Yesterday, the Washington Post timidly reported that floods in Iowa and other Midwestern states may not be “natural” disasters . However, scientists have long warned that worsening floods are the predictable result of human intervention – of floodplains covered with impermeable concrete and stripped of vegetation; of river channels forced up and out of their beds by constricting artificial levees; of sprawling development offering more victims to raging rivers. The article’s thesis is neither new nor controversial, but the story does include a revelation that deserves immediate, national attention. 

Between 2007 and 2008, farmers took 106,000 acres of Iowa land out of the Conservation Reserve Program, which pays farmers to keep farmland uncultivated, according to Lyle Asell, a special assistant for agriculture and environment with the state’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR). That land, if left untouched, probably would have been covered with perennial grasses with deep roots that help absorb water. (Washington Post)

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Notably, the reduction in Iowa’s conservation reserve acreage coincided with a frenzy to produce more corn for biofuel. Almost certainly, the biofuel craze motivated farmers to plow under more native vegetation, leaving little to absorb heavy spring rains. So, what is the federal government’s response? Plow more CRP land.

The Agriculture Department is considering releasing land from the federal Conservation Reserve Program for planting crops. However, the idea has already been panned by wildlife groups because the land is prime habitat for pheasants, quail, ducks and other wildlife. About 34.7 million acres of former cropland nationwide, including 1.8 million acres in Iowa, is idle under the program. (Democrat and Chronicle)

Why would anyone make such a looney proposal? The proposal would provide temporary relief to USDA’s favorite constituency, the meat industry, currently facing higher prices for livestock feed and a corresponding reduction in profits. It would also give short-term help to consumers, facing higher food prices, four months before a national election. But, the short-term gains pale against the consequences of denuding more land: worsening floods and food shortages, rising deaths and homelessness, and increased taxpayer costs for disaster recovery.

It’s time to stop the madness. The single most important measure the U.S. can take toward preventing disaster is to adopt a national strategy for sustainable development. But, even before that, we must end the cycle of destruction fueled by self-serving lobbies. A good beginning would be to tie a rock to USDA’s plan and toss it into the deepest part of the mighty, irrepressible Mississippi.