Drought of 1988

Overview:

The drought of 1988 was a widespread drought in regions of both the United States and Canada. Its onset was in the spring of 1988 and its effects were seen for the next couple years. It had major effects on the agricultural regions and therefore majorly affected agricultural production and the surrounding ecosystems. This had major effects on food and water supply which in turn majorly shifted the lives of people and prompted numerous government involvements concerning the issue. Drought Advisories were a major action taken that consolidated drought conditions into summary reports. The Interagency Drought Policy Committee was established as well. These are just a couple examples of programs implemented as a result of the drought of 1988. The organizations that were all put in place can help the government as well as the public understand present and future concerns. 

Communication: 

June 24,1988

• Raising food prices 
• Inflation in prices and seeing effects

July 3, 1988

• Millions of dollars lost in crops and livestock
• June 20-24 rain in the farm belt helped corn and soybean crops in their most vital stage of growth 
• Crop losses over $2 billion in North Dakota

Vulnerability: 

The Drought of 1988 impacted the entire United States. During this time, most of the U.S. experienced at least 20 days with maximum temperatures of 90 degrees or higher. Major crops in 25% of the United states received less than one half of normal rainfall from April to June. The agricultural impact was most severe in the Great Plain and Midwest, the consequence led to wheat crops being 50% below its normal yield. The Northeast had its worst growing season since the 1980s and had some of the hottest temperatures on record. In the South, low stream flow from the drought impacted reservoir storage and hindered boat navigation, leaving barges and other water vessels stranded along rivers. The 1988 Drought in the West lead to massive forest fires. Over 4 million acres were affected, twice the amount from 1987. Because of this California’s and other western states’ water supply became critical. In most parts of the country water restrictions were placed. The Drought of 1988 in the Southern portion of Canada’s prairie provinces had similar severe impacts as the United States, including effects on agriculture, water resources, forestry and waterfowl production.

Future Improvements: 

Individual Level: 

• Save water by reusing it for other needs and conserve. Water that is not necessarily drinkable can be used to water plants or a replacement for water in toilets.
• An individual should have an emergency water supply. This can include having a rain catch system or having ample amounts of drinking water (bottled) in storage.  
• One should make sure their home is leak free and fix water pipes and faucets if not. This can be an easy fix to save water. One drop per second wastes 2,700 gallons of water per year.

Community level:

• Communities should integrate soil and water management practices. This can conserve water moisture and allow food production to continue to grow in a drought.
• Communities should push for laws that allow a control over water pollution. Communities will have less water to ration in a drought if water is polluted. It would be in the community’s favor to clean up local water resources.
• Giving all famers access to technology that will prepare them for droughts. This can be achieved by technology that provides early detection of droughts. Farmers in high risk drought areas should also have access to drought tolerant seeds and water efficiency seeds. Having these tools can help plan and prepare for the future.

Implementation

Some barriers that would effect our strategies would be that not everyone wants to use recycled water. Some people would find it disgusting and oppose this right away without seeing the greater benefit of it. While pushing for new laws to allow control over water population would be beneficial incase of a drought, but some people might find it unnecessary. There’s always going to be someone that opposes the law proposed. Unfortunately, it takes a tragedy for people to realize that action needs to be done. We need to set laws in place incase something happens not after something happens. Some other barriers might be that the community doesn’t have the funding to provide farmers with the technology to prepare them for droughts. Since the Drought of 1988 was so widespread it’s hard to predict what farmers qualify for being in a high risk drought area. 

Two of the main issues we saw were the lack of public parking and traffic congestion on High St. The problems associated with these previous conditions is that since there’s almost no public parking this forces visitors to park on the side streets in the neighborhoods, thus taking away available spots for residents. Another one was the traffic congestion on High St. from the side streets. The absence of traffic lights on the side streets to High St. cause the traffic to back up and can even cause more accidents due to drivers pulling straight out into traffic. These can easily be resolved by simple planning.

The first picture shows a solution to the lack of parking. We decided to build a mini parking garage on the CVS existing lot. We didn’t want to get rid of the CVS so the parking garage is built around and on top of it. Having buildings on top of one another isn’t something uncommon on High St. By building this space we can create more space for those who are just visiting. To ensure that people don’t take advantage of this new parking facility there would be a time limit, so that everyone will get a chance to park there, freeing up the space in the neighborhoods.

The second picture shows the new addition of traffic lights at congested intersections. This would help the flow of traffic by providing a safe way for cars to turn off the side roads and onto High St. This will also decrease the number of car accidents in these areas because cars just pull out into traffic on High St. By adding these lights it’ll make that area of congestion less of a hassle and safer for cars turning off E Woodruff Ave. and Frambes Ave.

In conclusion, to solve the E woodruff Ave and Frambes Ave pedestrian crosswalk issue on High St, a traffic light is needed at each intersection to control the traffic flow for pedestrians to cross safely without concerns of vehicular traffic. To get these traffic lights, we must have a group conduct a safety audit at the crosswalks. The group would consist of Ohio State staff members, students, and individuals that use these crosswalks on their daily path. They will be able to observe and report the fear and concern pedestrians have when crossing the street and give diverse opinions as to why these traffic lights are a necessity. When the observations are finished, the safety group will be able to report their findings to Columbus’ City Council. Showcasing these concerns from this diverse group of people will open City Councils eyes as to why it is important to fund this traffic issue. Hopefully, with the evidence provided, Columbus City Council comes to the conclusion to make these particular crosswalks a safe environment for those that cross on E Woodruff and E Frambes Ave on to High St.