August, 09 2017, 02:15pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Lisa Nurnberger, Media Director, lnurnberger@ucs.org
Study Finds That Boosting Soil's Sponge-Like Qualities Would Help Farmers, Communities Combat Floods and Droughts
Adopting No-Till Farming, Cover Crops and Perennials Among Other Practices Could Increase Soil’s Ability to Retain Water, Cut Storm Runoff by 15 Percent
WASHINGTON
Farming practices that keep soil covered year-round can reduce the damage caused by both floods and droughts, according to a new study released by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). "Turning Soils Into Sponges: How Farmers Can Fight Floods and Droughts" shows that that widespread adoption of these practices in a state like Iowa could reduce storm runoff by 15 percent and make as much as 11 percent more water available to crops on average through the end of the century, even as weather patterns become more severe.
"Many people think of soil as 'just dirt'--but it's actually an incredible resource that can make communities and farmers less vulnerable to droughts and flooding as weather becomes hotter and rains come in heavier downpours," said agronomist Andrea Basche, a Kendall fellow at UCS and the report's author. "When soil is healthy, it can soak up water like a sponge, preventing runoff into nearby communities while also holding onto it for plants to use later when there is less rain. When soil isn't healthy, it acts more like concrete.
Basche reviewed more than 150 field experiments from six continents and found that in 70 percent of them specific conservation and agroecology practices--no-till farming, cover crops, perennials, agroforestry, crop rotations and managed grazing--increased soil's ability to soak up water. Basche then used a hydrology model to see how adoption of these practices across a region would impact drought and flood impacts. The report focused on Iowa, which is representative of Midwestern agriculture and weather patterns, and found that:
- Converting approximately one-third of Iowa's cropped acres--the state's least-profitable and most-erodible acres--to perennial crops or to corn or soybeans grown with a winter cover crop would result in significant water savings.
- During the devastating droughts in Iowa in 1988 and 2012--each of which caused more than $30 billion in damages--adoption of these practices would have made as much as 16 percent more water available for use by crops.
- Had these practices been in place during the massive floods of the last three decades runoff would have been reduced by up to one-fifth and flood frequency cut by the same amount.
- Had these practices been in place between 1981 and 2015, spongier soils in Iowa would have retained 400 trillion more gallons of water during that time. This is equal to nine years' worth of irrigation water withdrawn across the entire United States at current rates.
Taxpayers must often foot the bill for weather damage on farms and in communities. For example, UCS found that between 2011 and 2016, flood- and drought-related claims to the taxpayer-subsidized federal crop insurance program resulted in $38.5 billion in payouts to farmers, approximately two-thirds of the total paid by the program. A recent Office of Management and Budget report concluded that climate change could double the payouts of crop insurance, costing an additional $4 to $9 billion dollars annually by 2080.
Farmers, water utilities and policymakers have expressed a growing interest in improving soil quality. Several states--including California, Maryland, Massachusetts and Hawaii--have begun to invest in soil initiatives.
"Floods not only cause preventable damage--they create long-lasting trauma and heartache," said Rob Hogg, an Iowa state senator whose district was one of the hardest hit during the 2008 floods, which caused the Cedar Rapids River to rise 19 feet over flood stage. "Policymakers at all levels of government should be looking for ways to decrease the impacts of extreme weather. Building soil health is a critical component of flood risk management and being able to reduce runoff by 15 percent would be enormously helpful during flood peak when every inch matters."
At the federal level, existing farm conservation programs help farmers shift away from soil-damaging monocultures of annual crops. But these small programs are no match for crop insurance and other subsidies that reinforce the status quo.
"I can't think of anything riskier than growing millions of acres of just corn and soy, but farm payments, crop insurance and the market are set up in in a way that reward doing just that," said Jon Bakehouse, a fifth-generation farmer who grows primarily corn and soy in Southwest Iowa, but whose family used to grow wheat and raise cattle and pasture on a more diversified farm that integrated livestock with crops. "Policies that help farmers build healthier soils won't end the problem of weather disasters, but they can buffer farmers and communities and save everyone money in the long run."
With the reauthorization of the federal farm bill due in 2018, Congress and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have an opportunity to invest in healthy soil and resilient farms. Policymakers should expand financial support for farmers through the USDA's Conservation Stewardship Program and its Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP); provide incentives in the federal crop insurance program for risk reduction through soil management; and invest in research to optimize the benefits of good soil management practices, according to UCS.
"Healthy, spongier soils are a win-win for farmers and water utilities and benefit rural and urban communities alike," said Tariq Baloch, Cedar Rapids water utility plant manager and participant in the Middle Cedar Partnership Project, which receives funding from RCPP and brings together landowners, utilities and farmers to reduce nutrient runoff into drinking water sources. "Investing in soil health means investing in soil productivity and reduced soil loss. Doing so will improve source water quality, reduce runoff that contributes to flooding and, ultimately, enhance the sustainability and prosperity of our communities."
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
LATEST NEWS
Judge Slaps Down RFK Jr's Likely 'Unlawful' Mass Layoffs at HHS
"We're not going to let Trump and RFK Jr. dismantle our nation's health systems to promote conspiracy theories and tax breaks for billionaires," said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong.
Jul 01, 2025
A federal judge on Tuesday blocked planned mass layoffs at the Department of Health and Human Services while declaring that the firings were likely unlawful.
Judge Melissa DuBose of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island ruled that the Trump administration exceeded its legal authority when it moved to lay off thousands of HHS employees on the grounds that such large-scale firings would leave the agency unable to fulfill its legislatively mandated duties that can only be altered by an act of Congress.
"The executive branch is vested with the power and is imbued with the responsibility to faithfully execute the laws which govern the governance structure of our country," wrote DuBose. "The executive branch does not have the authority to order, organize, or implement wholesale changes to the structure and function of the agencies created by Congress."
DuBose further noted that courts have the power to "set aside" actions taken by federal agencies that are "unlawful," and she argued that the actions taken by HHS under the leadership of Trump-appointed Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. likely flouted the law.
The judge granted a preliminary injunction against the agency and blocked it from carrying out its planned reduction in staffing that it first announced this past March 27. HHS has until July 11 to file a status report affirming compliance with the court's order.
The lawsuit was originally filed by the attorneys general of 19 states plus the District of Columbia, who alleged that the layoffs violated the United States Constitution's separation of powers doctrine, as well as the Constitution's appropriations clause and the Administrative Procedure Act that prohibits agencies from taking "arbitrary and capricious" actions.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong took a victory lap in the wake of the ruling but cautioned that there was still a long fight ahead to save HHS.
President Donald Trump and Kennedy "are playing dangerous games with the health and safety of American families, and we just stopped them," he said. "Today's order means vital programs and services—including those supporting Head Start, disease monitoring at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] and Medicaid eligibility, and others—will remain accessible. This is still the beginning of a long fight ahead, but we're not going to let Trump and RFK Jr. dismantle our nation's health systems to promote conspiracy theories and tax breaks for billionaires."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'You Know It's a Terrible Bill': Murkowski Helps GOP Gut Safety Net After 'Bribe' Shields Her State
Sen. Lisa Murkowski was the deciding vote to pass Republicans' massive social safety net cuts through the Senate. She said she didn't like the bill, but voted for it anyway after getting Alaska exempted from some of its worst harms.
Jul 01, 2025
By the thinnest possible margin, the U.S. Senate voted Tuesday to pass a budget that includes the largest cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance in U.S. history while giving trillions of dollars of tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.
The deciding vote was Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who admitted she didn't like the bill. However, she voted for it regardless after securing relief for her home state from some of its most draconian cuts.
But in an interview immediately afterward, she acknowledged that the rest of the country, where millions are on track to lose their healthcare coverage and food assistance, would not be so lucky.
"Do I like this bill? No," Murkowski told a reporter for MSNBC. "I try to take care of Alaska's interests. I know that in many parts of the country there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill. I don't like that."
The 887-page bill includes more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program over the next decade—cuts the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects will result in nearly 12 million people losing health coverage. The measure also takes an ax to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—imperiling food aid for millions.
In recent days, Murkowski—a self-described "Medicaid moderate"—expressed hesitation about signing onto a list of such devastating cuts, calling the vote "agonizing". To get her on board, her Republican colleagues were willing to give her state some shelter from the coming storm.
As David Dayen explained in The American Prospect, Murkowski was able to secure a waiver that exempts Alaska from the newly implemented cost-sharing requirement that will force states to spend more of their budgets on SNAP.
In The New Republic, Robert McCoy described it as a "bribe."
Initially, Republicans attempted to simply write in a carve-out for Alaska and Hawaii. But after this was shot down by the Senate parliamentarian, they tried again with a measure that exempted the 10 states with the highest error rates.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) called it "the most absurd example of the hypocrisy of the Republican bill."
"They have now proposed delaying SNAP cuts FOR TWO YEARS ONLY FOR STATES with the highest error rates just to bury their help for Alaska," she said.
Murkowski also got a tax break for Alaskan fishing villages inserted into the bill. She attempted to have Alaska exempted from some Medicaid cuts as well, but the parliamentarian killed the measure.
"Did I get everything that I wanted? Absolutely not," she told reporters outside the Senate chamber.
However, as Dayen wrote, "Murkowski decided that she could live with a bill that takes food and medicine from vulnerable people to fund tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy, as long as it didn't take quite as much food away from Alaskans."
Murkowski showed herself to be well aware of the harms the bill will cause. After voting to pass the bill, she said, "My hope is that the House is gonna look at this and recognize that we're not there yet."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called Murkowski's bargain "selfish," "cruel," and "expensive."
"Voting for the bill because [of] a carve-out for your state is open acknowledgement that people will get kicked off healthcare and will have to go to much more expensive emergency rooms," Jayapal wrote. "Clear you know it's a terrible bill for everyone."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Let's Break It Down': Mamdani Gives His Perspective on Historic NYC Win
Zohran Mamdani solidified his win in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor with the release of ranked choice voting results.
Jul 01, 2025
Last week, democratic socialist and state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani stunned in an upset victory over disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary—sparking broader conversations about the future of the party and sending shockwaves through the American political system.
One week later, on Tuesday, Mamdani both solidified his win thanks to the release of the election's ranked choice voting results and unveiled a new video highlighting factors that in his view were key to his campaign's success. Mamdani credits his relentless focus on affordability and a commitment to reaching all New York City voters, including those who have previously voted for U.S. President Donald Trump, are inconsistent primary voters, or who speak languages besides English.
The goal, in Mamdani's words, was nothing short of rebuilding "a coalition that had frayed over years of disappointment and neglect, to win people back to a Democratic Party that puts working people first."
On Tuesday, New York City's Board of Elections announced the ranked-choice voting results from the June 24 primary, underscoring Mamdani's decisive victory. Mamdani secured 56% of the vote compared to Cuomo's 44%. All other candidates' votes were reallocated to Mamdani and Cuomo in the third round of voting. All told, some 545,000 New Yorkers ranked Mamdani on their ballots.
In the video, Mamdani touted some of his impressive margins, including his ability to win over districts that had gone for Trump in the last election, noting the inroads that Trump made in New York City in 2024. According to an analysis from Gothamist, Mamdani won 30% of primary election districts Trump carried in the general election last year.
Mamdani said his campaign achieved this by visiting areas that went for Trump, "not to lecture, but to listen."
He also said that his campaign knew it could turn out less consistent primary voters if "they saw themselves in our policies."
"We ran a campaign that tried to talk to every New Yorker, whether I could speak their languages or just tried to... and the coalition that came out on Tuesday, reflected the mosaic of these five boroughs," Mamdani said.
As part of the focus on connecting with voters, Mamdani put out campaign videos with him speaking in languages like Hindi and Spanish.
On Election Day, Mamdani led in areas with majority Asian, white, and Hispanic voters, while Cuomo led in areas with majority Black voters. "We narrowed Andrew Cuomo once sizable lead with Black voters, outright winning young Black New Yorkers in neighborhoods like Harlem and Flatbush," he said.
Mamdani also highlighted that he trounced Cuomo despite the super political action committee money supporting the former governor.
"We rewrote the rule book by, get this, talking to New Yorkers," he said. "Politics in this city won't ever be the same, and it's all thanks to you. The next chapter begins today New York."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular