TOWNSHEND — While the flood of 1927 is considered by many to be the greatest natural disaster in Vermont in the last 100 years, the recent storm called Irene created great damages to farms, buildings, businesses, bridges and highways, and travel.
It is difficult to draw comparisons; when individuals' lives and livelihoods are disrupted, it does not matter if it is 1927 or 2011.
Nevertheless, we can learn from the past as well as from current events.
From the early period when the settlers of this state were subsistence farmers, to the growth of cities and towns and early commercial agriculture, Vermont agriculture was always in a condition of change.
Vermont farmers were diversified farmers from the beginning, and they adjusted their production over the years according to the needs of nearby and regional markets. Since the demise of the merino sheep industry in the 1850s, dairy production had migrated to the better river valley lands.
By 1927, Vermont was primarily an agricultural state with about 30 percent of its population of more than 350,000 engaged in farming or related industries. Of the then-27,000 farms in the state, more than one half received their income from dairy farming.
After the early 1900s, Vermont farmers had become major suppliers of milk to regional markets, with 85 percent of the milk produced going out of state, mostly over railroads. Half of Boston's milk supply came from Vermont.
Our state had the highest level of dairy production per capita of any state, so it was the most dairy dependent.
* * *
Much has been written about the Flood of 1927. There was not any advance warning system like today, nor any long-range radar, cell phones, television, instant messaging, or Facebook. Not all rural towns had electricity.
After a very wet October, on Nov. 2, 3, and 4, two great storms collided over the state. One came from the Gulf of Mexico and the other from the Great Lakes, dropping up to 9 inches of water on an already-water-drenched land mass in a 45-hour period.
One source likened the rainfall to “one cubic mile of the Atlantic Ocean being deposited on the State.” According to records from that time, “in a single day, Vermont was deprived of all modern conveniences: mail, telegraph, telephones, lights, gas, piped water, highways, railroad connections. The State had been set back a Century.”
There are many tragic stories from this period, and stories of heroism, too. Neighbors helped neighbors, communities helped other communities, and strangers helped those in need.
President Calvin Coolidge dispatched his secretary of commerce, Herbert Hoover, to the state.
“I have seen the worst of Vermont but the best of its people,” Hoover said.
Federal assistance was provided. The Red Cross took full responsibility for finding housing and medical relief for some 8,000 Vermonters, who were provided with food, shelter, and medical relief.
More than $1 million came in from contributors in other states. New England banks pledged $1 million in capital stock to guarantee low-interest loans to farms, businesses, and other industries.
The state legislature appropriated $8 million for 200 miles of new roads. It is said that Vermont officials did not hesitate to cut red tape to deal with immediate needs.
* * *
The flood created a spirited sense of partnership at all levels within Vermont. While work was immediate to repair infrastructure, there was a yearning for developing a vision and plans for the future, to use all the positive energy to move Vermont forward.
This yearning was to build upon the strengths of the past, but with an enlightened plan.
In the spring of 1928, just six months after the flood, the Vermont Commission on Country Life was organized, chaired by John E. Weeks, who had served as governor during the flood. Henry C. Taylor, one of the noted national agricultural economists of the time, served as the commission's executive director; he later worked as the first executive director of the Farm Foundation.
The commission marked the first time that a group of Vermonters formally assessed the State of the State and planned for the future.
Funded by the Social Science Research Council and the Rockefeller Foundation, it provided a plan for rural rejuvenation and development in Vermont - a blueprint for the future.
Some 300 Vermonters were asked to participate in the effort over a three-year period. (My wife's grandfather, Dr. E.H. Bancroft, chaired the dairy committee.)
The commission provided a very thorough and comprehensive assessment of all aspects of Vermont: people, soils and climate, agriculture, forestry and the woodworking industry, summer residents and tourism, fish, game and the preservation of wildlife, land use, rural home and community life, recreation, medical facilities for rural people, education facilities for rural people, the care of those in need, rural government, and other topics.
“The great flood of November 1927, and the magnificent response to the call for concerted effort awakened in Vermonters a fuller sense of their powers and gave them a new impulse which will be felt for years to come,” the commission wrote in its report, which set the state's agenda for the next few decades.
The response at all levels to the damages caused by Tropical Storm Irene was immediate. The stories of heroic actions abound, including tales of people risking their own lives to help.
In agriculture, land was flooded. Many crops were destroyed and, in a few cases, animals were lost.
The response from many was immediate: The governor, like Governor Weeks in 1927, requested federal assistance. Unlike the case in 1927, procedures now exist for requesting disaster declarations from the federal level, and a very extensive network of agencies, organizations, and others exist to provide assistance to those in need.
* * *
It is a time of significant change in Vermont agriculture, but what Hoover said about Vermont in 1927 is true today as well.
While dairy still represents the major agricultural enterprise, and is subject to pricing challenges, there is still recognition that the state's dairy sector is the anchor of the Vermont's agriculture and working landscape, while maple sugaring is the soul. All types of agricultural production are just as important as they have always been.
In agriculture, it is fortunate that a lot of work has been taking place over the past to address longer-term needs for an economically viable agriculture sector within a working landscape.
There is a so-called “Renaissance of the Past” going on in local and regional food systems today as consumers develop an interest in knowing where their food comes from.
In Vermont, this rebirth is expressed in many ways, including the growth of artisan and other specialist products such as cheeses; expansion of farmers' markets and community supported agriculture (CSAs); new vineyards with specialty wines and other spirits; the expansion of so-called “food hubs” within the state, increased sale of locally produced foods to institutions, more farm-raised beef and other animal meats, increased vegetable production, pick-your-own fruit operations, a well-known farm-to-school program, expanding maple operations, and other emerging products.
These enterprises come from existing farmers, as well as a new generation of farmers. While dairy still represents over 75 percent of the gross revenue to agriculture in the state, an increased degree of diversification is taking place within Vermont.
This “new” diversification is reminiscent of the kind of farming our ancestors practiced.
And, like the period following 1927 flood, Vermonters want a vision for the future, a vision that can inspire them.
The Farm to Plate assessment has identified a number of specific needs in its ten-year plan.
Likewise, the Working Landscape Council has developed a five-point action plan for the future that, if implemented, would create jobs related to the agriculture and the forestry sectors that are so important to Vermont's identity.
These two initiatives provide some steps to take on investment, capital, infrastructure, and educational needs to achieve goals relative to a viable agricultural and forestry economy in Vermont.
Both plans require bold policy leadership going forward. They both recognize that a majority of Vermonters surveyed want a state that is economically viable and sustainable, with agriculture and forestry at its core.
As Vermont Secretary of Agriculture Chuck Ross stated at the Farm to Plate Conference in Fairlee, “it will take capital, collaboration, and the willingness of all to roll up our sleeves for these common objectives.”
As President Coolidge stated when he returned to Vermont in 1928, “Vermont is a state I love.” To deal with the future, we, too, must understand the past.
Just over two years ago, National Geographic rated Vermont the number-one place in the United States - and the number-five place in the world - to visit. The magazine attributed these high rankings to our landscape and quaint villages, and to the fact that we have a plan for the future.
Thus, it is time that we Vermonters collectively do something similar to what was done in 1928: develop a vision and a plan for Vermont's future coming out of the period of Irene.