Little discussed in this age of raging California forest fires devouring residential hillsides, and droughts that kill Californian lawns, is the unprecedented vulnerability to flood created by modern agricultural practices in the region. The Great Flood of 1862 is likely the worst natural disaster ever to strike that massive state, but destruction on that scale would be exponentially worse today.
The horrible flood of 1862 is largely lost to Americans’ collective memory. Killing fully a quarter of California’s livestock while inundating the state with rivers of muck from landslides that wiped out entire towns, a recurrence would today cause an estimated $1 trillion or more in damages. Climate scientists argue that there is a doubled risk of an even greater precipitation event in the relatively near future.
One popularized study named this potential event an “Arkstorm,” in an ironic twist — the name is not a reference to a biblical deluge in which people flock into arks, but to an “atmospheric river” of air that transports large amounts of water vapor that can suddenly translate into feet, not inches, of rainfall. A 2022 updated study has forecast an even greater risk, dubbed “Arkstorm 2.0,” that suggests a recurrence of the Flood of 1862 could be far worse than previously estimated. The geological record reflects that these storms occur in the California region every century or two, but that changes in regional weather patterns exacerbate the risks today. People generally view drought, earthquakes and wildfires as the great risks of California, but the dramatic increase in population since the Great Flood (of 1862, not Noah) make this threat exponentially more profound than even a split in the St Andreas Fault. And the risk is not California’s alone, since the nation depends on that state (and neighboring Arizona which would also be impacted) for such a huge proportion of its food production.
The first ArkStorm study concluded that a Great Flood recurrence would be too sudden to make it possible to evacuate the estimated 5-10 million impacted residents. The 2022 study estimates a 50% likelihood such a storm will recur by 2060, that it could be far more severe, and that it will be the largest natural disaster in world history. But the San Joaquin Valley has subsided nearly 30 feet in elevation since the last great California flood, ensuring yet another amplifier of impact on food production in the national breadbasket.
Regardless of when, or even whether, a cataclysmic storm recurs in the West, Vermonters concerned with food security will understand that diversifying back to local, diversified agricultural networks rather than a highly-concentrated agri-dependency on one very tiny, highly vulnerable bread basket that is alternately drying up or drowning out, is of great national interest. Add to this the escalating costs and threats of trucking or otherwise transporting all that produce to the East Coast, and there is a vital urgency to this regenerative and local agrarian mission.
Vermonters once capitalized on their verdant Green Mountains to grow fresh, high-quality foods for themselves and to supply nearby cities — especially Boston. That opportunity is being re-presented today, as spiking fuel and fertilizer prices make it more cost competitive and thus profitable for Vermont farmers to grow and sell food than has been the case for more than a century. This benefits not just local farms but the entire Vermont economy, including businesses that supply goods and services to those farms, and to other businesses that increase revenue when new income streams enter the state and enable people to dine out more frequently, build additions to their homes, or otherwise spend money they otherwise lack.
Let’s get farming!
John Klar is an attorney and farmer residing in Brookfield. © Copyright True North Reports 2022. All rights reserved.
4 thoughts on “John Klar: Food lessons from the Great Flood of 1862”
There is perhaps a natural order that determines what is required of those seeking survival, this requirement does not rely solely on the collective for its sustenance.
It merely has more than one basket in which to place its eggs!
I remember our grandparents, both sides, maintained farms and gardens. They canned and preserved their output and sold or gave excess production to local markets, stores or the church. I think rural Vermont could sustain itself without governmental interference. As far as Chittenden residents , I admit probably they would need to move to Massachusetts or a similar venue to obtain benefits.
From 1830 to 1930, Vermont’s population declined by 30% as a lot of its people found out they could plow a furrow all day long without hitting a rock if they moved further west ( cf. “The Yankee Exodus”). Those who stayed fed the Vermont forests to New England cities, and George Perkins Marsh (https://vermonthistoryexplorer.org/timeline1800-1849) pointed out in his time that the very mountains were melting as a result of the ecological abuse.
To return to those days of “rugged agricultural independence” but now with a population of over 600,000 would be to see crushing poverty inflicted upon an unimaginably broad proportion of the population.
Better to sustain economic ties with the rest of the country (and with Canada, for that matter) and remind ourselves that without their trade, our food supplies will last only about three days.
It is possible that we will have enough shock this winter to prompt the creation of a local food economy next year. Nothing like the prospect of hanging to focus the mind. We could easily provide 80% of our needs within 3 years. Until then, there will be hungry times. Nothing like the vision of the cities exploding over the food crisis to create the sudden interest. But much will need to be muscle powered and that is hard.
Comments are closed.