The Dust Bowl | National Drought Response Center (2023)

In the 1930s, drought covered virtually the entire plain for almost a decade (Warrick, 1980). The direct effect of drought is usually considered agricultural. Many crops were damaged by low rainfall, high temperatures, and strong winds, as well as by the insect infestations and dust storms that accompanied these conditions. The resulting agricultural depression contributed to bank closures, business losses, rising unemployment, and other physical and emotional hardships during the Great Depression. Although the records focus on other problems, the lack of rainfall would also have affected wildlife and plant life and caused shortages of water for domestic needs.

Although the 1930 drought is often referred to as an episode, there were at least 4 distinct droughts: 1930-31, 1934, 1936, and 1939-40 (Riebsame et al., 1991). These events occurred in such rapid succession that the affected regions failed to recover adequately before another drought began.

The effects of the drought in the Llanos caused economic and social repercussions throughout the country. For example, millions of people migrated from drought zones, often moving west in search of work. These newcomers often competed directly for jobs with older residents, leading to conflict between the groups. Additionally, due to poverty and high unemployment, migrants have joined local relief efforts, sometimes overwhelming relief and health agencies.

Many circumstances exacerbated the effects of the drought, including the Great Depression and predrought economic overexpansion, poor land management practices, and the extent and duration of the drought. (Warrick et al., 1975, and Hurt, 1981, discuss these issues in more detail; see Reference section for full citations.) drought The widely accepted record of drought for the United States. To weather and recover from the drought, people relied on resourcefulness and resilience, as well as state and federal government relief programs. Despite all efforts, many people were unable to earn a living in the drought-stricken regions and were forced to migrate to other areas in search of a new livelihood. It is not possible to account for all the costs associated with the 1930s drought, but an estimate by Warrick et al. (1980) state that government financial assistance may have reached $1 billion (in 1930 dollars) by the end of the drought. Fortunately, the lessons learned from this drought have been used to reduce the vulnerability of regions to future droughts.

In the early 1920s, farmers saw various opportunities to increase their production. New technologies and crop varieties were reducing the time and costs per hectare to grow, providing a strong incentive for agricultural expansion. This expansion was also necessary to pay for expensive and newly developed equipment (such as plows and plows) often bought on credit, and to make up for low crop prices after World War I.

When the national economy went into decline in the late 1920s due to the Great Depression, agriculture was hit even harder. Additionally, a record wheat harvest in 1931 further lowered crop prices. These lower prices meant farmers needed to farm more area, including poorer farmland, or change crop varieties to produce enough grain to meet necessary farm and equipment payments.

When the drought began in the early 1930s, these poor economic conditions worsened. The depression and drought hit farmers on the Great Plains hardest. Many of these farmers were forced to seek help from the government. A 1937 Works Progress Administration bulletin reported that 21% of all rural households on the Great Plains received federal emergency aid (Link et al., 1937). However, even with government help, many farmers were unable to maintain their operations and were forced to abandon their land. Some voluntarily transferred their farms to creditors, others faced foreclosures by banks, and others had to leave temporarily to find work to support their families. In fact, at the height of farm transfers in 1933–34, almost 1 in 10 farms changed ownership, half of which were involuntary (due to a combination of depression and drought).

A series of poor land management practices in the Great Plains region increased the area's vulnerability before the 1930s drought. Some of the land use patterns and farming methods in the region date back to the settlement of the Great Plains nearly 100 years earlier. At the time, little was known about the region's climate. Several expeditions explored the region but were not studying the region for its agricultural potential and, moreover, their findings were included in government reports that were not available to the general public (Fite, 1966).

However, misleading information abounded. "Drivers" in the region, hoping to promote settlement, provided glowing but inaccurate accounts of the agricultural potential of the Great Plains. In addition to this inaccurate information, most of the colonists had little money and few other assets, and their farming experience was based on the wetter conditions of the eastern United States; But the first settlements occurred during a wet cycle and the first crops flourished, so settlers were encouraged to continue practices that would later have to be abandoned.

When droughts and severe winters inevitably occurred, there were widespread economic hardships and human suffering, but the early settlers put these episodes behind them when the rains returned. Although adverse conditions forced many settlers to return to the eastern United States, many continued to come west. The idea that the climate of the Great Plains was changing, primarily in response to human settlement, became popularly accepted in the last half of the 19th century. This was reflected in legislative acts such as the Timber Culture Act of 1873, which was based on the belief that if settlers planted trees they would encourage rain, and it was only in the 1890s that this idea was finally abandoned (White, 1991). 🇧🇷 While repeated droughts have tested settlers and local/state governments, the recurrence of periods of heavy rain appears to delay recognition of the need for changes in agricultural practices and land use.

Various actions in the 1920s also increased the region's vulnerability to drought. Low crop prices and high machinery costs (discussed in the previous section) meant that farmers needed to cultivate more land to produce enough to meet the required payments. As most of the best farmland was already being used, the poorer farmland was being used more and more. Cultivation of submarginal lands has generally had negative results, such as soil erosion and nutrient leaching. By using these areas, farmers increased the probability of crop failure, which increased their vulnerability to drought.

These economic conditions have also put pressure on farmers to abandon soil conservation practices in order to reduce costs. Also, during the 1920s, many farmers switched from the one-handed disc plow to a more efficient one, which also greatly increased the risk of blowing up the soil. Basically, reductions in soil conservation measures and encroachment on poorer land have made the farming community more vulnerable to wind erosion, soil moisture depletion, soil nutrient depletion, and drought. .

During the 1930s, many measures were taken to alleviate the direct impacts of droughts and reduce the region's vulnerability to drought conditions. Many of these measures were initiated by the federal government, a relatively new practice. Before the drought of the 1930s, federal aid was generally withheld in emergency situations in favor of individual, self-reliant approaches. This began to change with the development of the Great Depression in the late 1920s and the inauguration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933. The depression helped "soften entrenched, hard-line attitudes toward free enterprise, individualism and the passive role of the government". paving the way for Roosevelt's New Deal programs, which in turn provided a framework for drought relief programs on the Great Plains (Warrick, 1980).

Warrick et al. (1975) describe these drought relief programmes, which are credited with saving many livelihoods during periods of drought. The programs had a variety of objectives, all aimed at reducing the impacts of drought and vulnerability:

• Provision of emergency supplies, cash and food, and transportation of livestock to maintain basic livelihoods and farm/farm operation.
• Establish health facilities and supplies to meet emergency medical needs.
• Establishment of government markets for agricultural products, higher tariffs, and loan funds for agricultural market maintenance and commercial rehabilitation.
• Provide the necessary inputs, technology, and technical advice to investigate, implement, and promote adequate land use planning strategies.
• Remove dead trees and plant new trees to relieve psychological stress and create shelterbelts.

Despite the importance of these programs, the survival of most families and businesses undoubtedly depended solely on their perseverance and integrity. Whether staying or moving to dry regions or migrating to other areas in the hope of a better life, families encountered new difficulties and obstacles that would require ingenuity, resilience, and humility.

Those who remained in the dry regions were forced to endure severe dust storms and their effects on health, decreased income, animal infestations, and physical and emotional stress over their uncertain future. The humor helped; tales of birds flying backwards to avoid getting sand in their eyes, housewives cleaning pots and pans that attach them to locks for a sandblaster, and children who have never seen rain are among the stories. Dust Bowlers favorites. In the end, it was a combination of willpower, stamina, humor, pride, and above all, optimism that allowed many to survive the Dust Bowl. These qualities are succinctly expressed in the comments of a contemporary Kansan: “We have faith in the future. We are here to stay” (quoted in Hurt, 1981).

The drought of the 1930s and its associated impacts finally began to abate during the spring of 1938. By 1941, most areas of the country were receiving near-normal rainfall. These rains, along with the outbreak of World War II, alleviated many of the domestic economic problems associated with the 1930s. In fact, new production demands and positive weather conditions propelled the United States into a rapid economic boom. .

While near-term conditions appeared relatively stable, this production growth did come with some downsides. One drawback (described by Hurt, 1981) was that the onset of World War II changed the remaining funding and priorities for drought-related programs. Men were taken off work schedules to go into the military and produce for the war effort. Additionally, items such as gasoline and spare parts were redirected from federal drought and conservation programs to the war effort. This meant that conservation and research programs were significantly reduced during this period. Another drawback was that, with the return of the rains, many people soon forgot about the conservation programs and measures implemented during the droughts of the 1930s. This caused a return to some of the poor farming and grazing practices that made that many regions so vulnerable to drought in the 1930s.

Although the 1988-1989 drought was the most economically devastating natural disaster in US history (Riebsame et al., 1991), arguably a close second is the series of droughts that affected much of United States in the 1990s to 1930s. Determining the direct and indirect costs associated with this dry spell is a difficult task due to the widespread impacts of the drought, the close association of the event with the Great Depression, the rapid recovery of the economy with the start of World War II and the lack of adequate economic models for loss assessment at that time. However, broad calculations and estimates can provide valuable generalizations of the economic impact of the 1930s drought.

In 1937, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) reported that drought was the main reason for economic relief in the Great Plains region during the 1930s (Link et al., 1937). Federal aid to drought-stricken states was first awarded in 1932, but the first funds earmarked specifically for drought relief were not released until the fall of 1933. In total, assistance may have reached $1 billion. dollars (in 1930s dollars) until the end of the drought. (Warrick et al., 1980).

According to the WPA, three-fifths of all rural first aid cases in the Great Plains area were directly related to the drought, with a disproportionate number of cases involving farmers (68%) and especially tenant farmers (70% of 68 %). However, it is not known how many of the remaining cases (32%) were indirectly affected by the drought. The WPA report also noted that 21% of all rural households in the Great Plains area received federal emergency aid in 1936 (Link et al., 1937); the number reached 90% in the most affected counties (Warrick, 1980). So while the exact economic losses from that period are not known, they were substantial enough to cause widespread economic disruption that affected the entire nation.

The magnitude of the droughts of the 1930s, combined with the Great Depression, led to unprecedented government relief efforts. Congressional actions in 1934 alone accounted for relief expenditures of $525 million (US House of Representatives, 1934); the total cost (social, economic and environmental) would be impossible to determine.

If the Roosevelt era ushered in large-scale relief, it also ushered in some of the first long-term proactive programs to reduce future vulnerability to drought. It was in those years, for example, that the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), today the Natural Resources Conservation Service, began to emphasize soil conservation measures. Through their efforts, the first soil conservation districts emerged and demonstration projects were undertaken to show the benefits of practices such as terracing and edging (for a discussion of SCS activities during this period, see Hurt, 1981).

Warrick et al. (1975) point out that proactive measures continued in the years following the drought: conservation and irrigation practices increased, farm sizes increased, crop diversity increased, federal agricultural insurance was established, and the regional economy diversified. . Many other proactive measures taken after the 1930s drought also reduced rural and urban vulnerability to drought, including new or expanded reservoirs, improved domestic water systems, agricultural policy changes, new insurance, and programs to assist and eliminate some of the most sensitive agricultural lands. . of production (Riebsame et al., 1991).

Problems persisted, but these programs and activities would play a key role in reducing the country's vulnerability to the 1950s drought. Although a larger area was affected during the 1950s drought, The conservation measures that many farmers implemented in the intervening years helped keep conditions from reaching the severity of the 1930s drought.

*Egan, Timothy. 2005.The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of the Survivors of America's Great Dust Bowl.Houghton-Mifflin

FITA, G. C. 1966.The Farmer's Frontier, 1865-1900. Holt, Rinehart y Winston, Nueva York.

Ferido, D.R. 1981.An Agricultural and Social History of the Dust Bowl🇧🇷 Nelson Hall, Chicago.

Link, I.; TJ Woofter, Jr.; and CC Taylor. 1937.Research Bulletin: Drought Area Relief and Rehabilitation. Works Progress Administration, Washington, DC

Laugh me, W. E.; PROBABLY. Channon, son; and T.R. Carl. 1991.Drought Management and Natural Resources in the United States: Impacts and Implications of the 1987–89 Drought.Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

United States House of Representatives. 1934. Drought zone relief. Communication from the President of the United States, 73rd Congress, 2nd Session, Document No. 398, Washington, D.C.

Warrick, R. A. 1980. Drought on the Great Plains: A Research Case Study on Climate and Society in the US in J. Ausubel and A.K. Biswas (eds.).Climate restrictions and human activities, p. 93–123. IIASA Proceedings Series, Vol. 10. Pergamon Press, New York.

Warrick, R.A.; PB Trainer; E.J. Baker; and W. Brinkman. 1975. Drought risk in the United States: an assessment of the research. Technology, Environment and Man Program Monograph #NSF-RA-E-75-004, Institute of Behavioral Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder.

Branco, R. 1991."Your Misfortune, Not Mine": A Story of the American West. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.