Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ndlongshot" data-source="post: 491115" data-attributes="member: 244">Alot of great points, Allen. And i think we agree on alot of it. I would nuance your transevap point by also acknowledging the lack of native prairie/grasslands which once occured and the rapid loss of those acres into crop systems. That land has compaction issues can essentially act as a large funnel to these basins. In the past the prairie was a giant lung, or spung which collected precip until saturation before filling catchment basins or wetlands. Lack of veg cover and below ground holding capacity coupled with wetter precip patterns, surface drainage, subsurface (tile), and you end up with completely different hydro-dynamics than we did historically. Talking about how this all impacts aquifer recharge is a whole nother topic. The 1957 photography is a stark contrast to todays. The world was a lot different. Was it dry? Was it average? Are we wet now? I question some of the data/data collection on this topic prior to the 1950s and the accuracy of such. The old timers say they never saw water like this, because they didnt since settlement days from 1890 forward.Also, swampbuster is regulated by Dept of Ag through the farm bill for conservation compliance. Dont drain wetlands after 1985 if you want taxpayer support.Great topic over a beer or three.</blockquote>