E-mail this article to
yourself or a friend.
Enter address:





home

Scarce of water, shy of vision

By Deborah E. Popper and Frank J. Popper
Prairie Writers Circle

(Sunday, March 23, 2003 -- CropChoice guest commentary) -- The West's recent drought evokes Dust Bowl days. Our government should lead as forcefully as it did then: Washington needs to be clear about the situation and its own role in creating it.

In 1935, with dust clouds from the West blowing over Washington, President Roosevelt established the Great Plains Drought Committee to reorganize and redefine public policy. The committee's 1936 report explicitly faulted government for the region's terrible situation.

"Mistaken public policies have been largely responsible for the situation now existing," the report said. "The Federal Government must do its full share in remedying the damage caused by a mistaken homesteading policy, by the stimulus of war time demands (World War I) which led to over cropping and overgrazing, and by encouragement of a system of agriculture which could not be both permanent and prosperous."

The government then pursued the report's recommendations. It ended homesteading, formed new public land from reacquired private land, devised new agricultural subsidies for the remaining farmers, and developed new technical assistance programs to change practices.

Today, as cities, rural areas and ecosystems compete for water, and ranches fail after years without it, regional and local droughts also evoke federal concern. In 2002 the U.S. Department of Agriculture designated counties in 47 states as drought disaster areas eligible for assistance. Thirteen entire states were so designated.

Drought hazards -- and flood, too -- come in part from development policies that have historically ignored natural constraints. We build sprawl. We cover long distances in our daily rounds. Our goods come from faraway places. We put large acreages into water-dependent crops in water-poor areas. Our energy sources and consumption remain destructive and intensify global climate change. Government policies, especially federal ones like farm, road-building and energy subsidies, confer benefits for acting this way.

What should government do differently?

It must speak more forthrightly. Our public sector, most visibly the federal parts of it, is now the great coordinator, the grand facilitator, the broker of drought compromises. New studies and committees are repeatedly charged to study climate change and its challenges. Some initiatives are worthwhile. But overall, government's voice is far more muted than it was in the 1930s.

The contemporary effort perhaps most like that of the Great Plains Drought Committee is the National Drought Policy Commission, created in 1998. But its 2000 report urges "preparedness and mitigation to reduce the need for emergency (drought) relief" and "a coordinated approach to drought mitigation" -- still facilitation and brokerage. The National Drought Preparedness Act of 2002 similarly calls for preparedness through coordination, monitoring and assessment.

The federal National Climatic Data Center collects and distributes an extraordinary wealth of data -- precipitation, soil moisture, carbon production, temperature and heat stress, for example. One can find below-ground, above-ground, surface and atmospheric measures. The information far surpasses anything available in the 1930s.

But lacking is an explicit acknowledgement of government's role in producing the current conditions.

The 1936 report boldly and baldly stated that government programs created the problems. Today's reports are never so direct. They provide information to the endless groups of stakeholders they bring together. They suggest the need for preparedness, research support and information networks so others can make their own good decisions. But the reports fail to say what a good decision would be and what bad decisions have been.

Above all, they lead to few new policies comparable to those of the 1930s -- ways to reorient agriculture, transportation, energy use and development to the emerging conditions of climate change. A few obvious suggestions: Feed animals grass instead of corn. Get people out of cars and onto high-speed mag-lev trains. Build more pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use communities.

Drought is inevitable, but we as a people have added to its likelihood and consequences. America is no longer primarily agricultural, and we often see climate merely as an amenity -- if you like warm weather, San Diego is good, Buffalo bad. We insulate ourselves from climate as much as possible, air-conditioning and heating our experiences so that we remain in our personal comfort zones.

It will take forceful words to get us moving toward real preparedness for drought and genuine adaptation to climate change. Government has yet to issue these calls, much less take these actions.

###

Frank and Deborah Popper are authors of “The Great Plains: From Dust to Dust" and “The Buffalo Commons: Metaphor as Method.” Frank Popper teaches at Rutgers University and Deborah Popper teaches at the College of Staten Island-City University of New York. Both are members of the Prairie Writers Circle at the Land Institute in Salina, Kan.