreaks for center pivot irrigation system. 37 A Soil Conservation Service survey later found that new, narrower windbreak plantings between 1970 and 1975 offset the losses. 38

As stories of increased soil erosion spread, groups that had played a large role in the environmental movement increasingly turned attention to soil erosion. They--along with allies in Congress--questioned the effectiveness of existing soil conservation programs. The Soil and Water Re-sources Conservation Act of 1977 mandated studies of the soil and water conservation programs and the development of new policies to attack the problem. The lobbying and studies resulted in some changes in policies, but the drastic changes came with the 1985 farm bill. Events in the plains played a key role in the new conservation authorities that would appear in the bill. Between 1977 and 1982 wheat farmers planted large tracts of grassland in Montana (1.8 million acres), South Dakota (750,000 acres), and Colorado (572,000 acres). In some places the resulting wind erosion proved a nuisance to neighbors. Some vocal and effective local landowners such as Edith Steiger Phillips of Keota, Colorado, wanted action. The Coloradans persuaded Senator Williams Armstrong in 1981 to introduce a bill that would deprive those who plowed fragile lands of price support payments. Such payments have long been seen as inducing speculation and reducing normal caution in planting very erodible land to wheat. Mainline groups like the Colorado Cattlemen's Association and the American Farm Bureau Federation supported the legislative effort. Several counties in Colorado, including Weld County where Edith Phillips lived, and Petroleum County in Montana passed ordinances to try to prevent plowing on grasslands.

The Armstrong bill, finally dubbed the "sodbuster bill" did not become law. USDA wanted to wait for the next reauthorization of the general farm bill to consider any new provisions, but the pressure from the Great Plains gave some grass roots support for changes in the conservation provisions. The Food Security Act linked soil conservation to eligibility for other USDA programs. The act included sodbuster as well as other conservation provisions. The framers of this act especially wanted to eliminate the possibility that commodity price support programs encouraged poor soil conservation practices. Under the conservation compliance section farmers have until 1990 to begin applying a conservation plan on highly erodible land, and until 1995 to fully implement the conservation plan in order to stay eligible for other USDA programs.

The sodbuster provision applies to any highly erodible field that was neither planted to an annual crop nor used as set-aside or diverted acres under a USDA commodity program for at least one year between December 31, 1980 and December 23, 1985. If farmers wish to bring such land into production, they would lose eligibility for USDA programs unless they applied an approved conservation system to control erosion on the fields. The swampbuster or wetland conservation stipulated that farmers would lose eligibility for USDA programs if they drained wetlands after December 23, 1985, the date of the passage of the act. A conservation coalition that lobbied for this provision included old-line soil conservation organizations like the Soil and Water Conservation Society of America and the National Association of Conservation Districts as well as environmental groups. Prominent officials in USDA such as John Block and Peter Myers favored many of the provisions. But the grass roots examples of support from the plains influenced Congress even more. This is a prime example but not the only one of the way commodity programs instigated the use of land for cropland that would be better suited to rangeland. Emotionally, the conversion of rangeland to cropland has an appeal that catches the public attention more than erosion from cropland in the humid east. The 1985 provisions are some of the most far-reaching we have seen in agriculture. They are premised on the idea that some USDA programs induced the use of erodible land that would not have occurred otherwise. The Great Plains, as they so often did, served as the prime example for changes in soil conservation policies. 39

Eindnotas

1 Hugh H. Bennett, The Hugh Bennett Lectures (Raleigh, North Carolina: The Agricultural Foundation, Inc., North Carolina State College, 1959), 23.

2 This episode is agency folklore around the Soil Conservation Service. I was skeptical of its veracity. In the records of the Soil Conservation Service in National Archives, I located some telegrams which indicated that Bennett was usually informed about the location of dust storms. Then I found that Bennett had told fellow North Carolinian and author Jonathan Daniels about the episode. Another variation of the story, which I have not confirmed, is that Bennett had the Senate hearing delayed until the dust storm's anticipated arrival. Jonathan Daniels, Tar Heels: A Portrait of North Carolina (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1941), 188. Wayne Rasmussen also investigated this question and concluded from Senate hearings that the story was probably true. Wayne D. Rasmussen, "History of Soil Conservation, Institutions and Incentives," in Harold G. Halcrow, et al., eds., Soil Conservation Policies, Institutions, and Incentives (Ankeny, Iowa: Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982), 7.

3 Donald Worster, Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in the 1930s (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1979), 5.

4 Paul Bonnifield, The Dust Bowl: Men, Dirt, and Depression (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1979), 130.

5 R. Douglas Hurt, The Dust Bowl: An Agricultural and Social History (Chicago, Illinois: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1981), 156.

6 Hugh Hammond Bennett, Soil Conservation (New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1939), 739.

7 Donald T. Pendleton, "Home, Home on the Range," Journal of NAL Associates 7 (1982): 78-93.

8 Russell Lord, To Hold This Soil, USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 321 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1938), 67.

9 Lord, To Hold This Soil, p. 67.

10 Donald T. Pendleton, "Range Conditions and Secondary Succession as Used in the Soil Conservation Service," in press, 4.

11 E. J. Dyksterhuis, "Condition and Management of Range Land Based on Quantitative Ecology," Journal of Range Management 2 (July 1949): 104.

12 Thomas N. Shiflet, "Range Sites and Soils in the United States," in Arid Shrublands: Proceedings of the Their Workshop of the United States-Australian Rangelands Panel (Tucson, Arizona, 1973), 26-33.

13 Dyksterhuis, "Condition and Management of Range Land," 111.

14 National Survey, Conservation Tillage Practices, 1988 (West Lafayette, Indiana: National Association of Conservation Districts, 1988), 6.

15 Data Base, National Resources Inventory, 1982. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

16 Salina (Kansas) Journal, March 15, 1989, 1.

17 "Wind Erosion Worst in Over 30 Years,.' USDA News Release 789-89. June 19, 1989.

18 For a view that questions the presumptions of the early soil conservationists working in the Great Plains see especially James Malin's "Men, the State of Nature, and Climate," and other essays in Robert P. Swierenga, James C. Malin, History and Ecology: Studies of Grassland (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984), 1-374.

19 R. Douglas Hurt, "Return of the Dust Bowl: The Filthy Fifties," Journal of West 28 (1979): 89-90 "Federal Cost-Sharing for Drought Emergency Conservation Measures, 1954-1956, Agricultural Conservation Program," Drought File, General Correspondence, Records of the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture, Record Group 16, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC.

20 Recommendations of the Soil Conservation Service to the Departmental Committee on Land Use Problems in the Great Plains, May 12, 1955, Historical SCS Reports File, Great Plains Conservation Program Files, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

21 Preliminary Report of the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Possible Solutions for Agricultural Problems of the Great Plains, May 1955, Historical SCS Reports, Great Plains Conservation Program Files, SCS, Washington, D.C.

22 Program for the Great Plains, U.S. Congress, House Document No. 289, 84th Cong. 2d. sess., 1956, p. 4.

23 Great Plains Conservation Program, U.S. Congress, House, Hearings before the Committee on Agriculture, 84th Cong., 2d. sess., 1956, pp. 1-36.

24 Interview with Ervin L. Peterson, September 9, 1981, History Office, Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D.C.

25 Minutes. Great Plains Inter-agency Group, December 17, 1956, Great Plains Conservation Program Files, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

26 Minutes, Great Plains Inter-agency Group, December 17, 1956 and February 17, 1957, Great Plains Conservation Program Files, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

27 H. H. Finnell, "Pity the Poor Land," Soil Conservation 12 (September 1946): 31-32.

28 John T. Schlebecker, Cattle Raising on the Plains, 1900-1962 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1963), 149.

29 J. C. Dykes and J. B. Slack, A minority report from the Farm and Ranch Planning Task Force, February 19, 1957, Great Plains Inter-agency Group, Great Plains Conservation Program Files, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

30 Douglas Helms, Great Plains Conservation Program (Washington, D.C.: Soil Conservation Service, 1981), 1-22.

31 Great Plains Conservation Program Evaluation: Part II: Background and Summary Statistics (Prepared mainly by James A. Lewis) (Washington, D.C.: Soil Conservation Service, 1987), 19-20.

32 Douglas Helms, "Small Watersheds and the USDA: Legacy of the Flood Control Act of 1936," in The Flood Control Challenge: Past, Present, and Future (Chicago, Illinois: Public Works Historical Society, 1988), 67-88 Homer E. Socolofsky, "The Great Flood of 1951 and The Tuttle Creek Controversy," in John D. Bright, ed., Kansas: The First Century, Vol. II. (New York, N.Y.: Lewis Publishing Company, Inc., 1956), 494-502.

33 N. A. Brubaker, Bigelow, Kansas, to Arthur Capper, January 24, 1946, Albert Cole Collection, Kansas State Historical Society. Topeka, Kansas.

34 J. L. Hall, Department of Chemistry, Manhattan, Kansas to Clifford R. Hope, May 7, 1953. Clifford R. Hope Collection, Kansas State Historical Society, Topeka, Kansas.

35 Sandra A. Batie, Crisis in America's Cropland (Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation, 1983), 5.

36 Earl L. Butz, "Produce and Protect," Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 28 (1973): 250-251.

37 Kenneth E. Grant, "Erosion in 1973-1974: The Record and the Challenge," Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 30 (1975) : 29-32.

38 Field Windbreak Removals in Five Great Plains States, 1970 to 1975 (Washington, D.C.: Soil Conservation Service, 1980), 1-15.

39 Douglas Helms, "New Authorities and New Roles: SCS and the 1985 Farm Bill," in press. In an issue titled Implementing the Conservation Provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985 (Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society).


Kyk die video: Ledigen Stofbak Dyson V8 Abolute +


Kommentaar:

  1. Orran

    Dit gebeur. Ons kan oor hierdie tema kommunikeer. Hier of by PM.

  2. Atemu

    Great, this is a very valuable piece

  3. Raley

    Verskoon my dat ek u onderbreek het.

  4. Talbott

    Ongeëwenaarde boodskap ;)

  5. Jeramiah

    Dit moet gesê word dat dit verwar het.



Skryf 'n boodskap