The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION Harry L. Hopkins, Administrator Corrington G ill, Assistant Administrator Howard B. Myers, Director Division of S o c ia l Research RESEARCH BULLETIN AREAS OF INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS, 1930-1936 Prepared by Francis D. Cronin and Howard W. Beers under the supervision of T. J. Woof ter, Jr. Rural Research Section, Division of So c ia l Re se arch, Works Progress Aaministration and Carl C. Taylor, in charge Division of Farm Population and Rural Life, Bureau of Agricultural Econom ics, and Social Research for the Resettlem ent Administration Washington January 1937 CONTENTS Page Introduction............................................... The problem of drought.................................. The Great Plains Region........... ..................... Drought incidence in the Great Plains Region.......... Misdirected agricultural expansion................ . The measure of drought effect.......................... Rainfall......................................... ......... Crop conditions............... ............................ Pasture conditions........................................ Number of cattle.......................................... Federal aid................................................ Combined indices of drought intensity............... . Type of farming areas..................................... Appendix— Methodological note................ ....... . 1 1 2 2 5 6 7 13 17 21 25 29 33 39 TEXT TABLES Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Distribution of counties in the drought area, by average percent departure from normal rain fall, 1930-1935.............................. Distribution of counties in the drought area, by average percent of normal crop conditions, 1930-1936..................................... Distribution of counties in the drought area, by average percent of normal pasture condi tions, 1930-1936............................. Distribution of counties in the drought area, by percent change in the number of cattle, 1930-1935..................................... Distribution of counties in the drought area, by Federal aid per capita, 1933-1936........ Combined indices of drought intensity, 19301936.......................................... Five indices of drought effect in two high in tensity areas................................. Indices of drought intensity in type of farming areas................. ....................... . iii 9 13 17 21 27 29 31 34 iv CONTENTS FIGURES Page Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Officially designated drought counties, 1934 and 1936..................................... Rainfall in the drought area, average percent departure from normal, 1930-1935........... 3 11 Crop conditions in the drought area, average percent of normal, 1930-1936............... Pasture conditions in the drought area, average percent of normal, 1930-1936............... Percent change in the number of cattle in the drought area, 1930-1935..................... Federal aid per capita in the drought area, 1933-1936.................................... Combined index of drought intensity, average of five indices, 1930-1936................. Types of farming in the drought area, 1934-1936. 15 18 22 26 30 35 APPENDIX TABLES Table A. Table B. Distribution of counties studied in drought area......................................... Five indices of drought intensity in 803 coun ties in the Great Plains Region............ 40 41 AREAS OF INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS, 1930-1936 INTRODUCTION The Problem of Drought The incidence of drought in the Great Plains Region of the United States, with its fateful accompaniment of human distress, has been brought forcibly to the attention of the Nation by a succession of devastating visitations during the past few years. Evidence of suffering attendant upon these calamities has not been unheeded. Following initial programs of immediate relief, governmental resources have gradually been marshalled for a mass attack on the fundamental problems involved. It is hoped that from the wide range of coordinated research now under way will come an enlightened comprehension of all contributing factors. This in turn will serve as a reliable guide for future policy. The necessity of adjusting economic and social organization to recurring periods of drought has resulted in the inaugura tion of a number of Government-sponsored measures for the correc tion of certain jnan-made conditions which tend to aggravate a situation made severe by the all too frequent niggardliness of nature. Efforts to restore an unwisely broken sod are known to all. It is now apparent that the draining of sloughs to in crease wheat acreage was improvident, and the Nation patiently watches the development of the "little waters”campaign. Con tinuous over-grazing has more serious and far reaching effects than an immediate shortage of forage. Land utilization and soil conservation, reforestation, reclamation, and range preservation are all prominently to the fore in national thinking and national planning in the attempt to solve the basic physical problems presented. Other questions arise, however, correlative to the physical problems but in many respects more insistent upon immediate attention, more pressing for early solution: questions which concern the human element involved— the men, women, and children who make their homes on the Plains. What is known of these people, their institutions, their society, and their culture? What has been the effect of the impact of persistent drought upon the pattern of their daily lives? In an endeavor to examine the social aspects of the drought problem, the Division of Social Research of the Works Progress Administration, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the Department of Agriculture, and the Resettlement Administration 1 2 AREAS OF INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS have combined their materials on human problems. The present bulletin is a preliminary effort to delineate areas of varying degrees of drought intensity and to select carefully defined sections as the basis for further study. It is the first of a series of three reports and will be followed shortly by one on the population of this midcontinent drought area, describing the population shifts caused by unpredictable natural forces, and by another giving a brief history of relief and rehabilitation, the public and private efforts to repair the damage to the social structure caused by periodic catastrophes. The Great Plains Region The Great Plains Region includes a vast area bisecting the country from north to south and extending from the Rocky Moun tains almost to the Mississippi Rivet. Within this wide terri tory, and lying roughly between the 98th meridian and the Conti nental Divide, are the Central Great Plains, at once the heart of the Great Plains Region and the focal point of the present examination. A comprehensive survey of cumulative effects of recurring droughts in the midcontinent, however, would extend beyond the Central Great Plains. An inspection of available data shows that, while the States of the Central Plains have borne the brunt of repeated droughts, neighboring States have not been left unscathed. The two most recent droughts, those of 1934 and 1936, covered large sections of adjoining country, but over lapped in an area blanketing the Great Plains and surrounding areas (figure 1). To analyze carefully the effect of drought, it is essential to confine the project within geographic limits and to apply tests to the region so delimited. On the basis of the social and agricultural history of the Great Plains Region, an area has been selected for study which includes areas of intense drought distress. The area lies within the Great Plains Region, and covers the entire States of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Montana, together with parts of Wyoming, Colorado, Texas, Missouri, Iowa, and Minnesota.1 Drought Incidence in the Great Plains Region Drought is not unusual in the area selected for study. From earliest settlement, its development has been interrupted by the relentless plague of moisture deficiency. The greater part of the region lies in zones of 20-inch normal annual precipitation *See figures 2-8. AREAS OF INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS 4 or less. Even slight deviations downward on the scale of yearly rainfall may result in disaster, and the records of the Weather Bureau and the Geological Survey bear witness to the frequency of such occurrences.2 / I n the 48-year period reaching back to 1889 the States of the Great Plains Region have experienced 11 severe droughts, averaging almost 1 drought year in every 4. These excessive dry periods occurred in 1889, 1890, 1894, 1901, 1910, 1917, 1930, 1931, 1933, 1934, and 1936. Not all of the Great Plains States were afflicted uniformly in each of these years, but all of them were stricken intermittently. Forty years ago, the Chief Hydrographer of the United States Geological Survey described climatic conditions in the Great Plains Region in words so apt today that they are quoted here:3 Year after year the water supply may be ample, the forage plants cover the ground with a rank growth, the herds multiply, the settlers extend their fields, when, almost imperceptibly, the climate becomes less humid, the rain clouds forming day after day dis appear upon the horizon, and weeks lengthen into months without a drop of moisture. The grasses wither, the herds wander wearily over the plains in search of water holes, the crops wilt and languish, yielding not even the seed for another year. Fall and winter come and go with occasional showers which scarcely seem to wet the earth, and the following spring opens with the soil so dry that it is blown about over the windy plains. Another and perhaps another season of drought occurs, the settlers de part with such of their household furniture as can be drawn away by the enfeebled draft animals, the herds disappear, and this beautiful land, once so fruitful, is now dry and brown, given over to the prairie wolf. Then comes a season of ample rains. The prairie grasses, dormant through several sea sons, spring into life, and with these the hopes of new pioneers. Then recurs the flood of immigration, to be continued until the next long drought. This tragic drama has frequently been repeated in the inter vening years. Written at a time that may be considered as the o Elghty-flve percent, or less, of the mean annual precipitation Is ordi narily considered as constituting drought conditions In humid and seml-arld States. In the arid States, because of wide climatic differences, the es tablishment of limits Is more hazardous. Any such yardstick Is fallacious, however, In that It ignores seasonal variations In rainfall. ^Newell, Frederick H., "Irrigation on the Great Plains*, Yearbook, ü. S. Department of Agriculture, 1896, p. 168. INTRODUCTION 5 half-way mark in Great Plains history, the picture of conditions as they existed then is true of conditions today. The social process of learning by experience is slow. Misdirected Agricultural Expansion While the normal expectancy of dry years on the Plains is high, drought effect is not consistently distributed throughout the region. Severity of environmental conditions is relative; it can be measured only in terms of human activities, which in turn are limited and controlled by the prevailing elements. Thus, in the present examination, a serious shortage of water at a critical period in the growing season may be ruinous to a dry-land wheat farmer, but not necessarily troublesome to a neighboring rancher. Man's agricultural partitioning of the West has not always followed the dictates of nature, with an inevitable result in social frustration and economic loss. Originally a rich, virgin range, the varied native forage plant types conformed to defi nite zones of soil and climatic conditions. The western bounds of the Tall Grass Country roughly follow the 20-inch rainfall line. Eastward roll the Prairie Plains, one of the most pro ductive agricultural regions of the world. Favored by an annual precipitation ranging from 2 0 t o 3 5 or more inches, which amply supported the deep-rooted, moisture-consuming native grasses, this region is admirably adapted to many forms of commercial agriculture. Drought conditions, while not unknown, certainly are not the usual order. Extending westward to the Rockies is the Short Grass Area of the Central Plains. The many plants included among the short grasses, evolved and acclimated through the ages, thrive in this semi-arid region. Most of it has a scant 15 to 20 inches of rainfall each year, and in several sizable areas this is re duced to 10 to 15 inches. Where this can be augmented by irri gation from impounded mountain waters, agriculture flourishes; but the extent to which irrigation water may be apportioned under present methods is arbitrarily limited by the quantity and location of the water available. Throughout the vast domain of the Central Plains the sole reliance of the great majority of farmers will continue to be unreliable showers, supplemented by an occasional cloudburst. The Short Grass Central Plains of America constitute an agri cultural frontier which has withstood the onslaughts of determin ed men for three-quarters of a century. In yielding a livelihood in proportion to effort expended it is still inferior to other sections. Much of that effort has been dissipated in attempt ing to institute an ill-suited economy. Cultivated crops can be raised profitably throughout most of the region only in years 6 AREAS OF INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS in which the most favorable conditions prevail. Since 1880 there have been but three such favorable periods, i.e., from 1880 to 1885, 1902 to 1906, and 1918 to 1923. Experience has shown that without the aid of irrigation, crop cultivation over the greater part of this territory is highly speculative and in the long run doomed to failure. Dry farming, as now practiced, cannot be sustained year in and year out. Its enormous expansion into natural grazing areas has created two evils: a marked destruc tion of excellent range, and a huge accumulation of marginal crop acres. The Measure of Drought Effect The cumulative effects of drought over a period are reflected in many ways, some of which may be measured and used to delimit areas of varying tiegrees of intensity. The area selected for study included 803 counties. Within this area, a series of five tests have been applied in an effort to determine the relative effect of drought conditions in each county.4 Percent departure from normal annual rainfall, average crop and pasture conditions as percentages of the normal, percent of increase or decrease in numbers of cattle, and amount of Federal aid per capita were computed and mapped individually as indices of drought intensity on the basis of ranking the counties by grades of intensity.5 A composite map (figure 7, page 30) de picts the average of the five separate ranks. The results are illuminating, not ¿done in the disclosures of each individual test, but in the impressive manner in which each one confirms and emphasizes the findings of the others. In the aggregate, the tests contribute their combined weight to the localization of specific trouble centers. The years 1930-1936 were used, both because of the ready accessibility of current data, and because the period as a whole is fairly representative of the kaleidoscopic history of agri culture in the Great Plains. Feast and famine were both re corded. Generally unfavorable weather conditions culminated in the droughts of 1934 and 1936, while yields were high in 1932. *See Methodological Note. 5 The counties were first ranked In respect to each Index and the range di vided Into five groups, the first group denoting the best conditions, and the fifth group, the worst. For data by counties, see table B In Metho dological Note. RAINFALL In the development of the Great Plains Region, rainfall has ever been the determinant factor. Of the 13 States included wholly or in part in the selected area, 3 are commonly classed as humid (Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri), 6 as semi-arid (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas), and 4 as arid (Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico). The 50-year average annual precipitation for each of these States6 follows: Vmm (50-year period, 1881-1930) Humid States Inches 25.91 31.48 40.17, Minnesota 1ovva Mi ssouri Semi-arid States 17.70 20.77 23.50 27.48 32.63 30.84 North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska Kansas Oklahoma Texas Arid States Montana Wyoming Colorado New Mexico 15.21 14.05 16.79 14.49 Y Although aggregate annual precipitation is the most important climatic influence in determining agricultural productivity, several other conditions contribute markedly to the success or failure of farming operations in the midcontinent area. Dis tribution of rainfall in relation to the growing season, loss of moisture through run-off and evaporation, extremes of tem perature, and wind velocity are almost equally worthy of consid eration. In 1934, when the area west of the Mississippi was experienc ing a particularly disastrous drought, the effect of excessive heat and almost continuous high winds contributed perhaps as much to the severity of conditions as absence of rainfall. New g Averages for the entire State are given In the table, which shows two semiarid States (Oklahoma and Texas) with more annual rainfall than Minnesota, classed as humid. Extreme rainfall differences in geographic subdivisions of States are considered In the above classification. Source: U. S. Weather Bureau. 7 8 AREAS OP INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS maximum temperatures during June, July, and August of that year were established in three Plains States, while all through the region temperatures considerably above normal were regis tered. The increase in rate of evaporation accompanying high summer temperatures not only exhausts surface moisture, but also reduces the soil of cultivated areas to a powdery dryness which is readily susceptible to wind action. The topographical outline of the midcontinent, in conjunction with climatic conditions, results in wind velocities similar to those experienced along the coastline in duration and intensity. Tremendous stretches of flat, treeless land offer no resistance to wind, and when water shortage and extreme heat have left the soil light and dry, wind erosion follows. Occasional heavy down pours of rain wash away top soil, previously dried out by heat and lack of moisture, resulting in some sections in severe sheet erosion. Paradoxical as it may seem in aland where moisture deficiency is the chronic complaint, excessive rainfall not infrequently wreaks havoc with crops. Rust and smut must always be included in the farmerfs worries and the unseasonable hail storm is a potently destructive agent. Deviations from normal rainfall form abasic index of drought intensity. For the purpose of this investigation, figures were obtained from the monthly and annual Climatological Data pub lished by the United States Weather Bureau for the years 1930 through 1935, by counties. Percent departure from normal rain fall for this period was calculated for each weather reporting station in the test area for which complete records were avail able. Unfortunately, weather reporting stations, in some in stances, have not been in existence long enough (10 years) for the establishment of a "normal”annual rainfall. Several were discontinued during the 1930-1935 period. As a result, unin terrupted climatological records, even for these few years, are not available for all counties. Most of the counties, however, have at least one station with complete records, while many have two or more. For counties without reporting stations, it was necessary to average the results of the nearest neighboring stations. In counties with more than one station reporting, an average of all of the figures was taken. Table 1 shows the distribution of counties, by States, ar ranged in five groups on the basis of their average percent de parture from normal annual rainfall for the 6-year period. It makes plain the necessity of careful demarcation along county lines, if reliable gradations of drought intensity are to be outlined. Conditions often vary radically within a State and within sections of a State. In Kansas, for example, 10 of the 105 counties received the normal, or more than the normal, amount of rain, while 17 were deficient 18,3 percent or more. Only 1 RAINFALL 9 of North Dakota*s 53 counties averaged approximately normal precipitation during the period; 26 were short 13.5 percent or more. The initial task is to determine where serious moisture deficiencies have occurred so that these sections may be exam ined in the light of other criteria. Counties showing greatest departure from normal rainfall in the period studied are rather widely distributed throughout the region, although there are sections with considerable concen tration (figure 2). Of the 167 counties that reported a decrease from normal of 18.3 percent or more, one-fourth (42 counties) are in the State of South Dakota, and neighboring Montana ac counts for one-sixth, or 27 counties. In both instances the Table 1— DlSTRIBUTION OF COUNTIES IN THE DROUGHT AREA, BY AVERAGE PERCENT DEPARTURE FROM NORMAL RAINFALL, 1930-1935 State Total: Number Percent Minnesota Iowa Mi ssouri North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska Kansas Oklahoma Texas Montana Wyomi ng Colorado New Mex i co Source: Total Counti es Group I (Normal or Above to -2.5 Percent) Group I I (-2.5 to -8.5 Percent) Group I I I (-8.5 to -13.5 Percent) Group IV (-13.5 to -18.3 Percent) Group V (-18.3 Per cent or More) 803 130 167 175 164 167 100 16 21 22 20 21 77 61 14 2 6 6 24 28 7 24 18 18 5 - 9 4 - 53 69 93 105 77 1 1 8 1 20 20 42 4 19 33 18 13 18 5 38 23 13 13 101 56 19 47 31 10 32 41 3 2 6 16 1 19 22 9 10 2 2 6 4 6 7 5 6 6 15 18 2 6 13 17 5 24 27 5 13 2 C l i n a t o l o g i c a l D a ta, U. S. Weather 8ureau. proportion of counties in the worst group to the total number in each State is particularly high, 61 percent in South Dakota and 48 percent in Montana. To the South, in the High Plains, a more marked concentration of counties in the lowest group is noticeable. Here in a region where 5 southwestern States abut, there is a grouping of some 61 counties represented by an almost solidly black area on the map. To this group Colorado contributes 13 counties; Kansas, 17; Oklahoma, 5; Texas, 24; and New Mexico, 2. Over one-third of all counties ranked in the lowest fifth are closely massed to gether in this center of comparative aridity. One of the peculiarities disclosed in an examination of the rainfall map is the scattering of counties showing normal or better moisture conditions in the midst of those that reported greatest shortages. Conspicuous examples are Bowen County, North Dakota; Jackson County, South Dakota; and Meagher County, Montana. Local conditions in the vicinity of the weather sta tions, distinctly different from the surrounding country, are 10 AREAS OP INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS responsible for these occasional cases. One station in Meagher County (White Sulphur Springs) was found to have received an amount of rain 56.3 percent above normal during the period con sidered. This, of course, is in a mountainous region where wide variations are common. Serious climatic fluctuations are characteristic of the en tire area from the Rocky Mountains to the Mississippi River. Weather records in which the short-period variations have been smoothed show progressive wave-like upward and downward trends from normal. Thirteen of the first sixteen years of the century produced above normal rainfall in North Dakota, yet between 1930 and 1934 that State accumulated a deficiency of 16.5 inches.7 In humid States this might be hardly noticeable, but on the Plains it acquires significance. Before effective programs of allevia tion can be instituted, it is important that those areas which have been repeatedly subjected to water shortages and resultant acute suffering be analyzed in the light of their history of human misery. 7 From a paper presented before the American Meteorological Society at Pitts burgh, December 29, 1934, by J. B. Kincer, Chief, Division of Climate and Crop Weather, U. S. Weather Bureau. RAINFALL F ig . 2 - R A IN F A L L IN T H E DROUGHT A R E A AVERAGE PERC EN T DEPARTURE FROM N O R M A L 1 9 3 0 -1 9 3 5 129989 0 — 37 11 CROP CONDITIONS The index of drought intensity based on average crop condi tions was obtained from data for crop reporting districts estab lished by the United States Department of Agriculture, rather than from data for separate counties. Data covering the Spring Wheat, Winter Wheat, and Corn Areas were used in computing this index. Reported conditions of spring wheat, expressed as a percent of normal,8 were obtained as of June 1, Julyl, August 1, and September 1 for the years 1930-1936 from the eight States of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Min nesota, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, and Wyoming. Winter wheat figures as of April 1, May 1, June 1, and July 1 were received for the same years from the six winter wheat States: Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado. Corn reports of July .1, August 1, September 1, and October 1 for the 6-year period were secured for seven States: Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Colorado. Crop reports for the irrigated regions of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico were excluded. The average condition for the entire period was computed for each reporting district, and each county within the district was assigned that average (table 2). Table 2— DlSTRI BUT!ON OF COUNTIES IN THE DROUGHT AREA, BY AVERAGE PERCENT OF NORMAL CROP CONDITIONS, 1930-1936 State _ , Total: Number Percent Minnesota Iowa Missouri North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska Kansas Oklahoma Texas Montana Wyomi ng Colorado New Mexico S o u rce ! .a Total Count ies Group I (66 Percent or More) Group I I (59 to 66 Percent) Group I I I (54 to 59 Percent) Group IV (51 to 54 Percent) 129 16 140 17 250 31 166 100 77 61 14 65 43 - 12 53 69 93 105 77 _ 803 101 56 19 47 31 21 18 - Group V (Less Than 51 Percent) 118 15 _ _ - _ _ 14 - - _ 12 7 6 28 - - 57 19 34 22 12 11 35 24 23 12 - - - 27 38 14 - 25 5 23 10 38 16 10 _ _ 15 5 17 31 31 5 - 20 - 10 - - - D i v i s i o n o f Crop and L iv e s t o c k 4 5 E st im a t e s, Bureau o f A g r i c u l t u r a l - E con o m ics, U. S. Departm ent o f A g r i c u lt u r e . As estimated in reports to the Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture. 13 14 AREAS OF INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS For favorable crop conditions, there must be not only an adequate total annual precipitation, but also a suitable distri bution of rainfall throughout the year. The soil must have sufficient moisture at planting time to insure seed germination. From then until the plant reaches maturity, usually a period of some 3 months, depending upon the length of the growing season, a serious deficiency can cause damage to the extent of complete loss. Yield per acre depends largely upon the distribution of rainfall, and drought conditions result from slight variations. Average crop conditions, over a period of time, are more than a measure of rainfall, because conditions other than moisture determine their growth. Climatic conditions generally, however, are the preponderant consideration; they are reflected on the accompanying map (figure 3). Crop conditions over the 6-year period in almost one-third of the counties included in the test area (258 out of 803) aver aged less than 54 percent of normal. The graphic presentation of drought effect as indicated by crop conditions shows a greater degree of concentration than is noted in the case of rainfall, partly due to the difference in units used as the basis of the map. Of the 118 counties in group V, showing the worst drought effects, 43 form a connected area in western North Dakota and eastern Montana. Most of the spring wheat country shows marked departure from normal crop conditions. The area of intensity on the Southern Plains, which includes a great number of winter wheat counties, coincides in a general way with a similar area of intensity on the rainfall map. Thus, graphic presentation of average crop conditions shows that the areas of greatest drought effect are on the northern and southern portions of the Central Plains, with a border of counties of lighter shade, representing the more favorable grada tions, almost completely enclosing them. All of New Mexico's 31 counties are in group I> the category reflecting lowest drought intensity. So also are a large proportion of the coun ties studied in Minnesota, Iowa, and Oklahoma. On the other hand, North and South Dakota and Nebraska have no counties in this group. It should be noted that counties included in group I on this scale of average crop conditions may still be as low as 66 percent of normal. About 70 percent of all of the coun ties averaged less than 66 percent of their normal condition for the 6-year period. CROP CONDITIONS Fig. 3 - C R O P CO N D ITIO N S A VERA GE IN T H E D R O U G H T A R E A P E R C E N T OF 1 9 3 0 -1 9 3 6 NORM AL 15 PASTURE CONDITIONS Average pasture conditions, like crop conditions, were obtain ed for the Department of Agriculture crop reporting districts.9 Figures representing percent of normal10 for the months of June, July, August, and September, 1930-1936 (June and July only in 1936) were averaged for each district. The distribution of the 803 counties by average pasture con ditions is shown in table 3. Table 3— DISTRIBUTION OF COUNTIES IN THE DROUGHT AREA, BY AVERAGE PERCENT OF NORMAL PASTURE CONDITIONS, 1930-1936 State Total: Number Percent Minnesota Iowa Missouri Group I (67 Percent or More) Group I I (63 to 67 Percent) Group I I I (59 to 63 Percent) Group IV (54 to 59 Percent) 803 154 19 167 194 24 168 120 21 15 7 _ 26 - 8 21 - - - - 44 32 14 - - _ _ _ 7 19 34 44 49 9 100 77 61 14 'North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska Kansas Oklahoma Texas Montana Wyomi ng Colorado New Mexico Source: Total Count ies 53 69 93 105 77 - 21 6 25 28 19 - - - 41 28 54 9 14 101 20 56 19 47 31 15 19 24 8 O i v i s i o n o f Crop and L iv e s t o c k E st im a t e s, 16 13 23 12 22 16 10 15 - - 10 - - - Bureau o f A g r i c u lt u r a l E con o m ics, U. S. Group V (Less Than 54 Percent) - 14 5 23 - Departm ent o f A g r i c u lt u r e . North and South Dakota together account for 78 of the 130 counties ingroup V, which reflects the worst pasture conditions. Under the Department of Agriculture classification, pasture con ditions in the eastern third of North Dakota represented "severe drought", with those of the rest of the State representing "ex treme drought." South Dakota has 56 counties, or 81 percent of its total of 69, in the 2 categories of highest drought intensity as an average condition for the 6 years. A rather small, but highly concentrated, distress area is located on the Southern Plains, comprising 23 counties in Texas, 9 In reporting pasture conditions, the U. 8. Department of Agriculture uses the following scale: 80 percent and over, good to excellent; 65 to 80 per cent, poor to fair; 50 to 65 percent, very poor; 35 to 50 percent, severe drought; and under 35 percent, extreme drought. *°As estimated in reports to the Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. 8. Department of Agriculture. 17 AREAS OF INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS 16. 4 - P A S T U R E C O N D IT IO N S IN T H E D R O U G H T A R E A AVERAGE PERCENT OF NORMAL 1 9 3 0 - 1936 PASTURE CONDITIONS 19 5 in Oklahoma, and 14 in southwestern Kansas, where these 3 States adjoin (figure 4). The comparatively favorable conditions in Wyoming and western Nebraska, where tillage has not proceeded to the same extent as in the heavier shaded sections, are out standing. Average pasture conditions represent two different types of grazing: the open range, and improved pasture. The western range is composed of native grasses and other forage plants. It is never fertilized or cultivated. Made up of plant species which are naturally drought-resistant, over-grazing is a much more serious detriment than shortage of moisture. A regrettable combination of both factors, however, has resulted in consider able deterioration of the open range. Improved pastures, con tinuing eastward from the range border, receive a greater amount of rain. Often fertilized to increase production, they are made up of seeded grasses not native to the area and usually follow cultivation for other crops. Native range and improved pasture naturally present different problems. The latter accompanies commercial agriculture. On the Plains it is developed where needed on land on which the original sod has been broken. It spreads farther and farther into range territory as successive spans of good years stimulate the plowing of additional acreage in the marginal productive zone between aridity and humidity. On the range, it is true, severe drought is equally as harsh as elsewhere. Dust was blow ing on the Plains before the first plow ever turned sod. But the intensity of effect on national economy increases with the expansion of agriculture. When crop and pasture conditions in the drought area are graphically compared (figures 3 and 4), it is seen that the ex treme of intensity shifts slightly eastward of the center of the test area when gauged by pasture conditions, and westward when measured by crop conditions. In other words, it is apparent that crop conditions tend farther from normalcy as cultivation infringes on the natural range,with pasture conditions adverse ly affected along the eastern edges of the range country, which are already largely in cultivation. NUMBER OF CATTLE The fourth index of drought effect— the percent of change in number of cattle between 1930 and 1935— presents a variegated pattern of changing cattle distribution throughout the entire Great Plains Region (figure 5). With the exception of eastern Wyoming and several areas on the Southern Plains, most of the counties with an average pasture condition of 59 percent or more of normal reported increases in numbers of cattle. This is particularly noticeable in western Nebraska, western Montana, several tiers of counties in the ad joining sections of Kansas and Colorado, eastern Oklahoma, and western New Mexico. Only the counties in group V represent a clear loss in cattle. The fourth category covers small deviations in both directions from the number in 1930. Approximately one-sixth of the 803 counties in the test area (129 counties) are included in group I which represents an increase of 60 percent or more in the num ber of cattle during the 5 years (table 4). More than 40 percent Table 4— DISTRIBUTION OF COUNTIES IN THE DROUGHT AREA, BY PERCENT CHANGE IN THE NUMBER OF CATTLE, 1930-1935 State T o ta l: Number percent Minnesota Iowa Missouri North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska Kansas Oklahoma Texas Montana Wyoming Col orado New Mexico S o u rc e : Total Count ies Group I (+60 Percent or More) Group I I Group I I I (+30 to +60 (+10 to +30 Percent) Percent) 803 129 16 204 26 202 5 10 24 24 - 2 23 17 5 _ 5 100 77 61 14 53 69 93 105 77 19 39 101 11 56 19 47 31 14 6 10 1 5 9 United States Census of Agriculture: 25 Group IV (-9 to +10 Percent) Group V (Below -9 Percent) 149 18 119 15 23 2 10 - 5 2 11 8 21 17 16 30 20 20 13 20 21 31 26 14 28 3 14 27 19 7 13 14 5 18 3 6 2 4 4 10 2 8 24 27 7 4 8 1 6 1935, vol. I. of all the counties (333 counties) gained 30 percent or more in the number of cattle during that period. Oklahoma had the great est increases in cattle, over half of the 77 counties in the State gaining 60 percent or more in number of cattle. 21 AREAS OF INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS 2 2 F ig . 5 - P E R C E N T C H A N G E IN T H E N U M B E R OF C A T T L E IN T H E D R O U G H T A R E A 1930-1935 NUMBER OF CATTLE 23 Counties reporting from 30 to 60 percent increase in the 5-year period are found in the midst of others that lost 9 per cent or more. Reeves County, in the southwestern corner of Texas, is an example of this situation. In central South Dakota, Hughes Count-y shows a gain of from 10 to 30 percent, yet it is completely surrounded by counties in group V which lost 9 per cent or more. In contrast, Silver Bow County, Montana, exper ienced a decrease in cattle while its neighboring counties on all sides were gaining from one-third to two-thirds in numbers. The spotty appearance of the graphic representation of cattle changes by counties is due, in most instances, to local condi tions which are not always representative of the entire district. Supplies of stored feed and access to water for stock, in times of general distress, often vary greatly within short distances, and the ease with which cattle can be moved from one locality to another, when necessity arises, accounts in some measure for a seeming lack of consistency in the distribution of counties disclosing severest drought effect, as measured by gain or loss in cattle numbers. As in each of the preceding tests, South Dakota presents the most distressing picture. Out of 69 counties in the State, 30 lost more than 9 percent of their cattle during the 5-year pe riod. Forty-seven counties, two-thirds of the total, are in the two lowest groups, with from very slight gains to heavy losses. North Dakota ranks second in point of cattle losses by counties, with 37, or 70 percent of all of the counties, in the 2 low est classifications. Of the 101 Texas counties included in the survey, 27 lost more than 9 percent of their cattle. The greater portion of these decreases, however, occurred not in the Panhandle Counties but in the southwestern corner of the State. The area in which five States come together, consistently black in other tests, displays a certain incongruity in this one. Oldham County, Texas, in the lowest category in every other measure of drought effect, shows a gain of more than 60 percent in cattle between 1930 and 1935; yet in its immediate vicinity are a dozen counties which lost in numbers. The explanation lies in those strictly local variations in supply of feed and water which cannot be computed on a county basis. FE D E R A L AID As an index for gauging the gravity of human distress result ing from moisture deficiency, crop failure, pasture damage, and depletion of livestock, and for localizing the areas of varying intensity, the amount of money expended per capita by Federal agencies dealing directly with the drought problem presents the most impressive, as well as the most accurate, criterion of the situation. In this series of tests, distribution of Federal assistance is the only measure of the direct effect of drought upon the peoples of drought areas, yet in itself it is a remark ably reliable guide in the delineation of trouble areas. It is the end result of all contributing conditions, expressed in terms of human want. Combined with the four indices previously described, it contributes equally with them in the composition of an aggregate index (figure ?, page 30),11 but the latter appears to be almost a duplication of the index of Federal aid, so closely do they conform in gradation. Figure 6 depicts the extent to which Federal funds were ex pended in the drought States during the 3-year period from April 1933 to June 1936. The amounts given include total expenditures in this region by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration from April 1933 to the close of its operations in 1936;12 those of the Civil Works Administration from November 1933 to July 1934; the Agricultural Adjustment Administration rental and benefit payments, and amounts spent in the cattle, sheep, and goat purchasing activities, operative from May 1933 to May 1936; expenditures for the rural rehabilitation program of the Re settlement Administration, July 1935 through June 1936; and Works Progress Administration expenditures through June 1936. To obtain per capita expenditures, total amounts in dollars were obtained by counties and related to total county population, as reported in the 1930 Census.13 See following section, Combined Indices of Drought Intensity. Including expenditures for rural rehabilitation. 13 This procedure may have resulted in slight inaccuracies in Individual counties, and even in wider areas, due to population changes since 1930. Available data on recent changes In population would indicate that In most counties of high drought Intensity per capita expenditures based on 1936 population would be greater than those shown, due to migration from the worst areas, while In the more favorable sections they would be less, due to movement Into the areas. 12 25 26 AREAS OF INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS F ig . 6 - F E D E R A L A ID P E R C A P IT A IN THE DROUGHT AREA 1933 - 1 9 3 6 FEDERAL AID 27 What bearing, if any, administrative policy in any of these programs may have had on the distribution of Federal aid is difficult to ascertain. Differences in public attitude toward the whole question of relief, in a territory so large and with so many diverse elements, may also be reflected. The agencies included were not the only ones operating with Government funds throughout this territory during the years mentioned, but an attempt was made to distinguish between those engaged primarily in efforts to relieve distress and others which were of a "pump priming" nature. The rental and benefit payments of the Agri cultural Adjustment Administration account in many instances for a much higher per capita figure than would be shown with these funds excluded.>Yet if these payments had not been made, the expenditures of strictly relief agencies in those counties undoubtedly would have increased. Table 5 shows the relative ranking of the 803 counties, by ¡States, based on amount of Federal aid received per capita. Table 5— DISTRIBUTION OF COUNTIES IN THE DROUGHT AREA, BY FEDERAL AID PER CAPITA, 1933-1936 State T o tal: Number percent Minnesota Iowa Missouri North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska Kansas Oklahoma Texas Montana Wyoming Colorado New Mexico Total Coun tie s Group I (Less Than $58) Group I I ($58 to $84) Group I I I ($84 to $119) Group IV ($119 to $175) Group V ($175 and Over) 803 179 100 22 190 24 149 19 148 18 137 17 77 61 14 43 17 37 10 5 2 16 - - 6 1 1 - 53 69 93 105 77 _ 5 8 12 21 19 27 26 33 101 12 56 19 47 31 9 7 13 11 12 10 7 5 8 6 1 11 6 34 19 28 8 23 14 15 21 16 13 18 28 8 18 - 14 7 7 3 8 6 3 3 6 6 37 4 27 2 Sources: Federal Emergency Relief Administration; c iv il works Administration; Agricultural Adjustment Administration; Resettlement Administration; works Progress Administration; and fifteenth Census of the United States: Population. 1930, There are 137 counties in which the per capita Federal aid for the period 1933-1936 was $175 and over, and 148 in which it ranged from $119 to $175. On the basis of an average family of four members, this means that in more than a third of all the counties studied, a sum was expended sufficient to provide at least $476 for every family. In the North, where the counties receiving the highest per capita Federal aid are loosely centered in the Dakotas and eastern Montana and Wyoming, there are some breaks in the con centration of black sections (figure 6). South Dakota, however, has 50 counties, or almost three-quarters of the entire State, in the 2 highest Federal aid groups. Three-fourths of North Dakota1s counties were in the same two classifications. 28 AREAS OF INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS Kansas, with 37 counties receiving per capita amounts of $175 and over, had the largest number of counties in group V. A little more than a third of the entire State appears solidly black on the map. Figure 6 graphically shows the intensity of Federal aid in a large part of the Southern Plains, with 4 counties in Oklahoma, 27 in Texas, 3 in New Mexico, and 3 in Colorado in the group of counties receiving per capita amounts of $175 and over. COMBINED INDICES OF DROUGHT INTENSITY When the counties of the Great Plains and the surrounding territory are considered in the light of the combined indices of drought effect, it is seen that there are two distinct centers of acute distress (figure 7). One is on the Northern Plains, extending to the Canadian border, the other is on the Southern or High Plains. Of the 125 counties in group V, showing the highest degree of drought intensity (table 6), all but 6 are closely grouped in one or the other of the 2 centers: 75 in the northern region, and 44 in the southern. Table 6— COMBINED INDICES OF DROUGHT INTENSITY, 1930-1936* State Tota,: Total Counties Group I (Very SI ight) 803 177 100 22 77 61 14 20 Number Percent Minnesota Iowa Missouri North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska Kansas Oklahoma Texas Montana Wyoming Colorado New Mexico a F o r p ro ce d u re fo llo w e d 53 69 93 105 77 26 - _ Group I I (S Iigh t) Group I I I (Moderate) Group IV (Severe) Group V (Very Severe) 127 16 125 16 208 26 166 32 24 15 9 1 11 - - 20 10 4 - - 2 6 22 21 23 41 9 19 3 18 19 5 23 - - 101 5 17 47 17 32 31 13 24 56 19 47 31 8 6 15 16 10 8 12 10 in ra n k in g c o u n t ie s , se e M e t h o d o lo g ic a l 7 46 19 9 19 15 2 n 2 13 3 7 3 1 10 - 2 - Note. When the fourth and fifth classifications, reflecting the highest drought intensity groups, are considered together, 2 very definite problem areas, including a total of 252 counties, stand out. The northern problem area embraces 137 contiguous counties, comprising almost the entire States of North and South Dakota, the eastern third of Montana, northeastern Wyoming, west central Minnesota, and 1 county in northern Nebraska. The south ern problem area is made up of 105 adjoining counties in an irregularly shaped area centered in the Texas-Oklahoma Panhandle Region, and including parts of the 6 States of Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado. This method of grouping excludes 10 counties in the fourth category of drought distress: 7 in the mountainous section of western Montana, 2 in the southwest corner of Texas, and 1 in 29 AREAS OF INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS -C O M B IN E D I N D E X OF D R O U G H T I N T E N S I T Y AVERAGE OF FIVE INDICES 1930-1936 COMBINED INDICES OF DROUGHT INTENSITY 31 western Nebraska. None of these 10 counties is adjacent to the 2 high intensity areas outlined above, being surrounded in each instance by sections with comparatively better conditions. The extent of drought distress in these two problem areas, based on the comparative intensity of the five drought indices, is shown in table 7. Table 7— FIVE INDICES OF DROUGHT EFFECT IN TV/0 HIGH INTENSITY AREAS® Total Counties Area and Index Num ber Per cent 137 137 137 137 137 100 100 100 100 100 104 104 104 104 104 100 100 100 100 100 Group I Num ber Per cent Group V Group I I I Group IV Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent Num ber Per cent 4 3 17 19 29 7 12 10 1 7 21 45 57 45 48 49 33 41 33 35 36 67 56 49 77 54 49 41 36 56 40 6 6 8 10 10 16 9 24 30 30 24 29 23 53 57 61 42 30 51 55 59 40 28 Group I I Num ber Northern Plains Rainfal 1 Crop cond i t i ons Pasture conditions Number of c a ttle Federal aid 2 1 2 1 - - 4 3 3 5 5 1 1 2 6 4 14 1 10 14 21 5 15 Southern Plains R a in fa l1 Crop condi tions Pasture conditions Number of c a ttle Federal aid ^ o r d e fin it io n s 4 4 - - 4 4 6 6 8 10 10 10 9 15 18 23 30 22 21 28 30 27 28 o f g ro u p s by in d ic e s , se e t a b le s 1 -5 . Between the two regions on the Northern and Southern Plains in which cumulative drought effect is shown to have been most severely felt is a wide belt of demarcation, in which only one county (Banner County, Nebraska) is in either of the two groups representing highest drought intensity. This dividing strip extends across Nebraska, continuing in broadening lines through Colorado and Wyoming to the west and Iowa and Missouri to the east. Much of eastern Nebraska falls into the third classifica tion of drought intensity, providing a connecting link of counties with only average drought distress between the northern and southern high intensity areas (figure 7). TYPE OF FARMING AREAS Throughout the Great Plains Region, farming in one form or another is the predominant industry and upon farming the social and economic welfare of the people is entirely dependent. Con siderable variation in type of farming has developed, however, and it is considered desirable to point out the effect of drought as related to the major crops. A study of the combined index of drought effect by types of farming (table 8 ) 14 shows that practically the entire Spring Wheat Area of eastern Montana and the Dakotas (figure 8) is a region of high drought intensity. To the west, a number of ranching counties in South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming are in areas of high intensity, while the high intensity area of southeastern South Dakota and western Minnesota protrudes slightly into the Corn Belt. On the High Plains to the south, the boundary lines of the high intensity area cut through the Winter Wheat Area, dividing it into two nearly egual parts. Thirty-six wheat counties in western Kansas and the Oklahoma-Texas Panhandle are within this high intensity area. In Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, 17 range livestock counties are included, as well as 8 corn-grow ing counties in north central Kansas, 15 western cotton counties in Texas and Oklahoma, and approximately 18 scattered counties where a varied agriculture has developed. The conclusion that agriculture has over-stepped its bounds in its westward march is inescapable. The line now recognized by the Forest Service as marking the boundary of the western range, running north and south from the Canadian to the Mexican borders, which has been continuously pushed westward before agricultural expansion, cuts through the heart of the northern region of greatest drought intensity and forms an eastern bounda ry to the southern problem area. 14The type of farming areas were defined as follows: Spring Wheat— counties In which at least 30 percent of the total acreage of crop land and plowable pasture was planted In wheat In 1939; Vinter Wheat— same as for Spring Wheat; Western C o m — counties in which at least 29 percent of the total acreage of crop land and plowable pasture was planted In corn In 1929; Western Cotton— counties in which at least 40 percent of the value of all farm products sold, traded, or used was derived from cotton farms; Ranching— counties In which at least 40 percent of the total farm land was classed as "stock-ranch" In 1930; Mixed Farming— counties in which none of the above requirements for the other areas Is fulfilled or in which at least two types of crops are important. 33 AREAS OF INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS 34 Under the stimulus of occasional and irregular periods of high prices, notably during and immediately following the World War, and without the guidance and restraint of a well-planned Table 8— INDICES OF DROUGHT INTENSITY IN TYPE OF FARMING AREAS® Total Counties Index Num ber Per cent Group I Num ber Per cent R a in fa l1 Crop conditions Pasture conditions Number of cattle Federal aid 66 66 66 66 66 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3 - 4.5 - Average 66 100.0 2 3.0 Group I I I Group I I Num ber Per cent Num ber Stir in i hfheat 10.6 17 1 9 6 9.1 7.6 5 3 8 2 - 12.1 3.0 12 8 - 5 Group IV Group V Num ber Per cent Num ber 36.3 28.8 34.9 45.5 18 37 39 12.1 24 14 19 23 30 7.6 25 37.9 34 24.4 3.6 37.8 18.3 8.5 21 12 25.6 4.9 18.3 14.6 Per cent 25.8 13.6 4.5 18.2 21.2 Per cent 27.3 56.1 59.1 20 30.3 26 39.4 51.5 Winter Wheat R a in fa l1 Crop cond it ions Pasture conditions Number of cattle Federal aid 82 82 82 82 82 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3 16 3 26 5 3.7 19.5 3.6 31.7 13 30 8 9.8 18 22.0 6.1 8 9.8 20 3 31 15 7 19 23.2 25 30.4 29 35.4 25 30.5 11 13.4 43 52.4 Average 82 100.0 5 6.1 22 26.8 16 19.5 13 15.9 26 31.7 R a in fa l1 Crop conditions Pasture conditions Number of ca ttle Federal aid 213 213 213 213 213 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 21 9.8 66 31.0 66 26.8 14.6 34.3 33.3 26.8 39 43 54 43 18.3 30 20.2 32 Western Corn 31.0 57 30.5 31 16.0 73 30.0 71 41.8 57 8 20 20 9.4 Average 213 29.1 24 11,3 R a in fa l1 Crop condit ions Pasture conditions Number of cattle Federal aid 20.8 Average 15.9 36.6 4 15 39 15.0 9.4 18.3 65 34 64 89 100.0 41 19.2 72 207 207 207 207 207 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 22 10.6 90 43.5 51 24.6 30 14.5 75 36.3 MUted Pai'mini 46 22.2 43 13.0 27 39 17.4 50 36 61 29.5 47 36 17.4 30 18.9 24.2 22.7 14.5 46 29 42 41 33 207 100.0 56 53 41 19.8 27 R a in fa l1 Crop conditions Pasture conditions Number of cattle Federal aid 82 82 82 82 82 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 54.9 28.0 2 2.4 34 41.5 20 24.4 Wes tern C'otton 16 19.5 1 24 25 30.5 51 62.2 8 18 21.9 18 25 30.5 21 8.5 29.3 9.8 21.9 25.6 Average 82 100.0 40 48.8 20 R a in fa l1 Crop conditions Pasture conditions Number of cattle Federal aid 153 153 153 153 153 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 39 55 25.5 36.0 16 40 10.5 26.2 19 13 33 35 30 Average 153 100.0 41 26.8 35 a F o r d e f i n i t i o n s o f g ro u p s by in d i c e s , 20 27.1 45 23 66 43.0 33.8 25.6 62 25.3 20.2 14.1 3.7 9.4 15 7.1 8 3.7 14 6.6 22.2 50 24.2 14.0 20.3 19.8 15.9 22 10.6 28 28 33 13.5 13.5 15.9 13.0 30 14.5 9 11.0 9 11.0 20 24.4 8 9.8 5 6.1 1.2 1.2 14 17.1 2 4.9 2.4 2.4 1 1 4 7 8.5 13 15.9 2 Ranchi.né 12.4 31 8.5 23 21.6 29 22.9 39 19.6 26 20.3 15.0 19.0 25.5 17.0 25 41 18 16.3 26.8 39 32 22.2 24 ' 15.7 24.4 22.9 34 11.8 22 14.4 20.9 25.5 13.7 7 4.6 41 26.7 25 16.3 21 19 12.4 se e t a b l e s 1 -5 . national policy, cash grain farming not only increased tre mendously in scope but penetrated deeply into regions ill-suited climatically to its sustenance. One measure of the result is presented here. Areas of varying degree of drought effect are described. Certain focal points of intensity, surrounded by sections of lesser severity, are outlined on the basis of the criteria employed. TYPE OF FARMING AREAS Fig. 8 - T Y P E S OF F A R M IN G IN T H E D R O U G H T A R E A 1934 A N D 1936 35 36 AREAS OF INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS On the basis of these delimitations of graded areas, it is apparent that serious study must be undertaken in an effort to solve the problems of agriculture in the regions where farming practices have been proved to be unsound. Moderate changes, or complete abandonment of present practices, are indicated in many instances. No sweeping program applicable to the entire area can be applied successfully because of the variations in conditions encountered within comparatively short distances. Only by segregating the smallest workable units having like conditions and treating each group separately can the way to complete rehabilitation of the drought regions be accomplished. The problems are essentially national. Therefore, only those measures which consider the national welfare as well as that of the areas involved will be thoroughly effective. Desirable changes in farming methods, if instituted immediately in the drought regions, would undoubtedly necessitate some readjustment in other sections of the country. To determine the end desired and by direction and restraint to attain its lasting accomplish ment without disruption elsewhere are pressing questions. Appendix M E T H ODOLOGICAL NOTE METHODOLOGICAL NOTE Localized droughts, often of great intensity but not expansive in nature, occur frequently and are entirely of local concern. The cumulative effect of drought over large areas, however, is a national problem, and as such is the basis of the present report. The Plains States form the nucleus of the present analysis. Original delineation for the purpose of the survey was quite arbitrary. The Continental Divide in Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado was accepted as a western boundary, with the whole State of New Mexico included. The tier of States immediately to the e a s t — North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and the northern one-third of Texas— completed the area of survey as at first selected. This comprised 636 coun ties in 10 States. Five indices — average percent departure from normal rainfall, 1930-1935; average percent of normal crop conditions, 1930-1936; average percent of normal pasture conditions, 1930-1936; percent change in the number of cattle, 1930-1935; and Federal aid per capita, 1933-1936 — were selected for study because measurable data were available and because they were apropos of drought conditions. The 636 counties of the "trial area" were ranked according to each index separately and divided into 5 equal groups1 for mapping purposes. Each group contained a numerical range, according to the index used (see tables 1-5 and figures 2-6). After the rankings by indices were determined for each county, the five rankings were averaged. These county averages, ranging from one to five, furnished the basis for a map of com bined indices. The map of combined indices for the original trial area dis closed the fact that regions*of high intensity apparently ex tended beyond the eastern boundaries set up and in the west reached into western Montana. Hence, the counties on the periph ery of the trial area were measured on the scales set up for the original 636 counties in order to determine drought inten sity in the marginal areas. Such borderline testing was ex tended until in most cases counties of least drought intensity bordered the trial area. As a result, 167 counties in western 1Oroup I Indicated "very slight" drought intensity; group V, "very severe" drought Intensity. 39 40 AREAS OF INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, and Montana were added to the original list, making a total of 803 counties in the final test area.2 Their distribution was as follows: Table A— DISTRIBUTION OF COUNTIES STUDIED IN DROUGHT AREA State Number of Counties Studied Total 803 77 61 14 Minnesota Iowa Mi ssouri North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska Kansas Oklahoma Texas Montana Wyomi ng Colorado New Mexico 53 69 93 105 77 101 56 19 47 31 In adding the 167 counties, the same scale was utilized as for the 636 counties. As a result, the distribution of counties into groups for any single index or for the combined indices was no longer on a basis of fifths. The additional counties fell primarily into groups I and II which had "very slight” or "slight" drought intensity although a few scattered counties with moderate to severe conditions were also included (table 6). o See table B. 41 METHODOLOGICAL NOTE T ab le B— F I V E I N D I C E S OF DROUGHT IN TE N S IT Y IN THE GREAT P L A I N S State and County Average Rank JN 803 C O U N T I E S RE GI ON Average Per cent Departure From Normal Ra i nfal 1, 1930-1935 Average Per cent of Nor mal Crop Conditions, 1930-1936 Average Per cent of Nor mal Pasture Conditions, 1930-1936 Percent Change in Number of Cattle, 1930-1935 Per Capita Federal A id ,a 1933-1936 -12 70 70 70 73 67 61 61 62 72 58 42 17 31 46 3 $ 50 48 40 51 56 61 75 75 70 67 55 62 62 61 58 -14 30 34 23 197 54 51 25 30 73 61 70 71 71 72 55 61 62 62 35 60 61 62 55 62 53 35 16 3 42 28 26 MINNESOTA Aitkin Anoka Becker Bel trami Benton 2 2 2 1 3 -9 -16 Big Stone Blue Earth Brown Carl ton Carver 5 -.21 2 1 1 2 -9 1 4 -12 -21 2 2 1 -3 -30 -5 2 2 2 4 -10 -8 -11 -22 2 -18 69 70 76 61 75 2 2 1 2 -13 -17 -13 -5 -9 75 61 70 73 70 62 55 61 72 61 1 2 2 -12 -11 —8 3 -15 -14 73 69 70 67 71 72 60 61 58 62 73 61 75 75 74 72 55 72 62 60 1 34 142 46 44 119 69 67 71 71 75 60 58 62 62 62 26 5 71 24 36 89 42 71 45 60 67 70 67 6fl 75 58 61 58 60 62 9 17 50 33 71 85 71 90 53 -8 69 71 61 71 70 60 62 55 62 61 31 15 64 45 49 24 37 -4 -5 -18 -14 -5 69 71 61 70 71 60 62 55 61 62 51 37 -4 15 36 72 40 106 65 24 -16 -9 -9 70 67 75 69 71 60 58 62 60 62 33 24 13 100 Cass Ch i ppewa Chisago Clay Clearwater Cottonwood Crow Wing Dakota Douglas Faribault Freeborn Grant Hennepin Hubbard Isanti 1tasca Jackson Kanabec Kand iyohi Kittson Koochiching Lac qui Parle Lake of the Woods Le Sueur Lincoln 3 2 1 4 1 2 3 Lyon McLeod Mahnomen Marshal 1 Martin 3 Meeker Mi 11e Lacs Morrison Murray Nicol let 3 3 Nobles Norman Otter Tail Pennington Pi ne 1 2 Pipestone Polk Pope Ramsey Red Lake Redwood Renvi 1le Rice Rock Roseau 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 4 3 1 3 3 2 2 1 -9 -20 -1 1 -7 -1 1 -21 -4 -6 -11 -18 -7 -7 -12 -14 -15 -11 -8 -10 -8 -8 -It -17 -5 -6 -7 P. 41 1 8 -1 47 29 -6 48 2 47 52 -3 11 39 71 1 69 16 2 64 48 8 68 25 53 143 27 42 35 79 65 39 68 76 61 93 49 48 29 36 75 79 85 54 87 35 70 19 42 AREAS OF INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS Table 8— F I V E IN D IC ES OF DROUGHT IN TENS IT Y IN 803 C O U N T I E S IN THE GREAT P L A I N S REG I ON— C o n t i n u e d State and County Average Rank Average Per cent Departure From Normal Rainfal 1, 1930-1935 Average Per cent of Nor mal Crop Cond i tions, 1930-1936 -7 81 67 67 67 67 Percent Change in Number of Cattle, 1930-1935 Per Cap i ta Federal A id ,a 1933-1936 71 58 58 58 58 31 17 15 15 4 $ 53 36 57 51 75 61 61 67 61 62 55 55 58 55 25 7 3 30 151 142 52 177 58 62 61 62 55 24 23 5 42 27 101 Average Per cent of Nor mal Pasture Cond it ions, 1930-1936 MINNESOTA— Continued S t . Lou i s Scott Sherburne Si bley Stearns 1 2 3 2 -11 -21 3 -4 -18 1 -6 4 4 3 4 -14 Wadena Waseca Washington* Watonwan W ilkin 2 1 2 -9 -3 -9 I 4 -10 -26 67 75 70 75 61 Wright Yellow Medicine 3 4 -15 -17 67 61 58 55 -3 3 55 123 3 -9 -4 65 65 64 67 73 61 61 62 60 65 8 2 13 26 39 104 99 51 113 45 73 67 67 65 77 65 60 60 61 67 62 55 38 24 37 80 75 73 89 39 73 64 73 67 73 65 62 65 60 65 68 -1 -55 19 19 82 90 82 64 73 73 77 65 62 65 65 67 61 67 65 43 27 67 67 73 77 73 60 60 65 67 65 48 43 43 67 77 67 75 77 60 67 60 65 67 64 73 64 64 73 62 65 62 62 65 -4 -9 65 67 64 80 73 61 60 62 61 65 —6 -6 73 65 65 61 Steele Stevens Swift Todd Traverse -20 -15 -14 2 7 66 51 57 34 64 IOWA Adai r Adams Appanoose Audubon Boone 2 2 2 1 -1 -10 Buena V is ta Calhoun Carrol 1 Cass Cerro Gordo 1 2 -8 -1 1 3 -19 2 1 -6 Cherokee Clarke Clay Crawford Dal la s 2 -16 3 -6 1 -4 3 -20 2 -16 Decatur Dicki nson Emmet Frankl in F remont 2 1 1 1 -10 -6 -6 -8 3 -18 Greene Guthrie Ham¡1 ton Hancock Hardin 2 2 1 -6 -12 Harrison Humboldt Ida Jasper Kossuth -7 -7 -7 t 1 1 -4 2 1 -17 -7 3 -11 1 1 -7 -3 3 1 -10 -10 3 -9 2 1 -2 M ills Monona Monroe Montgomery O’Brien 2 -3 3 -22 -2 Osceola Page 1 2 Lucas Lyon Mad i son Marion Marshal 1 2 2 1 -7 P. 42 10 53 12 101 69 64 70 66 93 104 77 82 7484 69 21 82 80 105 60 63 86 2 74 73 114 67 52 31 53 23 70 -6 -2 44 20 79 48 110 10 20 64 82 82 72 76 24 75 69 43 METHODOLOGICAL NOTE T a b le B— F IV E IN D IC E S OF DROUGHT IN T E N SIT Y IN 803 COUNTIES IN THE GREAT PLAINS REGION— C o n tin u e d State and County Average Rank Average Per cent Departure From Normal Rai n f a l1, 1930-1935 Average Per cent of Nor mal Crop ,Conc) i t i ons, 1930-1936 Average Per cent of Nor mal Pasture Conditions, 1930-1936 Percent Change in Number of Catti e, 1930-1935 Per Capita Federal A id ,a 1933-1936 73 73 73 73 80 65 65 65 65 61 59 43 71 17 23 $ 77 78 87 48 64 67 67 73 73 62 60 60 65 65 15 63 26 49 39 80 89 104 65 64 64 64 73 61 62 62 62 65 32 90 70 84 72 50 77 67 77 77 67 60 67 67 41 49 44 44 58 58 58 58 58 60 60 60 60 60 18 33 58 57 58 58 57 60 59 60 60 59 58 57 57 58 60 59 59 60 20 -12 -6 51 57 51 51 51 -10 186 40 19 7 -23 110 -9 -17 50 62 50 50 50 9 -15 -15. -14 -16 50 46 50 62 61 51 46 53 57 54 55 46 49 51 50 54 46 53 52 53 51 50 61 50 62 52 51 54 53 57 50 51 55 55 50 51 52 54 54 51 1OWA— Cont i nued Palo Alto PI ymouth Pocahontas Polk Pottawattamie 1 1 1 2 2 -5 -13 -4 Ringgold Sac Shelby Sioux Story 2 2 1 1 1 —6 -u -20 Taylor Union Warren Wayne Webster 2 -3 3 -12 2 2 1 * -4 Winnebago Woodbury Worth Wright 1 2 1 1 -12 -11 -13 -5 -8 4 -18 -10 -12 1 -2 16 52 68 66 53 73 45 68 77 MISSOURI Andrew Atchison Buchanan Daviess De Kalb Gentry Grundy Harri son Holt Mercer Nodaway Putnam Sul 1ivan Worth 2 3 4’ -3 2 2 2 -2 -3 -1 3 -7 2 2 2 2 -1 3 -10 -2 2 2 -3 2 -3 3 -7 -7 5 -39 2 -6 -10 1 4 18 4 -11 14 40 * 17 79 122 41 62 76 65 37 55 90 51 80 33 38 77 NORTH DAKOTA Adams Barnes Benson B i 11 ings Bott i neau 4 5 5 Bowman Burke Burleigh Cass Cavalier 4 5 5 Dickey Divide Dunn Eddy Emmons 4 5 5 4 5 -17 -30 -15 Foster Golden Valley Grand Forks Grant G riggs 4 4 3 5 3 -3 -13 -9 Hettinger Kidder La Moure Logan McHenry 5 5 4 4 4 2 4 -12 -15 -12 -8 -15 -16 -12 -7 -9 -10 -34 -11 48 -10 5 -12 -4 11 -19 176 243 179 187 171 109 63 126 175 206 180 151 186 10 149 23 210 12 75 -26 18 200 -8 -12 199 163 149 149 143 15 -9 -2 113 44 AREAS OF INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS T a b le 8— F IV E IN D IC E S OF DROUGHT IN T E N SIT Y IN 803 COUNTIES IN THE GREAT P LA IN S REGION— C o n tin u e d Average Rank Average Per cent Departure From Normal Rai nfal 1, 1930-1935 Average Per cent of Nor mal Crop Condit ions, 1930-1936 Average Per cent of Nor mal Pasture Condi t ions, 1930-1936 Percent Change in Number of Catt1er 1930-1935 McIntosh McKenzie McLean Mercer Morton 4 5 5 5 5 -16 -19 -19 -15 -13 55 49 49 49 50 54 53 53 53 53 -23 15 5 Mountrai1 Nelson 01 i ver Pembina Pierce 5 4 5 3 4 -15 46 61 49 61 50 46 54 53 54 51 -34 7 Ramsey Ransom Renville Richland Rolette 4 4 -11 61 55 46 55 50 54 54 46 54 51 55 51 50 50 50 54 52 53 51 51 -18 62 51 61 62 61 57 52 54 57 54 33 7 * 38 1 116 161 61 77 46 51 46 46 52 46 -7 4 -26 105 163 189 52 53 53 50 51 59 47 47 64 50 -78 -52 -41 2,844 244 129 160 92 State and County Per Capi ta Federal Aid , 3 1933-1936 NORTH DAKOTA— Cont i nued Sargent Sheridan Sioux Si ope Stark -12 -15 -16 -9 4 4 -16 -16 -18 -7 4 -20 -10 5 4 -16 -7 -7 Steele Stutsman Towner T r a ill Wal sh -9 4 4 3 3 Ward Wei 1s Wi 11 iams 5 4 5 -12 -6 -16 -11 -13 -12 -23 -2 -3 12 32 12 1 -3 -25 12 -4 6 14 -9 -6 $ 168 237 150 124 163 175 116 154 75 164 133 108 187 95 145 197 .170 194 225 150 120 SOUTH DAKOTA Armstrong Au ro ra Beadle Bennett Bon Homme 5 5 5 3 5 Brook i ngs Brown Brule Buffalo Butte 4 5 5 5 4 -27 -23 -16 -18 51 54 53 53 54 48 49 47 47 57 24 -4 43 -47 4 Campbei 1 Charles Mix Cl ark Clay Cod i ngton 5 5 5 4 4 -23 -15 -25 -25 -14 54 51 54 51 54 49 50 49 50 49 -46 3 -38 63 Corson Custer Davison Day Deuel 4 3 5 5 4 -31 54 50 51 54 54 57 64 48 49 49 12 -11 -22 -20 9 9 -5 6 121 Dewey Douglas Edmunds Fall River Faul k 5 5 5 3 5 54 51 54 50 54 57 50 49 64 49 -54 -3 -9 36 -35 163 175 206 78 Grant Gregory Haakon Haml in Hand 5 5 5 5 5 49 57 59 49 47 -13 -40 -18 -23 54 50 52 54 53 -34 143 225 Hanson 5 -27 51 48 33 154 -27 -21 -27 -15 -31 -21 -14 -22 -15 -17 -13 -27 -19 -22 66 2 -11 -2 -20 -8 93 136 206 182 104 250 138 167 91 108 177 74 92 157 212 139 159 211 METHODOLOGICAL NOTE T a b le B— F IV E IN D IC E S OF DROUGHT IN T E N SIT Y 45 IN 803 COUNTIES IN THE GREAT P LA IN S REGION— C o n tin u e d State and County Average Rank • Average Per cent Departure From Normal R a in fa l1, 1930-1935 Average Per cent of Nor mal Crop Cond i tions, 1930-1936 Average Per cent of Nor mal Pasture Condi tions, 1930-1936 -15 54 53 51 53 52 57 47 50 47 59 53 50 51 51 52 Percent Change i n Number of Catti e, 1930-1935 Per Cap ita Federal Aid , 3 1933-1936 29 $167 SOUTH DAKOTA— Cont i nued Harding Hughes Hutchi nson Hyde Jackson 4 4 5 5 4 Jerauld Jones Kingsbury Lake Lawrence 5 5 5 4 4 Li ncoln Lyrrjan McCook McPherson Marshal 1 4 5 4 5 5 Meade Mel 1ette Mi ner Mi nnehaha Moody 4 5 5 3 4 -21 Penni ngton Pe rk i ns Potter Roberts Sanborn 4 4 5 5 5 -15 Shannon Spi nk Stanley Sully Todd 3 5 5 5 4 -15 -28 -16 -30 Tripp Turner Un ion Walworth Washabaugh 5 4 4 5 3 -17 -19 Washington Yankton Ziebach 3 4 5 22 102 23 -26 * 108 47 57 48 48 59 -53 -5 -30 51 217 262 152 123 34 51 50 51 54 54 50 57 48 49 49 27 52 50 51 51 51 59 57 48 48 48 52 54 54 54 51 59 57 49 49 48 50 54 52 53 50 64 49 59 47 57 140 -39 -14 34 87 203 235 285 146 -10 50 51 51 54 50 57 50 50 49 64 -40 39 52 -46 57 185 82 97 192 164 -14 -31 -32 50 51 54 64 50 57 307 19 -9 103 79 174 -11 52 62 53 61 53 58 58 70 8 53 63 71 351 80 -20 -23 -19 12 -22 -19 -29 -14 -24 -27 -13 -10 -17 -20 -23 -15 -5 -17 -20 -25 -14 -23 -20 -21 -31 2 -20 33 -35 -11 -2 -35 -16 65 68 -6 17 -60 -12 -29 -10 220 201 78 198 129 188 186 142 186 179 58 129 95 169 252 143 189 NEBRASKA Adams Antelope Arthur Banner Blai ne 3 3 Boone Box Butte Boyd BroAn Buffalo 3 3 3 3 Burt Butler Cass Cedar Chase 3 3 1 4 2 2 2 3 1 -16 10 -12 -I, -5 -11 -13 -5 -17 -4 2 2 -13 4 -14 2 -11 3 Cherry Cheyenne Clay Col fax Cumi ng Custer 3 -16 -3 -29 -18 62 61 53 53 60 62 61 61 62 65 66 70 34 63 40 81 66 11 10 70 70 65 3 23 19 58 58 58 58 29 34 27 25. 68 103 58 12 84 104 98 82 71 88 70 53 76 163 66 78 58 58 58 -6 -15 53 61 55 61 62 35 17 84 192 96 76 77 -13 60 65 -15 123 -10 70 46 AREAS OF INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS T a b le B— F IV E * IN D IC E S OF DROUGHT IN T E N SIT Y Average Rank Average Per cent Departure From Normal Rai n f a l1, 1930-1935 Average Per cent of Nor mal Crop Cond it ions, 1930-1936 Dakota Dawes Dawson Deuel Dixon 3 -21 2 2 2 -13 -4 62 61 60 61 62 Dodge Douglas Dundy Fil Imore Frankli n 3 State and County IN 803 COUNTIES IN THE GREAT P LA IN S REGION— C o n tin u e d Average Per cent of Nor mal Pasture Conditions, 1930-1936 Percent Change in Number of Cattle, 1930-1935 Per Capi ta Federal Aid , 3 1933-1936 58 66 37 17 23 84 $ 84 70 78 206 NEBRASKA— Cont i nued Front ier Furnas Gage Garden G arfield Gosper Grant Greel ey Hall Hami1ton Harlan Hayes Hitchcock Holt Hooker Howard Jefferson Johnson Kearney Kei th 3 2 2 -11 -20 -18 -13 -1 1 3 4 -7 -15 2 -4 -9 4 3 2 -10 - 11 3 -13 3 1 2 -13 -16 -9 -15 3 2 4 3 2 1 -9 -5 3 2 -22 2 -13 3 3 3 4 -13 2 4 -10 -1 1 -24 -3 Keyapaha Kimbal1 Knox Lancaster L i nco1n 2 -23 -5 3 -21 2 1 -9 -4 Logan Loup McPherson Mad i son Merrick 3 3 3 3 -7 -16 -4 Morril 1 Nance Nemaha NuckolIs Otoe 3 3 3 4 3 -24 -17 -9 Pawnee Perkins Phelps Pierce Platte 3 .-12 2 -4 3 3 -1 Polk Redwi11ow Richardson Rock S a li ne Sarpy Saunders Scotts Blu ff Seward Sheridan 2 -12 -6 -12 -9 2 -16 -9 3 -14 1 2 11 -6 -20 -10 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 -13 -16 -23 -3 -10 66 65 58 10 66 61 61 65 55 52 58 58 4 32 50 15 49 57 140 87 99 65 52 55 61 53 68 52 53 60 60 61 58 70 65 65 58 52 65 65 53 53 60 55 55 52 65 68 58 58 58 58 66 70 102 101 19 -16 49 99 58 23 68 68 20 85 189 117 71 55 70 70 65 58 58 58 56 33 58 9 7 -8 68 28 57 70 -20 66 90 13 13 48 68 70 70 70 58 58 61 61 55 55 55 66 61 61 61 61 61 99 87 65 145 125 6 5 53 53 53 62 61 61 65 55 53 55 15 48 23 22 -21 53 61 62 61 65 55 65 52 62 61 1 o 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 68 58 58 58 58 68 58 70. 58 58 58 66 58 66 50 92 93 72 119 134 120 202 77 48 62 7 19 128 139 10 120 19 17 61 70 47 33 120 88 12 1 74 91 55 -7 82 23 30 39 79 246 96 65 69 3 44 23 39 18 64 76 91 74 -16 77 29 109 30 42 88 45 58 98 56 102 METHODOLOGICAL NOTE T a b le B— F IV E IN D IC E S OF DROUGHT IN T E N SIT Y IN THE GREAT PLAINS State and County Average Rank 47 IN 803 COUNTIES REG I ON— Cont i nued Average Per Average Per cent Departure cent of Nor From Normal mal Crop Ra i nfa 11, Conditions, 1930-1935 1930-1936 Average Per cent of Nor mal Pasture Cond it ions, 1930-1936 Percent Change in Number of Cattle, 1930-1935 -13 33 24 23 Per Capita Federal Aid, a 1933-1936 NEBRASKA— Cont i nued 4 60 61 62 55 53 65 -22 -11 62 60 61 62 52 58 65 58 58 58 58 -33 34 -27 91 78 108 53 61 70 58 39 3 123 64 74 52 54 41 35 16 17 39 35 47 40 150 133 2 2 Thurston Val 1ey Washington Wayne Webster 3 3 3 3 5 -15 -17 -25 Wheel er York 2 -8 3 -15 2 3 $122 -19 -13 -13 -5 -13 Sherman Sioux Stanton Thayer Thomas 66 58 58 70 100 12 73 102 84 67 90 101 KANSAS 1 2 2 -6 -5 -3 -9 66 -20 64 69 67 62 59 62 2 1 2 -9 -9 -3 -4 -6 69 62 69 67 69 45 38 31 t 74 54 74 52 74 Cherokee Cheyenne Cl ark Clay Cloud 1 2 -11 -8 -20 74 61 45 4444 69 61 50 61 61 65 Coffey Comanche Cowley Crawford Decatur 2 -10 52 4 I I 3 -15 66 -11 -12 -6 74 74 61 -11 -6 64 54 52 Al 1en Anderson Atch i son Barber Barton Bourbon Brown Butler Chase Chautauqua 3 3 I 5 4 4 2 2 2 -16 -7 20 58 4.6 66 33 62 57 24 5 -5 83 1.8? 315 107 93 67 59 69 69 61 30 18 51 50 26 42 268 43 74 193 28 54 36 90 49 84 45 38 271 45 * -7 4 156 124 186 180 41 136 3 -7 -14 1 -6 74 62 62 67 59 69 3 3 5 5 * -19 -16 2 -12 64 64 45 45 52 62 62 50 50 67 Geary Gove Graham Grant Gray 2 4 4 4 5 -5 -3 -16 -5 -27 52 53 61 45 45 67 56 61 50 50 7 -3 -25 278 Greeley Greenwood Hami1ton Harper Harvey 4 -21 1 -4 65 26 64 48 136 44 -38 -14 609 446 11 71 115 Dick i nson Doni phan Douglas Edwards Elk Ell is El 1sworth Fi nney Ford Frankl i n Haskel1 Hodgeman Jackson Jefferson Jewel 1 Johnson Kearny -12 66 5 -11 53 74 45 2 2 -13 -14 66 66 56 69 50 59 59 5 5 3 -28 50 50 62 62 61 67 50 2 -21 -1 1 5 -19 45 45 54 54 44 2 -9 -13 52 45 5 -8 21 1 21 -15 21 -16 68 240 239 446 420 417 50 254 48 88 41 253 48 AREAS OF INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS T a b le B— F IV E IN D IC E S OF DROUGHT IN T E N SIT Y IN 803 COUNTIES IN THE GREAT P L A IN S REG I ON— Cont i nued Average Per cent of Nor mal Crop Cond i t ions, 1930-1936 Average Rank Average Per cent Departure From Normal Ra inf al 1, 1930-1935 K i ngman Kiowa Labette Lane Leavenworth 2 3 1 4 2 -7 -14 1 -16 14 66 66 74 53 54 59 59 69 56 62 63 32 49 32 22 $156 283 67 395 27 Li ncoln Li nn Logan Lyon McPherson 4 2 4 2 2 -17 -17 -9 -6 -9 64 52 53 52 64 62 67 56 67 62 -44 42 23 12 25 169 59 184 41 78 Marion Marshal 1 Meade Miami M itch el1 2 2 5 2 4 -14 -1 -22 -17 -9 64 54 45 52 44 62 62 50 67 61 30 8 -23 28 -25 67 80 305 51 153 Montgomery Morri s Morton Nemaha Neosho 1 2 5 2 1 -5 * -28 -3 -7 74 52 45 54 74 69 67 50 62 69 61 15 31 16 47 47 70 260 69 42 Ness Norton Osage Osborne Ottawa 5 3 2 5 5 -14 -16 -8 14 -14 53 61 52 44 44 56 61 67 61 61 -3 12 29 -33 -11 261 138 48 166 169 Pawnee Phil 1ips Pottawatorni e Pratt Rawl ins 3 4 3 3 2 -19 -4 -8 -16 -5 66 44 54 66 61 59 61 62 59 61 82 1 -13 136 76 226 119 81 169 240 Reno Re^ubli c Rice Ri 1ey Rooks 1 4 2 2 4 -1 -23 -13 -4 -3 66 44 64 54 44 59 61 62 62 61 78 17 81 2 -9 88 83 117 55 195 Rush Russel 1 Sa li ne Scott Sedgwick 3 4 2 4 1 -13 -14 -4 -4 -9 64 64 64 53 66 62 62 62 56 59 30 -23 6 59 66 259 197 74 226 51 Sewa rd Shawnee Sheri dan Sherman Smi th 5 2 4 3 5 -25 -8 -14 -14 . -25 45 52 61 61 44 50 67 61 61 61 -7 22 -8 95 -10 199 48 268 176 124 Stafford Stanton Stevens Sumner Thomas 3 5 5 1 3 -19 -21 -23 -3 -13 66 45 45 66 61 59 50 50 59 61 102 61 54 115 57 196 532 288 86 255 Trego Wabaunsee Wal 1ace Washi ngton Wichita 4 3 3 4 5 3 -10 -1 -14 -12 53 52 53 44 53 56 67 56 61 56 -15 * 59 3 -3 264 68 165 94 259 Wi 1son Woodson Wyandotte 1 1 3 -5 -6 -17 74 74 54 69 69 62 80 26 12 43 61 51 State and County Average Per cent of Nor mal Pasture Condi t ions, 1930-1936 Percent Change in Number of Catti e, 1930-1935 Per Capi ta Federal A id ,a 1933-1936 KANSAS— Cont i nued METHODOLOGICAL NOTE Tab le B— F I V E IN D ICES OF DROUGHT IN THE GREAT P L A I N S IN TE N S IT Y 49 IN 803 COUNTIES REG I ON— Co nt i nued Average Rank Average Per cent Departure From Normal Rai n fa l1, 1930-1935 Average Per cent of Nor mal Crop Cond i t ions, 1930-1936 Average Per cent of Nor mal Pasture Conditions, 1930-1936 Percent Change i n Number of Catti e, 1930-1935 Adai r A1 fal fa Atoka Beaver Beckham 1 3 1 5 4 1 -13 3 -23 -23 70 65 65 49 63 62 58 66 50 54 79 79 74 3 17 $ 38 149 74 260 87 B1 ai ne Bryan Caddo Canad i an Carter 2 1 2 1 1 -13 -4 -4 -6 3 63 65 62 66 65 54 66 56 63 66 79 99 75 57 61 91 65 67 57 71 Cherokee Choctaw Cimarron Cleveland Coal I 1 5 1 1 -4 * -34 2 * 70 66 49 66 65 62 64 50 63 66 78 98 -32 35 66 54 74 352 46 77 Comanche Cotton Craig Creek Custer 2 2 1 1 3 -7 -3 3 4 -11 62 62 67 66 63 56 56 64 63 54 17 28 28 51 37 59 87 43 43 72 Del aware Dewey E ll is Garfiel d Garv i n 1 2 5 2 1 -8 -10 -26 -10 3 67 63 49 65 65 64 54 50 58 66 43 51 20 56 76 48 98 155 62 45 Grady Grant Greer Harmon Harper 1 3 3 4 5 8 -17 -17 -16 -18 66 65 62 62 49 63 58 56 56 50 58 81 16 13 -5 51 141 85 108 238 Haskel1 Hughes Jackson Jefferson Johnston I 1 3 2 1 4 6 -16 —6 3 70 70 62 65 65 62 62 56 66 66 85 38 71 5 24 75 49 86 73 82 Kay Kingfisher Kiowa Lat i me r Le Flore 2 2 2 1 1 -20 -8 -12 3 1 65 66 62 66 66 58 63 56 64 64 91 71 53 64 97 39 119 82 78 57 Li ncoln Logan Love McClain McCurtai n 1 1 7 -4 3 -1 5 66 66 65 66 66 63 63 66 63 64 73 74 40 62 153 42 45 101 58 52 4 -13 3 -2 7 70 65 65 67 65 62 58 66 64 66 91 71 66 64 42 58 94 85 59 68 70 65 67 66 66 62 58 64 63 63 66 68 64 33 47 46 57 43 52 39 70 67 67 67 66 62 64 64 64 63 37 76 24 41 63 41 36 48 39 40 State and County Per Cap i ta Federal Aid, a 1933-1936 OKLAHOMA McIntosh Major Marshal 1 • Mayes Murray 1 1 1 1 1 1 Muskogee Nobl e Nowata Okfuskee Oklahoma 1 1 1 4 -14 -3 4 5 Okmul gee Osage Ottawa Pawnee Payne 1 1 1 1 1 4 -9 -8 -10 -3 1 50 AREAS OF INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS T ab le B— F I V E IN DICES OF DROUGHT IN THE GREAT P L A I N S IN TENS ITY IN 803 C O U N T I E S REG I ON— Co n t i nued Average Rank Average Per cent Departure From Normal Rainfal 1, 1930-1935 Average Per cent of Nor mal Crop Cond i tions, 1930-1936 Average Per cent of Nor mal Pasture Condi t ions, 1930-1936 Percent Change i n Number of Cattle, 1930-1935 Per Cap i ta Federal A id ,3 1933-1936 Pi ttsburg Pontotoc Pottawatomie Pushmataha Roger M i ll s 1 1 1 1 4 -3 * 9 -5 -16 70 65 66 66 63 62 66 63 64 54 80 65 71 106 13 $ 58 37 29 68 121 Rogers Seminole Sequoyah Stephens Texas 1 1 1 1 -1 6 -4 -4 -16 67 66 70 65 49 64 63 62 66 50 60 89 96 26 29 53 25 63 60 243 Tyl lman Tul sa Wagoner Wash i ngton Wash i ta 3 1 1 1 3 -10 -1 4 -9 -13 62 67 67 67 63 56 64 64 64 54 57 61 74 36 35 114 29 56 29 97 Woods Woodward 3 3 -13 -18 65 65 58 58 26 19 123 93 Andrews Archer Armstrong B a i1ey Baylor 3 1 5 4 2 9 -6 -21 -14 -6 51 59 39 51 56 56 68 52 56 64 31 21 -31 17 80 201 40 256 208 90 Borden Brewster Briscoe Cal 1ahan Carson 3 3 5 1 5 2 -11 -20 1 -21 56 75 39 59 39 64 59 52 68 52 -25 -43 -8 54 38 276 126 158 77 189 Castro Childress Cl ay Cochran Coke 5 2 1 5 3 -14 3 8 -18 21 39 56 59 51 54 52 64 68 56 68 -11 10 29 28 -23 269 102 92 310 144 Coleman Col 1ingsworth Concho Cottle Crane 2 3 2 4 2 21 -17 21 -20 -5 56 56 54 56 75 64 64 68 64 59 19 19 -5 -18 14 82 135 138 145 46 Crockett Crosby Culberson Dal 1am Dawson 3 4 4 5 4 5 -13 -9 -20 9 54 51 75 39 51 68 56 59 52 56 -47 25 -34 -57 3 169 172 207 183 125 Deaf Smith Dickens Donley Eastland Ector 5 4 4 1 2 -22 -13 -21 -3 -5 39 56 56 59 75 52 64 64 68 59 24 -29 9 51 7 277 121 107 66 53 El Paso Fisher Floyd Foard Ga i nes 1 2 5 2 3 -9 2 -20 -6 9 75 56 39 56 51 59 64 52 64 56 82 38 23 48 45 47 124 125 lf B 142 Garza G1 asscock Gray Hale Hall 4 3 4 5 4 -13 13 -21 -14 -20 56 51 39 39 56 64 56 52 52 64 -14 36 14 -3 11 141 152 74 123 120 Hansford Hardeman 5 2 -18 -6 39 56 52 64 52 55 372 94 State and County OKLAHOMA— Continued TEXAS k METHODOLOGICAL NOTE T a b le B— F IV E IN D IC E S OF DROUGHT IN T E N SIT Y 51 IN 803 COUNTIES IN THE GREAT P LA IN S REG ION— Cont i nued Average Rank Average Per cent Departure From Normal R a in fa l1, 1930-1935 Average Per cent of Nor mal Crop Condit ions, 1930-1936 Average Per cent of Nor mal Pasture Cond iti ons, 1930-1936 Percent Change in Number of C a t tie, 1930-1935 Per Cap i t a Federal Aid, a 1933-1936 Hartley Haskell Hemphi11 Hockley Howa rd 5 1 5 5 2 -20 16 -30 -18 1 39 56 39 51 51 52 64 52 56 56 53 106 12 -34 47 $339 101 169 219 67 Hudspeth Hutchi nson 1non Jack J eff Davis 3 4 2 1 4 -9 -30 21 8 -11 75 39 54 59 75 59 52 68 68 59 17 37 -21 15 -13 123 50 112 51 182 Jones Kent King Knox Lamb 1 2 3 1 4 16 -13 -4 6 -14 56 56 56 56 51 64 64 64 64 56 45 120 16 95 13 83 145 217 97 187 Lipscomb Loving Lubbock Lynn Marti n 5 3 4 4 4 -18 -5 -18 9 1 39 75 51 51 51 52 59 56 56 56 12 -22 3 10 18 274 264 81 144 134 Midland Mi tchel 1 Montague Moore Motley 3 2 1 5 4 13 4 8 -20 -20 51 56 59 39 56 56 64 68 52 64 -2 12 33 -25 12 89 106 64 370 131 Nolan Ochi 1tree 01 dham Parmer Pecos 2 5 5 5 3 4 -18 -22 -14 -11 56 39 39 39 75 64 52 52 52 59 28 26 80 19 -12 74 354 382 188 85 Potter Presidio Randal 1 Reagan Reeves 5 2 5 2 2 -22 -11 -22 13 -9 39 75 39 54 75 52 59 52 68 59 7 54 -39 -33 34 72 85 198 49 108 Robe rts Runnels Schleicher Scu r ry Shackel ford 5 2 3 2 1 -30 21 15 2 16 39 56 54 56 59 52 64 68 64 68 -9 15 -11 4 29 315 103 143 111 63 Sherman Stephens Sterl ing Stonewal1 Sutton 5 1 3 2 3 -20 16 21 9 15 39 59 54 56 54 52 68 68 64 68 1 29 -19 65 -38 508 40 158 144 145 Swi sher Taylor Terrel 1 Terry Throckmorton 5 1 3 3 1 -14 7 -11 9 10 39 56 75 51 59 52 64 59 56 68 13 40 -28 86 44 246 65 101 167 61 Tom Green Upton Ward Wheel er Wichi ta 1 2 2 3 1 21 13 -5 -21 -6 54 54 75 56 56 68 68 59 64 64 70 -60 -19 22 54 77 45 67 91 40 Wi 1barger Winkler Yoakum Young 2 2 4 1 -6 -5 9 10 56 75 51 59 64 59 56 68 189 -21 37 64 76 19 232 47 State and County TEXAS— Cont i nued AREAS OF INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS 52 Tab le B— F I V E INDICES IN THE OF DROUGHT GREAT PLAINS IN TENS IT Y IN 803 C O U N T I E S REG I ON— C o n t i nued Average Rank Average Per cent Departure From Normal Rainfal 1, 1930-1935 Average Per cent of Nor mal Crop Condi tions, 1930-1936 Average Per cent of Nor mal Pasture Cond i tions, 1930-1936 Percent Change i n Number of Cattle, 1930-1935 Per Cap i ta Federal Aid, a 1933-1936 Beaverhead Big Horn 81 ai ne Broadwater Carbon 3 3 2 4 3 -26 -16 -13 -16 -19 53 53 53 51 53 68 65 65 62 65 12 25 82 29 63 $ 50 106 97 85 101 Carter Cascade Chouteau Custer Daniels 5 3 4 54 -17 -15 -24 -22 -23 45 51 53 45 48 58 62 65 58 57 -24 24 47 -52 72 217 66 169 162 167 Dawson Deer Lodge Fal Ion Fergus Flathead 5 2 5 3 1 -25 -26 -17 -11 -6 48 71 45 51 71 57 74 58 62 74 -5 29 -31 55 53 134 101 202 103 60 Gal 1at i n Garfield Glacier Golden Valley Granite 2 4 3 4 1 -19 -20 -13 -17 -16 53 48 53 51 71 68 57 65 62 74 38 35 25 33 53 53 125 107 117 27 H ill Jefferson Judith Basin Lake Lewis and Clark 3 2 4 1 3 -13 -25 -14 -17 -32 53 53 51 71 51 65 68 62 74 62 70 46 20 88 42 169 49 104 60 43 Liberty Li ncoln McCone Madison Meagher 2 1 4 2 2 -6 -12 -18 -13 17 53 71 48 53 51 65 74 57 68 62 80 57 38 70 21 186 24 196 45 65 Mi neral Missoula Mussel shel 1 Park Pet rol ewn 1 1 3 3 3 -14 -26 -22 -33 -14 71 71 51 53 51 74 74 62 65 62 83 92 61 25 54 112 60 102 49 108 Phi 11ips Pondera Powder River Powel1 Prai rie 3 2 5 2 5 -17 -14 -15 -23 -29 53 53 45 71 45 65 65 58 74 58 73 80 -28 29 -42 97 107 262 71 189 Raval 1 i Richland Roosevelt Rosebud Sanders 2 5 4 5 1 -18 -27 -16 -35 -1 71 48 48 45 71 74 57 57 58 74 41 29 49 2 59 62 148 167 106 60 Sheridan S ilv e r Bow S t i 11 water Sweet Grass Teton 5 4 3 3 4 -40 -33 -16 -19 -24 48 53 53 53 53 57 68 65 65 65 8 12 56 39 56 167 146 123 51 154 Tool e Treasure Valley Wheatland Wibaux Yellowstone 1 4 4 4 5 3 10 -38 -24 -22 -18 -23 53 53 48 51 45 53 65 65 57 62 58 65 81 23 47 25 18 101 93 166 167 85 210 106 2 1 4 -17 -12 -14 59 80 52 76 81 73 -12 37 -1 58 49 170 State and County MONTANA WYOMING Al bany Big Horn Campbe11 METHODOLOGICAL NOTE T a b le B— F IV E IN D IC E S OF DROUGHT IN T E N SIT Y 53 IN 803 COUNTIES IN THE GREAT P L A IN S REG ION— C o n tin u e d State and County Average Rank Average Per cent Departure From Normal Rai n fa l1, 1930-1935 Average Per cent of Nor mal Crop Conditions, 1930-1936 Average Per cent of Nor mal Pasture Condi tions, 1930-1936 Percent Change in Number of Cattle, 1930-1935 Per Capi ta Federal Aid, a 1933-1936 WYOMING— Continued Carbon Converse Crook Fremont Goshen 2 2 4 1 -16 -10 -26 -20 -6 59 57 52 80 57 76 73 73 81 73 17 17 -37 86 59 $ 56 120 193 65 160 Hot Springs Johnson Laramie Natrona N iobrara 1 -24 -25 -9 -5 -1 80 52 57 59 57 81 73 73 76 73 58 30 24 52 -17 44 121 52 59 144 -17 -17 -9 8 -17 80 57 52 59 80 81 73 73 76 81 54 -15 13 12 33 56 132 80 37 120 -26 52 73 -8 191 -16 -9 -18 -23 -27 54 80 54 50 50 65 75 65 61 61 23 20 29 -7 -2 100 63 87 230 101 I 1 -19 -2 -26 -13 8 55 78 54 78 80 67 79 65 79 75 72 42 51 40 14 68 95 157 51 54 C o sti1la Crowl ey Cust&r Denver Dougl as 2 5 3 3 3 -21 -29 -7 -18 -18 80 50 50 54 54 75 61 61 65 65 -3 -6 24 -34 4 60 156 97 65 70 El bert El Paso Fremont G ilp in Grand 3 2 2 1 1 -18 -9 -7 -9 -7 54 54 50 78 78 65' 65 61 79 79 12 16 37 35 21 129 70 54 37 18 Hi nsdale Huerfano Jackson Jefferson Kiowa 1 4 1 2 4 -16 -15 11 -9 -25 77 50 78 55 54 72 61 79 67 65 47 13 23 9 13 47 108 85 60 190 Kit Carson Lake Larimer Las Animas Lincoln 3 1 2 4 3 -28 14 -18 -20 -25 54 78 55 50 54 65 79 67 61 65 66 42 24 -14 32 165 45 78 96 112 Logan Mi neral Morgan Otero Park 2 2 2 4 1 -9 -16 -14 -24 -28 55 80 55 50 78 67 75 67 61 79 31 -16 64 13 54 102 31 109 82 53 Phi 11ips Prowers Pueblo Rio Grande Routt 2 4 4 1 1 -8 -20 -15 1 -4 54 50 50 80 78 65 61 61 75 79 74 25 -26 1 25 183 139 79 47 35 Saguache Sedgwi ck Summi t 1 2 1 -3 -7 -1 80 55 78 75 67 79 13 51 20 59 165 40 1 Park P) atte Sheridan Sweetwater Washaki e 1 Weston 4 1 COLORADO Adams Al amosa Arapahoe Baca Bent Boul der Chaf fee Cheyenne Clear Creek Conejos 1 4 1 54 AREAS OF INTENSE DROUGHT DISTRESS Tab le B— F I V E IN D ICES OF DROUGHT IN THE GREAT P LAINS IN TE N S IT Y IN 803 C O U N T IE S REG I ON— C o n t i n u e d Average Rank Average Per cent Departure From Normal Rai n f a l1, 1930-1935 Average Per cent of Nor mal Crop Condi t ions, 1930-1936 Average Per cent of Nor mal Pasture Condit ions, 1930-1936 Percent Change in Number of Ca ttle , 1930-1935 Per Cap i ta Federal A id ,a 1933-1936 1 3 2 3 -15 -18 -17 -17 78 54 55 54 79 65 67 65 27 62 36 50 $ 31 131 99 130 Be rn ali11o Cat ron Chaves Col fax Curry 1 1 2 2 2 15 * -18 -9 -6 72 69 89 68 68 73 64 66 63 63 35 162 34 -3 73 40 149 122 58 126 De Baca Dona Ana Eddy Grant Guadalupe 2 1 2 2 3 1 -1 -1 2 -9 68 89 89 69 68 63 66 66 64 63 20 47 -6 -18 -23 162 55 91 47 106 Hard i ng Hi dal go Lea Li ncoln Luna 4 1 2 2 2 -22 2 -3 25 1 68 69 89 89 69 63 64 66 66 64 -19 88 19 -5 10 254 76 143 93 68 McKi nley Mora Otero Quay Rio Arriba 1 3 1 4 1 1 -11 4 -17 -9 72 68 89 68 72 73 63 66 63 73 97 -44 54 -13 46 23 74 56 179 26 Roosevelt Sandoval San Juan San Miguel Santa Fe 2 1 1 1 I 2 3 -1 -2 -5 68 72 72 73 68 63 73 73 73 63 31 117 56 31 49 124 41 31 66 77 Sierra Socorro Taos Torrance Un ion Valencia t 1 1 1 4 1 3 -6 -9 -5 -27 -12 69 69 72 68 68 72 64 64 73 63 63 73 33 125 83 78 -54 87 87 75 43 109 211 45 State and County COLORADO— Cont i nued Teller Washi ngton Weld Yuma NEW MEXICO St L e s s tha n 0 .5 p e rc e n t . P o p u l a t i o n c h a n g e s s i n c e 1930 in many o f the c o u n t ie s in c lu d e d w ould ten d to in c r e a s e p e r c a p i t a e x p e n d it u r e s in c o u n t ie s o f h ig h e r d ro u g h t i n t e n s i t y and reduce the f i g u r e s in o t h e r s . U.S. 60VERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1937 O
@FedFRASER