View original document

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

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

State

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:

North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas
Montana
Wyomi ng
Colorado
New Mexico

.a

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

Number
Percent

Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri

S o u rce !

Total
Count ies

65
43
-

12

53
69
93
105
77

_

803

101
56
19
47
31

21

Group V
(Less Than
51 Percent)
118
15

_

_

-

_

_

14

18
-

-

-

_

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

12

-

-

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

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

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

State

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

32
31
13
24

56
19
47
31

8
6
15
16

7
46
19
9
19

-

5
17
47
17

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

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 h
fheat
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

W
inter 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

W stern Corn
e
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

1 A— Cont i nued
OW
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
W 11 iams
i

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 Hom e
m

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

W 1son
i
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
A fal fa
1
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

B ai ne
1
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 m r
e
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
G asscock
1
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
Hemphi1
1
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

W 1barger
i
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
Campbe1
1




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

S
t

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. 60VERNM PRINTING OFFICE: 1937 O
ENT


Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, One Federal Reserve Bank Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63102