Readings in the History of the Soil Conservation Service

Home , 1930s, April 1950, Bode (crater), Charlotte Speed Demons, Contour plowing, Fechner (crater)

United States Department of Agriculture Readings in the Soil Conservation Service History of the Soil Conservation Service

Economics and Social Sciences Division, NHQ

Historical Notes Number 1 Introduction

The articles in this volume relate in one way or another to the history of the Soil Conservation Service. Collectively, the articles do not constitute a comprehensive history of SCS, but do give some sense of the breadth and diversity of SCS's missions and operations. They range from articles published in scholarly journals to items such as "Soil Conservation: A Historical Note," which has been distributed internally as a means of briefly explaining the administrative and legislative history of SCS. To answer reference requests I have made reprints of the published articles and periodically made copies of some of the unpublished items. Having the materials together in a volume is a very convenient way to satisfy these requests in a timely manner. Also, since some of these articles were distributed to SCS field offices, many new employees have joined the Service. I wanted to take the opportunity to reach them. SCS employees are the main audience.

We have produced this volume in the rather unadorned and inexpensive manner so that we can distribute the volume widely and have it available for training sessions and other purposes. Also we can readily add articles in the future.

If anyone should wish to quote or cite any of the published articles, please use the citations provided at the beginning of the article. For other articles please cite this publication.

Steven Phillips, a graduate student in history at Georgetown University and a 1992 summer intern here with SCS, converted the articles to this uniform format, and is hereby thanked for his very professional efforts. Jim Todd of Electronic Scanning and Design created the cover.

Douglas Helms National Historian Economics and Social Sciences Division Soil Conservation Service P. 0. Box 2890 Washington, D.C. 2001 3-2890 Table of Contents

General Articles

Two Centuries of Soil Conservation ...... 1

Soil Conservation Service: A Historical Note ...... 6 Soil and Soil Conservation ...... 1 Soil: How We Have Tried to Conserve It ...... 15 Soil Conservation Is an Old-Time Religion ...... 20

Origins of the SCS

How SCS Came to Be ...... 23

Conservation Districts: Getting to the Roots ...... 25

Hugh Hammond Bennett (1881 .1960) ...... 31 He Loved to Carry the Message ...... 33

Walter Lowdermilk's Journey: Forester to Land Conservationist ...... 35

Selected SCS Activities

The Civilian Conservation Corps: Demonstrating the Value of Soil Conservation ...... 44

Coon Valley. Wisconsin: A Conservation Success Story ...... 51

Impact on Wildlife Guided SCS From Start ...... 54 Ranging Back to History ...... 56

International Conservation: It's as Old as the Hills ...... 58 Land Capability Classification ...... 60 SCS and Workforce Diversity

Eroding the Color Line: The Soil Conservation Service and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ...... 74

SCS and '1890' Graduates: Of Mutual Benefit ...... 86 Women in the SCS ...... 88

Watersheds and Flood Control

Small Watersheds and the USDA: Legacy of the Flood Control Act of 1936 ...... 96

Watershed Program: Unique and Flexible ...... 1 10

Water Suvplv Forecasting

Bringing Federal Coordination to Snow Surveys...... 112

Snow Surveying Comes of Age in the West ...... 120

The Great Plains

Conserving the Plains: The Soil Conservation Service in the Great Plains .,.I28

Great Plains Conservation Program, 1956- 1981: A Short Administrative and Legislative History ...... 140

A Look to the Future

New Authorities and New Roles: SCS and the 1985 Farm Bill ...... 158

Agriculture That Fits the Environment: A Look Backward and Forward ...... 169

References

The Soil and Water Conservation Movement: A Short List of References ...... 173 Two Centuries of Soil Conservation

Reprinted from OAH Magazine of History (Winter 1991): 24-28. by Douglas Helms, National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

Patrick Henry reportedly remarked after Farmers could respond to this problem in the American Revolution that "since the several ways. They could rotate fields, let- achievement of our independence, he is the ting old fields revert to grass, brush, or great st patriot who stops the most gul- woodland, and then burning them off. The lies!If If the quote is not so evocative of accumulated organic matter would then patriotism as Henry's other oratorical support several crops until the process had flourishes, it nonetheless illustrates the early to be repeated. Or they could abandon the concern over soil erosion and what it por- farm and move west to claim new farms. tended. for the nation. The connection of Indeed the availability of land to the west national welfare to the ability to produce and the scarcity of labor are often seen by food was already firmly rooted in the historians as the main impediments to the young nation. adoption of farming methods that conserve the soil and restore its fertility. Peter Kala, Soil erosion concerned Americans more an eighteenth-century Swedish naturalist, than their European ancestors for several saw farm land abandonment and clearing of reasons. Many of the American staple crops new ground in New York and observed, for export- -cotton and tobacco- -were "This kind of agriculture will do for a time, planted in rows as was corn. Hoeing or but it will afterwards have bad c nse- plowing between the rows eliminated weeds quences, as every one may clearly see." 2 that might sop 'moisture. The clean cultivation left the land bare to the impact of the A number of commentators and agricultural falling raindrop. Rainfall on the eastern reformers began proposing various soil seaboard is more intense than in Europe, conserving practices. Some of the earliest falling with greater force and splashing up conservationists, such as Jared Eliot, Samuel soil particles. Sloping and hilly land which Deane, and John Taylor, relied on observa- abounds in New England and the piedmont tions and personal experiences in advocat- of the South, is particularly susceptible to ing systems of pasture, legumes, and crop soil erosion. Soil erosion removed fertility rotations, to increase fertility and lessen in the top soil, but there was a greater erosion by maintaining ground cover and problem- -it also removed the soil body, the improving soil tilth. Though he invented medium for the growth of plant roots. neither, Thomas Mann Randolph perceived the advantages of he hillside plow and Turning up the soil also exposed the or- horizontal plowing.' More often called ganic matter of the top soil to the sun and contour farming these days, this method of air, thereby increasing oxidation. Organic plowing involved running the furrows matter improves soil tilth, increasing the around the hillside on a horizontal plane, infiltration of rainfall into the soil as well rather than up and down hills. Each ridge as helping bind soil particles together. formed a little dam to check er0sion.A~ a Farmers began discovering a decline in crop convert to the idea, Randolph's father-in- production with repeated plantings. The law, Thomas Jefferson, believed that, "In phenomenon was due in part to soil erosion, point of beauty nothing can exceed that of but it also resulted from not returning the waving lines and rows winding along anything to the soil in the form of manure, the faces of the hills and valleys. The green cover crops plowed back into the soil, horses draw much easier on the dead level, or legumes that fix nitrogen in the soil and it is in fact a conversion of hilly through nodules on the roots. ground into a plain.d Faimers could also build terraces or channels that ran around Menace (19281, that was a call to action. 8 the hill to intercept and carry off water. Other more popular articles reached a Nicholas Sorsby combined horizontal farm- wider, and potentially influential, audience. ing with the early precursor of the terrace- He published articles in Nature Magazine, -the hillside ditch--and greatly pop larized North American Review, Holland's, "level culture" throughout the South! After Geographic Review, Country Gentleman, the Civil War, Priestly Mangum of Wake American Forests and Forest Life, and Forest, North Carolina, erfected the Farm Journal. broadbased Mangum terraces. g Finally, Bennett was ready to work on Edmund Ruffin of. Virginia developed the pushing his ideas legislatively and adminis- most elaborate system of what today might tratively. He maneuvered to gain support be called sustainable agriculture. He used a for a group of research stations that would mixture of decaying sea-shells and clay-- develop methods of conserving soil. The marl--that made the acidic soils of the legislation was included in an amendment South more productive. He further demon- to the appropriations bill of the Department strated the value of crop rotations and of Agriculture in 1929. legumes in maintaining fertility. Ruffin especially wanted to stem the tide of farmers The crisis brought on by the Great Depres- leaving Virginia. Though he succeeded sion further provided Bennett with an locally to some extent, he never revolutio - opportunity when the Works Projects ized or reformed agriculture in the South.9 Administration and the Civilian Conserva- tion Corps were created to put people to While some Americans practiced soil con- work, John Collier, Commissioner of Indian servation, soil erosion continued to be a Affairs, and Harold Ickes, Secretary of the problem in the late nineteenth and early Department of the Interior, particularly twentieth centuries. A few scientists and wanted assistance in improving the condi- academics such as W. J.. McGee and N. S. tion of land deteriorating from overgrazing Shaler wrote about the problem. A Univer- and erosion on the Indian reservations. sity of Chicago geologist, T. C. Chamber- lain, spoke at the White House in 1908 Bennett received $5 million to carry out about the dangers of erosion. But the some soil conservation projects in Septem- creation of an awareness in the early twen- ber 1933. In the new Soil Erosion Service, tieth century required something of a Bennett located soil conservation projects in crusader. Hugh Hammond Bennett, a soil the watersheds near erosion experiment sta- scientist with the U. S. Department of tions so that the directors of the stations Agriculture, took on the challenge and could utilize the research in-formation. came to be regarded as the father of soil Farmers in the watersheds signed five-year conservation. cooperative agreements to install conservation measures. The Soil Erosion Service Several facets of Bennett's personality and furnished equipment, seed, seedlings, assis- background suited him to the role of cru- tance in planning the measures, and labor sader. First, he had the understanding of from the Civilian Conservation Corps or the the problem due to experience; he grew up Works Projects Administration. in North Carolina, in one of the more erodible areas of the state. In his work as a Many of the conservation practices were soil surveyor, and later as supervisor of not new, but the new service planned to surveys in the South, he saw the effects of utilize numerous methods in a mutually erosion and its impacts on agriculture. By supporting conservation system tailored to the 1920s, he was actively trying to do the individual farm. Contour farming was something about the problem. His skill as a strongly emphasized. Many farmers used writer was invaluable in the crusade. Along contour terraces but needed to be intro- with W. R. Chapline, he coauthored a duced to grassed outlets and grassed USDA publication, Soil Erosion: A National waterways. Where farmers included hay and small grains in their operation, strip-crop- volved in planning and carrying out of the ping under crop rotations was emphasized. work. To encourage a greater use of grass in the farming operation, the projects introduced Wilson conceived of a conservation district, the concept of pasture management relying a governmental subdivision of the state, in part on fertilizer. In hilly areas, fencing that the local people would organize for the off woodland from grazing benefitted the district. The directors or supervisors of the cropland below by reducing runoff. district would be elected or appointed and would direct the activities concerning soil The CCC also collected seed for nursery and water conservation within the district. production of seedlings to reforest areas The federal government could supply and carried out thinning and timber stand equipment and technical assistance through improvement. Likewise, collecting native trained soil conservation personnel. Henry grass seed for revegetating rangeland played A. Wallace and President Franklin D. Roo- a large part in demonstration projects in sevelt endorsed the proposal, and FDR semi-arid areas. Contour furrows and transmitted the Standard State Soil Conser- water-spreading systems were introduced to vation Districts Law to governors of the increase infiltration. Springs were developed states on 27 February 1937, with the and stock-watering ponds were sited to recommendation that the state legislatures distribute grazing. Grass cover for orchards enact a law based upon it. Arkansas passed was encouraged. In Pacific orchards, the the first such act on 3 March 1937. The young conservationists emphasized contour Brown Creek Soil Conservation District in furrows to spread irrigatiy water rather North Carolina signed the first agreement than letting it run downhill. with the U. S. Department of Agriculture on 4 August 1937. The Soil Conservation Act of 27 April 1935 transformed the soil conservation work Since then, nearly 3,000 conservation dis- from a temporary status to a permanent tricts have been organized. The Soil Con- agency- -the Soil Conservation Service- - servation Service has nearly 2,700 field with authority to expand the work beyond offices where technically trained soil con- the demonstration projects to a program servation personnel work with districts. converting the entire nation. Bennett, ever land owners, and other land users on con- the showman, dramatized the need for soil servation problems. The districts banded conservation when a dust storm from the together in 1946 to form the National southern Great 'Plains passed over Wash- Association of Soil Conservation Districts, ington as he was testifying fore the Sen- which has been a f rce in shaping nation ate Public Lands Committee. ??I conservation policies.71

After the passage of the act some people Government, of course, has not been the began to examine the best approach to get only force affecting the course of soil con- farmers interested in soil conservation. The servation in America. Throughout history, most prominent person seeking an alterna- prices, markets, transportation facilities, tive to the demonstration idea was M. L. and other factors have contributed to (Milburn Lincoln) Wilson, Assistant Secre- expansions or retractions in using land for tary of Agriculture. Under the demonstra- crops. Europeans settled New England and tion projects, the government had supplied removed forests so that by the middle of not only trained people to give advice, but the nineteenth century, nearly three-fourths -also some equipment to do the work, and of the land was in fields and pasture. After the labor of the CCC, the WPA and sup- completion of the Erie Canal, New England plies. Obviously, such labor would not farmers keenly felt the competition of always be available. Wilson simply believed midwestern farms where the rich prairie if the work were to spread nationwide and soils produced grain crops and cattle in have an impact on the way people farmed, profusion. Industrialization further nudged farmers would be more interested and in- New England toward reforestation, a transformation that is now so complete it increases water infiltration and reduces beckons tourists ly gaze at the luxuriant runoff that causes erosion. In crop rotations colors in the fall. this improves or maintains soil tilth, which again promotes infiltration rather than Down the Atlantic coast in the "land of overland flow of water. Used in strips cotton," the fall of the fleecy king in mid- around the hills or across slopes (strip- twentieth century caused a similar change, cropping), these close growing crops stop though not so dramatic and complete. Pas- the runoff from the clean cultivated row ture land in the South increased from 19.5 crops such as corn, cotton, tobacco, and million acres in 1929 to 44 million acres in soybeans. In the Great Plains a mixture of 1977. Cropland shrank from 65.5 milli cattle, wheat, range, and irrigated pasture acres in 1929 to 53 million acres in 1977.95 can mean that strip-cropping is possible, On the predominantly treeless Great Plains, that range land is not overgrazed during shifts to cropland were easily made in drought, and that erodible sandy land is not response to weather and prices. Unfortu- planted wheat. nately, restoring grass cover is a chancy proposition in the land of uncertain rain. The fact is that Americans have tended more to specialization. Wide expanses of Some government programs have encour- wheat fields, dotted with a few large cattle aged shifts from cropland to grass and feeding operations, are more often the trees. Actually, reducing the surplus of norm than the diversified farmer-rancher crops that were costing the government ideal. The Midwest, too, shows the special- money in price support payments was often ization of agriculture. In 1920 two-fifths of the greater impetus rather than soil conser- the cropland in four cornbelt states (Iowa, vation. The Soil Bank (1956-1964) of the Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio) was in corn. By late 1950s and the early 1960s offered 1982 half of the cropland and more than a farmers three- to ten-year contracts. Not third in soybeans- - both clean cultivated surprisingly the programs were most popu- row cro on which erosion could be a lar in the Great Plains and the South. Land problem. 9s owners in South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama put 1,255.fjl acres in pine trees Technology can cause soil erosion problems, under the program. A more recent pro- as well as mitigating them. The large trac- gram, the Conservation Reserve Program of tors pulling wide plows and planting the 1985 farm bill, offers contracts to equipment are products of Midwestern landowners to restore grass or tree cover on factories and Midwestern landscape. Often land judged to be highly erodible. the equipment is ill-suited to farming on the contour in steeper areas of small farms. The logic of shifting land that is very sus- Where timeliness and power are valuable ceptible to water or wind erosion to uses for conservation, as in the Great Plains for which it is better suited is indisputable. where a tractor can pull large blades just Equally indisputable is that this is not a under the earth surface, they are valuable long-term solution to soil erosion. Acres for conservation. The operation leaves upon acres of land are needed for crops, stubble on the surface to retard wind yet require some measures that will prevent erosion, while at the same time cutting off permanent degradation. Twentieth-century roots that deplete moisture needed for the agriculture had been buffeted by a mixture next crop. Various methods of conservation of factors that simultaneously made soil tillage utilize herbicides to kill weeds and conservation more difficult and yet cover crops, yet leave the dead vegetation possible. on the surface. The crop is then planted into this residue. What is sometimes called mixed farming, including some field crops and livestock, is Technology in the form of improved seed good for soil conservation. The dense cover and fertilizers has increased per acre provided by hay, legumes, and pasture, production tremendously since World War 11. Occasionally, the bounty caused some analysts to question whether we need even lo Jonathan Daniels, Tar Heels: A Portrait be concerned about topsoil. Any medium, of North Carolina (New York: Dodd, Mead given enough amendments of fertilizers, & Company, 1941), 188. should suffice for food production, they contend. Fortunately, this is not the major- l1 R. Neil Sampson, For Love of the Land: ity opinion, as most Americans continue to A History of the National Association of believe that the soil and its bounty are a Conservation Districts (League City, Texas: national resource heritage. National Association of Conservation Dis- tricts, 19851, 49-60.

Endnotes Cronon, Changes in the Land, 169.

Arthur R. Hall. Early American Erosion- l3 Douglas Helms, "Soil and Soil Conserva- Control Practices in Virginia, U.S. Depart- tion," in Encyclopedia of Southern Culture, ment of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publica- ed. Charles R. Wilson and William Ferris. tion No. 256 (Washington: GPO, 19371, 2. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 19891, 36 1- 363. William Cronon, Changes in the Land: Indians. Colonists, and the Ecology of New l4 Ibid., 362. England (New York: Hill and Wang, 1983), 169. John Fraser Hart, "Changes in the Corn Belt." Geographic Review 76 (January ' Angus McDonald, Early American Soil 1986): 6 1 -62. Conservationists, USDA Miscellaneous Pub- lication No. 449 (Washington: U. S. De- partment of Agriculture, 1941), 1-26.

Hugh H. Bennett, Thomas Jefferson: Soil Conservationist, USDA Miscellaneous Pub- lication No. 548 (Washington: U. S. De- partment of Agriculture, 1944), 16, back cover.

McDonald, Early American Sil Conser - vationists, 33-42.

Hugh H. Bennett, SDil Conservation (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1939). 890.

McDonald. Early American Soil Conser - vationists, 42 - 57.

Hugh H. Bennett and W.R. Chapline, Soil Erosion: A National Menace. U. S. Depart- ment of Agriculture Circular No. 33 (Washington: April 19281, 1-36.

Douglas Helms, "The Civilian Conserva- tion Corps: Demonstrating the Value of Soil Conservation," Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 40 (March- April 1985): 184- 188. The Soil Conservation Service: A Historical Note

by Douglas Helms, National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

An earlier version of this article was published as "SCS: 50 Years Young" in The Farmer (St. Paul, Minnesota) March 16, 1985. pp. 48-50.

This unnecessary wastage of soil concerns you--and me ... Neither as individuals nor collectively can we deny our responsibility. ..If you will take the trouble to ascertain the facts about our farmland--and other natural resources--and then lend your support to our conservation programs we will get results and hold on to them.

Hugh Hammond Bennett from The Hugn Bennett Lectures

The Soil Conservation Act (Public Law 46- great deal of support. The National 74) of April 27, 1935, specifically directed Industrial Recovery Act of June 16, 1933, the Secretary of Agriculture to "establish an permitted work on erosion control. agency known as the Soil Conservation Ser- Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes vice," which would "provide permanently selected Hugh H. Bennett to head the new for the control and prevention of soil ero- Soil Erosion Service in September 1933. sion." Bennett, a USDA soil scientist, had called attention to the problem through articles Some Americans were concerned about soil and speeches. erosion in the 19th century and even earlier. Southerners, for example, developed an Bennett located erosion control work in indigenous system of terracing. Some state watersheds near the erosion experiment sta- experiment stations . worked on solutions. tions so that the heads of the stations could The Extension Service instructed farmers in utilize the research information. Farmers in terracing methods in some states. Two U.S. the watersheds could sign five-year coop- Department of Agriculture scientists, Hugh erative agreements to install conservation H. Bennett and William R. Chapline, pub- measures. The Soil Erosion Service fur- lished an influential pamphlet, Soil Erosion: nished equipment, seed, seedlings, assis- A National Menace, in 1928. Congress tance in planning the measures and labor authorized a series of experiment stations through the CCC or WPA. Many of the devoted to soil conservation research in conservation practices were not new, but 1929. In Texas, beginning in 1929, the the new service planned to utilize numerous Southwest Soil and Water Consei-vation methods in a mutually supportive conserva- Conference called attention to the problem. tion system tailored to the individual farm. Contour farming was strongly emphasized. Despite these early efforts, soil erosion was Many farmers used contour terraces but hardly a matter of national concern and needed to be introduced to grassed outlets, united efforts until the onset of the Great grassed waterways, and grade stabilization Depression caused a questioning of structures. Where farmers included hay and numerous aspects of American life. The small grains in their operations, strip-crop- connection between poor, eroded land and ping under longer rotation was emphasized. poor people came into focus. New pro- To encourage a greater use of grass in the grams, the Civilian Conservation Corps farming operation, the projects introduced (CCC) and the Federal Emergency Relief the concept of pasture management relying Administration, were created to provide in part on fertilizer. In hilly areas, fencing jobs on projects in the national interest, off woodland from grazing benefitted the and natural resource projects received a cropland below by reducing runoff. The CCC boys also collected seeds for sion control. The Secretary of Agriculture nursery production of seedlings to reforest transferred the ten experiment stations from the areas, as well as carrying out thinning the Bureau of Chemistry and Soils and the and timberstand improvement. Likewise, Bureau of Agricultural Engineering to SCS, collecting native grass seed for revegetating as well as the nurseries for producing plant rangeland played a large part in demonstra- cover from the Bureau of Plant Industry. tion projects in semi-arid areas. Contour Additional work-relief funds enlarged the furrows and water-spreading systems were programs so that, by mid-1936, there were introduced to increase infiltration. Spring 147 demonstration projects, 48 nurseries, 23 development and stock-watering ponds experiment stations, 454 CCC camps, and were utilized to distribute grazing. Grass over 23,000 WPA workers on the job. In cover for orchards was encouraged. In Pa- locating new projects, the agency relied on cific Coast orchards the young conserva- the national Reconnaissance Erosion Survey tionists emphasized the use of contour fur- undertaken by SES in 1934. rows to spread irrigation water rather than letting it run downhill. Consolidation of activities continued through the thirties and early forties. SCS, The Service also operated demonstrations on along with the Forest Service and the Indian reservations--most notably the Bureau of Agricultural Economics investi- Navajo, where they tried to improve the gated soil conservation measures and runoff range through range management while control on specified watersheds under the reducing the number of animals and im- Flood Control Act of 1936. In July 1938, proving the quality of sheep. the Service took over the construction aspects of the Water Facilities Program in The successful works attracted attention the western states. The Land Utilization from the public as well as from farmers Program, transferred to SCS in November and their congressmen, who sought similar 1938, involved the purchase and rehabilita- projects for their counties. In fact, the tion of submarginal lands. Also in 1938, the success of the Service became a point of Service assumed responsibility for advising contention between the Secretaries of the farmers on forestry matters under the Departments of the Interior and Agricul- Cooperative Farm Forestry Act of 1937. ture. Secretary of the Interior Ickes wanted Irrigation and drainage began assuming a to keep the Service as part of a Department larger part in the agency's operations when, of Conservation, while the Secretary of in 1939, responsibility for investigations Agriculture contended it properly belonged and demonstrations was transferred from with other agricultural programs. President the Bureau of Agricultural Engineering. Roosevelt decided in favor of USDA, and There were some losses in the reorganiza- the Soil Erosion Service moved to the tions--most notably the withdrawal of Department of Agriculture on March 25, authority in 1940 to work on public lands 1935. The conservation work emerged from and Indian reservations under the Depart- its temporary status to become an enduring ment of the Interior. activity when Congress passed, and Presi - dent Roosevelt signed, the Soil Conservation During the Depression, the leaders of the Act of April 27, 1935. soil conservation program had to look to the future of conservation; thought had to. be The move to centralize soil conservation given to the long-range working arrange- work in SCS led to a rapid increase in ments with farmers. CCC and WPA labor personnel, funds, and responsibilities. When would not be available forever. Nor was the Soil Erosion Service moved to USDA in conservation a matter of simply fixing a April, there were 40 demonstration projects problem. Sustained interest among farmers with 51 CCC camps and some WPA labor. must be promoted. While the demonstration Upon transfer to USDA, SCS assumed projects proved the value of conservation supervision of more than 150 Forest Service application on a watershed and did attract CCC camps that had been working on ero- many visitors, many farmers were not located in the CCC and demonstration work derstanding that conservation concerned not areas. Farmers who visited the areas often only the individual farm but also the com- left desiring similar assistance. munity. An understanding of the need to control floods on upper reaches of streams The mechanism for providing for a contin- and the need to link conservation measures uing program was the conservation district, on the farm to flood control structures for largely credited to M. L. Wilson, Under the benefit of the entire watershed was Secretary of Agriculture. Wilson's brand of hardly new, having been promoted in the agrarian democracy included government publications Little Waters in 1936 and assistance to farmers, but also provided for Headwaters Control and Use in 1937. The local direction of much of the assistance. Flood Control Act of 1944 had authorized His thoughts on the means to involve 1 1 watersheds for accelerated conservation farmers in the conservation program were application. The two programs emphasized a embodied in the 'Standard State Soil combination of dams for flood control and Conservation Districts Law" which President soil conservation systems on farms in the Roosevelt sent to the states' governors on watershed above the structure. The Small February 27, 1937. If the state legislatures Watershed Program provided assistance- - and governors enacted a law which included financial and technical- -to local groups for the basic elements of the standard act then watershed improvement and flood control. local groups could organize conservation By 1984, work had been completed on 602 districts. Then the Department of Agricul- watersheds, while work continues on ture would provide assistance, primarily another 462 watersheds. Since 1982, the trained personnel, while the districts set the Small Watershed Program has increased the priorities and directed the work. proportion of funds devoted to cost-share farm conservation measures and decreased Arkansas passed the first state act on March emphasis on building structures for flood 3, 1937, and the Brown Creek Soil Conser- control. vation District, which included Bennett's homeplace, signed the first agreement with The 1956 Great Plains Conservation Pro- USDA on August 4, 1937. The conservation gram (GPCP), born out of the 1950s district was a novel concept in the federal, drought, gave renewed emphasis to the state, and local relationship, and it required need to plan conservation for an entire a great deal of explanation and education. farm or ranch. The program provided a Some states questioned the wisdom of the new typk of assistance through a ten-year land-use ordinances in the standard act. contract. USDA shared the cost of conser- Some farm organizations, agricultural agen- vation measures, while the farmer agreed to cies, and universities regarded the conser- treat the entire farm and to maintain the vation districts as an unnecessary intrusion conservation measures for the period of the into already well-established means of contract. The objective, however, was a working with farmers. Even in the face of long-term change, far beyond the length of resistance, the district concept proceeded. the contract. The success of contracting Not surprisingly, many of the demonstra- with farmers in the GPCP led to adoption tion and CCC work areas quickly organized of long-term agreements in' other conserva- districts. At the end of 1939 there were 88 tion programs where the government shared million acres in districts. The acreage in the cost of a conservation measure with the districts topped the 1 billion mark in 1947 farmers. and the 2 billion mark in 1973. The Resource Conservation and Develop- The fifties brought new programs to the ment (RC&D) program was authorized in countryside. The Small Watershed Program, the 1962 Farm Bill. RC&D promoted the enacted in 1954, endorsed the fact that soil wise use and conservation of resources as a and water resources are interrelated and means to increase rural income. A local helped reorient conservation programs council of private citizens and the coordi- toward the community approach--an un- nator supplied by SCS initiated a vast array of innovative projects under their pluses being depleted, the 1974 prices of sponsorship. At present 194 areas have corn and soybeans were more than double organized local councils. those of 1970 and wheat prices trebled. Farmers harvested 24 million acres more in The new programs of the 1950s and 1960s 1974 than in 1972. Sixty million acres of relied on the use of soils information. The new cropland were cultivated between 1972 merger of the National Soil Survey into SCS and 1982--much of it more erodible than in 1952 linked scientific knowledge of soil the cropland already in production. The characteristics to field observations of soil increased erosion problem rekindled an behavior under various uses. The result, in interest in conservation among people out- the 1960s and 1970s, was an expansion of side the traditional conservation action interpretations of soil survey information groups. In some ways the last decade has for agricultural and nonagricultural uses. been reminiscent of earlier days of the Suburban growth, increased nonfarm rural conservation movement when the interest in population, small town and industrial conservation was shared by many people growth created environmental problems and not directly involved in farming. a demand for local, county, and even regional planning assistance as exemplified The renewed interest in soil conservation in the Soil, Water, and Suburbia Conference led to the 1977 Soil and Water Resources on 1967. SCS became involved in many Conservation Act and to intensified study non-agricultural activities. Not everyone and inventory of resource problems as a cheered this expanded role for SCS and its basis for directing conservation programs. personnel, feeling that sufficient technical The studies were new, but the central assistance was not available to every farmer question was as old as the conservation needing and wanting assistance and that the movement. How do we deal with conserva- farmland conservation effort should not be tion nationwide, and at the same time diluted. direct our attention and efforts to the most severe problem areas? The RCA program, In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the SCS as announced on December 21, 1982, estab- programs received increased attention from lished six objectives: reduce excessive soil the environmental movement, not all of it erosion, improve water management, reduce favorable. The watershed program was the upstream flood damage, improve range object of the first substantial criticism of condition, and improve water quality. The the agency from former allies. Conservation RCA appraisal had identified areas of crit- and environmental groups had been inclined ical resource degradation. USD A targeted to view SCS's onfarm activities favorably. these areas to receive accelerated technical The channelization phase of the watershed assistance, while maintaining support work provoked some criticism for its nationally to all conservation districts. effects on wildlife and fish population, but it was a broader question predating the The events of the 1970s, the study and watershed program- - the effects of drainage analysis in the RCA, and the interest of and the loss of wetlands- -which really public interest groups resulted in a strong spurred the criticism. After Congress conservation title in the Food Security Act enacted the National Environmental Policy of 1985. The act added a tremendous Act of 1969, SCS revised the watershed workload for SCS staff. The law is designed planning process to insure that all effects to eliminate the possibility that commodity on the environment were considered. The price support programs encourage poor soil question of wetlands retention- -how much conservation practices or the loss of wet- should be protected and who should pay--is lands. Thus, if farmers do not comply, they still a national concern. are denied certain USDA program benefits. The highly erodible lands provision Conservationists received a shock in the included both conservation compliance and early 1970s. In 1973, grain exports nearly sodbuster. Under conservation compliance, doubled over the previous year. With sur- farmers have until 1990 to begin applying a conservation plan on highly erodible land and until 1995 to fully install the conservation plan. Under sodbuster, landowners must apply a conservation plan if they wish to bring land into production that had not been used for an annual crop between December 31, 1980 and December 23, 1985. The swampbuster provision, officially titled wetland conservation, was an attempt to slow drainage of wetlands and their conversion to cropland. Farmers who converted wetlands and produced agricultural commodities after December 23, 1985, the date of the passage of the act, would be ineligible f qr USDA program benefits. Under another provision, the Conservation Reserve Program, farmers are putting highly erodible land into grass, trees, or other cover under long-term contracts.

Beginning in 1988, SCS became increasingly involved in a government-wide Presidential effort to improve and enhance water quality. SCS's part has been to develop means to reduce agriculture's adverse impacts on water quality and to assess the effectiveness of voluntary programs.

For over half a century, research in conservation spread from the work of a few interested individuals to a federal network of research stations, increased emphasis at the state experiment stations, and a realization by industry that farmers want, need, and will purchase equipment designed to conserve land while farming it. The information generated by research must be applied to land by the farmer working cooperatively with a professional well versed in the sciences--the soil conservationist. Soil and Soil Conservation

Reprinted from Wilson, Charles Reagan, and William Ferris, eds. Encyclopedia of Southern Culture. Chapel Hill, N.C.: The University of North Carolina Press, 1989. pp. 361-363. by Douglas Helms, National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

Intertwined physical, climatic, economic, He and his son-in-law Thomas Mann Ran- and cultural factors brought on severe soil dolph introduced the method in Virginia. A erosion in the South. The Piedmont, the Jefferson corespondent, William Dunbar, loessial bluff lands east of the Mississippi popularized the method in the Natchez River, and the red clay hills of Alabama District of Mississippi. Another and Mississippi have been the areas of Mississippian, Joseph Gray, invented a level severest erosion. Farming steep slopes with for precision layout of contour rows. By cultivated row crops was the main cause, 1850 horizontal plowing was common in the but soil characteristics also contributed to South, In the two decades preceding the the erosiveness of these areas. Geologic Civil War the hillside ditch--forerunner of processes washed the soil particles from the the terrace--was widely used as an adjunct Piedmont uplands to form the Coastal Plain. to horizontal plowing. Nicholas Sorsby The erosion plus the intense weathering devised the most elaborate of these systems process left the Piedmont with thin topsoils and popularized his ideas through a series having little water-holding capacity. of publications on "Level Culture.'' Impermeable clay-rich subsoils hastened erosion of topsoil. Several influential southerners, notably John Taylor and Edmund Ruffin, perceived The South has the highest annual precipita- conservation of the soil as necessary to the tion in the United States, and the predomi- preservation of southern agrarian life. Ruf- nance of cultivated staple crops, especially fin, more than any predecessor, emphasized tobacco and cotton, exposed the soil to lime and drainage of level bottom lands. intense summer thunderstorms. The use of Adoption of Ruffin's teachings had an close-growing grain crops, such as wheat impact in the Tidewater of Virginia, where and oats, and pasture and hay to support the use of green manures, fertilizers, and meat and dairying enterprises would have rotations restored depleted tobacco fields. reduced erosion, but such crops held a minor place in southern agriculture. Avail- After the Civil War short-term sharecrop- ability of new lands to the west and south ping and rental arrangements aggravated the inhibited development of intensive agricul- erosion problem. Piedmont farmers ture employing fertilizers and conservation increasingly turned to commercial fertilizers measures. An alternative to moving was to as an alternative to resting fields. Structural let fields rest for a few years and then measures of erosion control evolved into extract the accumulated fertility in the terracing. The Mangum Terrace, designed organic matter, It was, and still is, a system about 1885 by Priestly Mangum of Wake prevalent in climates where high tempera- Forest, N.C., came into general use. tures and rainfall accelerate leaching and Between 1880 and 1920 most farmers on decomposition of organic material, thus steep lands in the Piedmont and upper creating soils of low fertility and high Coastal Plain installed some type of terrace. erodibility. Faulty design and construction as well as poor maintenance limited their value and In the 19th century southerners developed occasionally created additional erosion most of their means of contending with problems. erosion. Thomas Jefferson observed horizontal plowing (contour farming) in France. The present programs of soil conservation 1977. High soybean and grain prices and a began with the crusade of Hugh Hammord drop in cattle prices in the early 1970s Bennett. A native of Anson County, N.C., reversed this trend, but livestock continues Bennett proposed using vegetative controls to be a major enterprise. and good land use, along with structural controls in a coordinated conservation plan Pine tree occupancy of unprofitable hilly designed specifically for each farm. Bennett fields is no longer a nuisance to farmers, became the first chief of the Soil Erosion and expanded forest acreage results in part Service (SES) in 1933. In 1934 the new from developments in forest products tech- agency conducted a rec.onnaissance erosion nology, and higher prices. Artificial regen- survey to ascertain the extent and condi- eration through planting seedlings has tions of soil erosion in Virginia, Tennessee, replaced natural reforestation. Under one the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, federal program, the Soil Bank (1956-64), Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas. The landowners in South Carolina, Georgia, and results of tk survey are shown in Table I. Alabama planted 1,255,531 acres of the 2,154,428 acres of cropland reforested in The SES's successor, the Soil Conservation the United States. Service, moved from working on demonstration projects to cooperation with local Cropland shrank from 65.5 million acres in conservation districts organized under state 1929 to 53 million acres in 1977. Erosion- laws. The South became the national leader inducing row crops still predominate over in organizing conservation districts. The close-growing crops, particularly because obvious need for conservation and Bennett's soybeans occupy much of the acreage for- evangelistic style and moral persuasion merly devoted to cotton. Regionally, appealed to the farmers. District supervisors farmers have shifted row crops to the served without pay and set priorities for the gentler slopes of the lower Coastal Plain, conservationists supplied by SCS. The con- deltas, and bottom lands. With the increase servationist relied on an ever-expanding in fertilizer usage, the lower fertility of body of knowledge concerning structural many Coastal Plain soils, compared to the design, the value of vegetation, and Piedmont, is no longer a deterrent. planting and tillage techniques to assist Drainage systems, however, are necessary farmers. on many of the level fields. Southerners artificially drained 11.3 million acres by In addition to improved technical expertise, 1930 and 36.7 million acres by 1978. The the decline of cotton under the tenant sys- rush to convert the fertile, easily farmed, tem, mechanization of agriculture, and land bottom land hardwood areas to cropland is use changes have influenced conservation causing concern among some southerners since the 1930s. For example, tractors who want to preserve portions of the area allowed frequent and deeper plowings that for its aesthetic, historical, recreational, and readied the soil for erosion, and large farm scientific value. equipment was incompatible with the traditional serpentine terraces. As farmers elimi- Along with farmers throughout the United nated these terraces, conservationists States, southern farmers have increased assisted farmers in installing parallel ones. acreage planted with conservation tillage Such land use changes in the last 50 years systems that utilize herbicides to eliminate have both reshaped the southern landscape weed competition. In 1979 farmers used and benefited soil conservation. conservation tillage on 22 percent of the cropland, a figure that rose to 35 percent in Animal disease control, purebred cattle, and 1981. In addition to retarding erosion and the introduction .and spread of annual pas- providing humus to the soil, the system ture grasses by SCS and other federal and permits double cropping in the southern state agencies expanded the cattle industry climate. In traditional small farm areas of and brought pasture acreage from 19.5 the South, where farmers rent widely million acres in 1929 to 44 million acres in scattered tracts of farm land, the time saved is a major inducement.

Southern farmers continue to cite soil erosion as their major resource problem. Twenty-two million of the 54 million cropland acres erode 'at a rate greater than soil formulation. The fertile, heavily farmed, loessial bluffs erode at four times that rate. But the 32 million acres of cropland on which soil erosion is negligible represent an evolution from an extractive, pioneering ethos to a permanent agriculture. Table I

Conditions of Southern Soil Erosion, 1934

Percentage Erosion condition Acres of total

Total area exclusive of large cities and water)

Area with little or no erosion

Total area affected by sheet erosion

One-fourth to three-fourths of topsoil lost

Over three-fourths of topsoil lost

Total area affected by gullying

Occasional gullies

Severe gullies

Destroyed by gullies

Source: Natural Resources Board, Soil the South" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Erosion: A Critical Problem in American Georgia, 1971). Agriculture (1935).

Further Reading: Arthur R. Hall, "Soil Erosion and Agriculture in the Southern Piedmont" (Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1948); John Hebron Moore, Agriculture in Ante-Bellum Mississippi (1958); Arthur F. Raper, Preface to Peasantry: A Tale of Two Black Belt Counties ( 1936); Soil Erosion: A Critical Problem in American Agriculture ( 1935); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Early American Soil Conservationists, Misc. Pub. 449 (194 1), Soil, Wzter and Related Resources in the United States: Part I (1981); Rupert B. Vance, Human Geography of the South (1932); Frank B. Vinson, "Conservation and Soil: How We Have Tried to Conserve It by Douglas Helms National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

Recognition that Americans should conserve slopes. Even so, much of the cropland had soil to maintain the Nation's capacity to some erosion hazards. Some of the earliest produce food is neither a new, nor an out- conservationists, such as Jared Eliot, Samuel dated idea. Colonial Americans became Deane, and John Taylor, relied on observa- aware of the exhaustible, erodible qualities tions and personal experience in advocating of the new land. Today, even in the face of various systems of pasture, legumes, and scientific and technological advances that crop rotations to increase fertility and have dramatically raised per-acre produc- lessen erosion by maintaining ground cover tion and cast doubt on the profitability of and improving soil tilth. Though he some soil-conserving farming practices, invented neither, Thomas Mann Randolph, none, save the most optimistic, believe soil Thomas Jefferson's son-in -law quickly conservation has become irrelevant. There perceived the advantages of the, hillside has been, however, much less unanimity of plow and horizontal, or contour, plowing. thought on the best means to achieve soil As a convert to the idea, Jefferson believed conservation. Through the years, especially that "In point of beauty nothing can exceed during the 20th century, Americans have that of the waving lines and rows winding devised a number of ways to promote soil along the face of the hills and valleys. " conservation. Opinions differ as to the effectiveness of each method. When gov- Nicholas Sorsby combined horizontal ernment is involved, individual attitudes farming with the early progenitor of the about the proper role of government often terrace--the hillside ditch, and greatly pop- determine opinions about the desirability of ularized "level culture" throughout the a particular method of promoting soil con- South. The most outstanding of the preservation. None of the methods proved a Civil War agricultural reformers, Edrnund panacea, but each added to the possibilities. Ruffin, experimented on his farms learning Let's look for a moment at the various the effects of green manures, liming on soil methods we have tried. conservation and soil fertility. After the Civil War, Priestly Mangum of Wake For- Science and Research est, North Carolina, perfected the broad- Americans for the most part have tried to based Mangurn terrace. rely on a better understanding of the soil, its responses under various uses, and the Few agriculturalists looked upon soil con- influence of various farming practices and servation as a key part of the research machinery to devise ways of reducing ero- directed toward increased agricultural pro- sion. Some few individuals, often ductivity in the public agricultural institu- unrecorded in history, made original dis- tions that were created in latter half of the coveries in wise land use. Walter Lowder- 19th century--the U. S. Department of milk found one such individual on his Agriculture, the land-grant colleges, and travels, which he recounted in Conquest of the state agricultural experiment stations. the Land Through 7,000 Years. He came USDA and the state experiment stations and upon J. Mack Gowder in Hall County, extension services did however publish Georgia, who defied local custom in some bulletins on the subject. Eventually, plowing his land so as to leave crop litter two state experiment stations, those at on the surface to retard erosion. Columbia, Missouri and Spur, Texas concentrated on soil erosion. Certainly many individuals learned to leave the hilliest land covered with trees or use it Hugh Hammond Bennett, who led the soil for pasture, while cultivating the gentler conservation movement in the 20th century, may best be remembered for his emotional conservation and an expanded effort. At appeals, but it should also be remembered first the newly designated Soil Conservation that he first called for research. Knowledge Service added additional demonstration should come before action. Largely at his projects. But Milburn L. Wilson, then prodding, the USDA appropriation act for Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, had a 1929 included provisions for soil erosion plan for making conservation expertise and moisture conservation research stations. more readily available for farmers. His Bennett's first assistant at the Soil Conser- plan, the soil conservation district, also vation Service, Walter Lowdermilk, had provided for more local participation in made some of the seminal discoveries in the planning operations and in so doing secured relationship of forest litter to runoff. political support from farmers who would Through the years soil conservation be critical to the continuation of the soil assumed a higher place on the state experi- conservation activities. On February 27, ment station agendas. Individuals such as 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Edward Failkner, author of Plowman's transmitted to the governors the "Standard Folly, made contributions as did chemical State Conservation Districts Law." After and implement companies. The prospect of each state passed an enabling law, local cost efficient and effective methods of areas, based on a watershed, or later on conservation still occupies a major place on county boundaries, organized districts and the agricultural research agenda. elected supervisors. The districts then signed agreements with USDA. Through the Education years, the primary form of assistance from Those who would presume to advise USDA to the nearly 3,000 conservation farmers to change farming methods face a districts has been supplying trained soil basic reality. In a country and a time when conservationists to the districts to work the number of farmers has declined, the directly with farmers. The districts or states potential convert has persisted. Often sev- can also supply additional personnel. The eral generations have farmed the same land. districts provide training and information, Any suggestions for drastic change require including buying and renting out equip- persuasion and demonstration. ment. In addition to the active state programs to expand staffs in Pennsylvania, Edmund Ruffin, the apostle of marl (lime), Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri, eventually had considerable impact on some states such as Nebraska have increased American agriculture. But during his life- the responsibilities and powers of the dis- time, he had little influence outside his tricts to include practically all resource Virginia Tidewater homeland. Terracing concerns. gained a foothold in the South, but the frontier of new land burdened any call for Sharing- the Costs conservation that involved labor and capital Expenditures on soil conservation, at all intensive methods. levels of government, are premised on the idea that society has an interest in pre- When Hugh Hammond Bennett, a soil sci- venting erosion. Providing part of the cost entist in the USDA, began his crusade for is viewed not only as a matter of equity, soil conservation, he proposed to use but also as a means of achieving society's demonstration methods so that farmers goal by inducing farmers to practice con- would observe proven methods of soil conservation. In early demonstration projects, servation, then go forth and do likewise. He SCS provided labor- -Civilian Conservation located the earliest demonstration projects Crops enrollees or Work Projects Adminis- near the erosion and moisture conservation tration laborers- -seed, seedlings, lime, and experiment stations, where the results of fertilizer to help make useful adjustments the research could be put to use. such as establishing pastures, vegetating gullied areas, or working close growing hay The Soil Conservation Act of 1935 made crops into crop rotations, building terraces, possible a continuing commitment to soil and fencing, and improving woodland. wetlands that sustained the annual migra- Sharing the cost of conservation became a tions. The concern over water quality, and major part of agricultural programs with part played by agricultural led to the the passage of the Soil Conservation and Experimental Rural Clean Waters Program. Domestic Allotment Act in 1936. As part of This small pilot program used contracts a plan to reduce surplus crop production by with farmers to examine or demonstrate the reducing acreage, participating farmers relationship of soil and water conservation shifted some land from soil-depleting crops to water quality. USDA now uses long-term to soil-building crops. Another part of this contracts in its land-treatment watersheds effort involved making payments to install that emphasize land-treatment rather than soil conservation practices on croplands and floodwater-retarding structures. to improve grasslands. This Agricultural Conservation Program, administered by Land Use Conversion Programs what is now the Agricultural Stabilization Converting very erodible cropland to forests and Conservation Service, added numerous or grasslands has had a great appeal to practices as technology became available or people concerned about soil erosion. Fre- cropping patterns shifted. The ACP funds quently called "land retirement" programs, along with the funds spent by SCS in these programs generally had as a goal not assisting farmers constitute the largest part retirement, but conversion of land to of the federal contribution to soil conserva- another use. Congress and USDA often had tion. Some state governments, notably objectives in addition to soil conservation Missouri, Alabama, and Iowa have active when instituting such programs. cost -share programs. The Land Utilization Program, begun under USDA and Congress added new concepts to the Federal Emergency Relief Administra- cost-sharing. In response to drought, tion in 1933, and continued under Title I11 Congress authorized a Great Plains Conser- of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of vation Program in 1956. The program 1937, purchased "submarginal" lands. The sought a readjustment. in farming and submarginal land concept involved suscepti- ranching operations that would not only bility to erosion, but it also implied conserve soil, but also foster more stable inherent qualities that limited the land's farming operations in an area of extreme potential for profitable agriculture. In some climatic variability. Long-term contracts cases, the readjustment meant consolidation between farmers and USDA helped farmers of small units of cropland into larger units convert erodible cropland back to grassland. that could be leased as grazing land. The Under the contracts, farmers had to carry purchased areas created, or expanded, fed- out conservation on the whole unit--not eral and state parks and forests and wildlife just on the land on which the farmers refuges. Some of the purchased areas in the received cost-sharing. The objective was to Great Plains eventually became part of the induce, with society bearing part of the National Grasslands system. cost, a shift in farming practices that would persist long after the contract expired. The "conservation reserve" segment of the There were benefits and obligations on both Soil Bank (1956- 1960) had dual objectives- sides, and farmers had to forego some -conserving soil and alleviating surplus options in farming operations. production by a long-term reduction in cropland. Farmers, at the zenith of program Contracting never supplanted annual cost- participation in 1960, had placed over sharing, but it was successful enough to be 28,000,000 acres in the program under 3-, tried in other areas. The Water Bank Pro- 5-, or 10-year contracts. In addition to the gram tried to resolve disputes over drainage annual rental payments, farmers received of "potholes" in the upper Mid-West and cost-share assistance to seed grasses and the Great Plains. Essentially, society placed legumes, plant trees, establish wildlife a value on migratory birds, and paid cover, manage water and marsh for farmers under a contract to maintain the wildlife, and construct dams'and ponds for livestock, irrigation water and fish on the contributions of science and technology nearly 21,000,000 acres. Congress did nc , became available, the ratios of cost of pro- limit the Soil Bank to erodible land, but t1.3 duction shifted dramatically. The amount of program won greatest acceptance in the labor and land needed to produce a given Southeast and Great Plains where suscepti- amount decreased, as the machinery, seed, bility of erosion often coincided with low fertilizer, and pesticide components in crop productivity or risky agriculture. production increased. Improved seed vari - eties and powerful fertilizers raised pro- The current cropland reduction effort, the ductivity and called into question the need Conservation Reserve Program authorized for soil conservation measures. Amidst this in tl :. 1985 farm bill, limited the program trend, conservation tillage offered savings to "hi& *ly erodible" land. Crop surpluses to farmers. Because of the objective of again gave impetus to paying farmers to leaving crop residues on the surface, convert crqpland to other uses. But other farmers forego the cost of several rounds of forces caur eligibility to be limited to seedbed preparation and weed - killing culti - erosion-prone land. Understanding of the vation. erosion processes has increased, enabling conservationists to estimate sensitivity to Costs of erosion are not limited to the lost erosion damage, and progress in making soil productivity; there are costs away from the surveys made it possible to identify highly field, or off-site, that should be counted. erodible land. Secondly, a coalition of Sedimentation specialists in the 1930s stud- environmental groups influenced Congress ied filtration reservoirs in order to under- to restrict the conservation reserve to the stand erosional processes; their studies also most erodible land. In addition to their illuminated the off-site costs. Currently, long-standing emphasis on wetlands, there is much interest in measuring these wildlife interests focused on cropland con- off-site costs throughout the system from version as a means of increasing the variety detachment to deposition. and distribution of upland wildlife. Stewardship Profitability According to some sources, Patrick Henry The profitability of conserving topsoil proclaimed shortly after the American Rev- appeared to be a much simpler question olution, "since the achievement of our inde- before the benefits of scientific agriculture pendence, he is the greatest patriot who became available. The ever-increasing stops the most gullies." The sentiment that effectiveness and use of fertilizers espe- conservation should be viewed not only as a cially clouded the perception that expendi- matter of self-interest, but as an obligation, tures for conservation would be repaid in had, and continues to have many forms of the farmer's life-time. Horizontal plowing, expression. Certainly, a dispassionate case as Jefferson observed, strained the horse can be made for soil conservation, but like less than plowing up hill. Certainly, farmers many another movement that came to be suffered economic losses from gullies which enacted into a national program by not only removed the topsoil entirely, but Congress, it involved emotions. Given the left the remaining land more difficult to backdrop of the human drama of tenancy, farm. But what about that almost imper- poverty, aimless migration, and dust storms, ceptible amount of soil lost through the Hugh Hammond Bennett made his case for process we know as sheet erosion? At what soil conservation. Contemporaries who cost should the farmer maintain that soil in heard those speeches remembered the place? feeling he brought to the task. To one he was the "fiery apostle;" another remembered Under a general, less specialized, farming that he "loved to carry the message;" involving livestock, both for sale and another recalled that Bennett left no doubt horsepower, the pasture and hay fit nicely that conservation was good--erosion an evil. in conservation plans to provide cover on erodible land and to maintain soil tilth. As Bennett's contemporary, Aldo Leopold, Conservation and the Law pioneer in wildlife management in the The Federal government has generally left Forest Service, influenced the wildlife pro- any question of land-use ordinances to grams of early SCS demonstration projects states. The standard state conservation dis- but is best remembered for his writings that tricts law included provisions for land-use called upon us to maintain a "land ethic." regulations governing use of lands within the district in the interest of conserving soil Soil conservation as a religious duty found and controlling erosion. Districts have most expression in 'Soil Stewardship Week." Farm often used the provisions where the actions and Ranch magazine sponsored a ''Soil and of an individual affected the .community, Soul Sunday" from 1946 until 1954. The especially in' the Great Plains. Adjoining National Association of Conservation Dis- land owners often bore the cost of dealing tricts assumed responsibility in 1955 and with dirt from wind erosion-prone lands elicits support from many denominations. that should have been left in grass. Not surprisingly agitation for the conservation Problem Areas compliance provisions of the 1985 farm bill Let it not be said that Americans have not came from areas subject to wind erosion in studied the location of problem areas. As the Great Plains. The provisions deny early as 1931, Hugh Hammond Bennett participation in USDA commodity price mapped "Regional Soil Erosion Areas," support, loan, and credit programs to during his travels to select sites for soil farmers who crop highly erodible land erosion and moisture conservation experi- without carrying out conservation measures. ment stations. In 1934, the Soil Erosion Service carried out a national erosion Conclusion reconnaissance under the aegis of the When a national soil conservation program National Resources Board. The Soil Conser- began in the 1930s, the young group of vation Service published national conservationists attacked their job with "inventories of conservation needs" (1945, enthusiasm. Being optimists, and no better 1958, 1967) and "national resources inven- seers than we are today, they were perhaps tories" (1977 and 1982). The idea that soil unmindful of how a dynamic agriculture conservation funds and efforts should be could undermine some of their good works. concentrated on the most erodible land has But they did establish an objective by had. great appeal among critics of current which to judge various conservation meth- programs, but considerably less political ods--an enduring agriculture. Enduring appeal and support. The Great Plains Con- didn't imply a static agriculture, but it held servation Program represents the difficulty that the means to sustain agriculture, the of focusing on specific areas. For the most physical integrity of the soil resource must part the program received favorable be maintained. We should be mindful of the reviews, and at one time served as the interplay of the qualities of the land and of model for an attempt to legislate additional people and their institutions in our quest to "special areas." Congress did not authorize mix the best existing with the most additional special areas, however, and promising new means to conserve topsoil. GPCP remained small compared to national programs providing technical assistance and cost-sharing. The conservation reserve authorized in the 1985 farm bill is directed toward erodible areas, but generally Congress and conservation districts believe that all states should receive federal assistance and hold that soil erosion is only one of the resource problems with which. the districts deal. Soil Conservation Is an Old-Time Religion

Reprinted from Our American Land: 1987 Yearbook of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: US. Department of Agriculture, 1987. pp. 175- 180. by Douglas Helms, National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

The idea that Americans should conserve Eventually, two State experiment stations, soil to maintain the Nation's capacity to those at Columbia, Missouri and Spur, produce food is neither new nor outdated. Texas, concentrated on soil erosion. Some colonial Americans knew the dangers of exhaustiq the land and undertook con- Hugh Hammond Bennett, who led the soil servation rrt wres even then. Some of the conservation movement in the 20th century, earliest conservationists increased fertility first called for research. largely at his and lessened erosion by maintaining ground prodding, the USDA appropriation act for cover, improving soil tilth, and instituting 1929 included provisions for soil erosion pasture, legume, and crop rotation systems. and moisture conservation research stations. Bennett's first assistant at the Soil Erosion Though he invented neither, Thomas Mann Service, Walter Lowdermilk, made seminal Randolph, Thomas Jefferson's son-in-law, discoveries in the relationship of forest lit- quickly perceived the advantages of the ter to runoff. hillside plow and horizontal, or contour, plowing.. As a convert to the idea, Jefferson Education believed that "In point of beauty nothing When Hugh Hammond Bennett began his can exceed that of the waving lines and crusade for soil conservation as a soil rows winding along the face of the hills scientist in the USDA, he proposed to use and valleys." demonstration methods so that farmers would observe proven methods of soil con- Nicholas Sorsby corn bined horizontal farm- servation, then go forth and do likewise. He ing with the early progenitor of the ter- located the earliest demonstration projects race- -the hillside ditch-and greatly pop- near the erosion and moisture conservation ularized "level culture" throughout the experiment stations, where the results of South. the research could be put to use.

The most outstanding of the pre-Civil War The Soil Conservation Act of 1935 enabled agricultural reformers, Edmund Ruffin, ex- Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Milburn perimented to learn the effects of green L. Wilson to make conservation expertise manures and liming on soil conservation more readily available to farmers through and soil fertility. After the Civil War, soil conservation districts. This provided for Priestly Mangum of Wake Forest, North local participation in planning operations Carolina, perfected the broadbased Mangum and attracted political support from terrace for managing surface runoff. farmers. On February 27, 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt transmitted the Few agriculturalists viewed soil conserva- "Standard State Conservation District Law" tion as vital in the public agricultural in- to the governors. Each State then enabled stitutions created in the latter half of the local people to organize districts and elect 19th century. These were the U.S. Depart- supervisors. The district then signed agreement of Agriculture (USDA), the land- ments with USDA. grant colleges, and the State agricultural experiment stations. USDA and the State Trained USDA soil conservationists work experiment stations and Extension Service directly with farmers in the nearly 3,000 did publish bulletins on the subject. conservation districts. The districts or States sometimes provide additional personnel. Profitabilitv The profitability of conserving topsoil Sharing the Costs appeared to be a much simpler question Sharing the cost of conservation became a before benefits of scientific agriculture major part of agricultural programs with became available. Effective use of the passage of the Soil Conservation and fertilizers clouds the perception that expen- Domestic Allotment Act in 1936. Spending ditures for conservation will be captured in public money on soil conservation is the farmer's lifetime. premised on society's having an interest in preventing erosion. It is viewed not only as Costs of erosion are not limited to the lost a matter of equity, but also as an induce- productivity; costs away from the field, or ment for farmers to practice conservation. offsite, also should be counted. Sedimenta- In early demonstration projects, SCS pro- tion specialists in the 1930s studied siltation vided Civilian Conservation Corps enrollees reservoirs in order to understand erosional or Work Projects Administration laborers. processes; their studies also illuminated the Additionally, SCS provided seed, seedlings, offsite costs. lime, and fertilizer to help farmers to establish pastures, restore gullied areas, and Stewardshiv work hay crops into crop rotations, and According to some sources, Patrick Henry helped to build terraces and fencing, and proclaimed shortly after the American Rev- improve woodland. olution, "since the achievement of our independence, he is the greatest patriot who Land Use Conversion Programs stops the most gullies." The sentiment that Converting very erodible cropland to forests conservation should be viewed not only as a or grasslands has had a great appeal to matter of self -interest, but as an obligation, people concerned about soil erosion. Fre- had, and continues to have many forms of quently called "land retirement" programs, expression. Certainly, a dispassionate case these programs generally' had as a goal not can be made for soil conservation, but like retirement, but conversion of land to many another movement that came to be another use. Congress and USDA often had enacted into a national program by objectives in addition to soil conservation Congress, it involved emotions. when instituting such programs. Soil conservation as a religious duty found The current cropland reduction effort, the expression in 'Soil Stewardship Week." Farm Conservation Reserve Program authorized and Ranch magazine sponsored a "Soil and by the 1985 farm bill, limits the program to Soul Sunday" from 1946 until 1954. The "highly erodible" land. Crop surpluses again National Association of Conservation Dis- gave impetus to paying farmers to convert tricts assumed responsibility in 1955 and cropland to other uses. But other forces elicits support from many denominations. caused eligibility to be limited to erosion- prone land. Understanding of the erosion An Enduring Agriculture processes has increased, enabling When a national soil conservation program conservationists to estimate sensitivity to began in the 1930s, the young group of erosion damage, and progress in making soil conservationists attacked their job with surveys made it possible to identify highly enthusiasm. Being optimists, and no better erodible land. Then too, a coalition of seers than we are today, they perhaps were environmental groups influenced Congress unmindful of how a dynamic agriculture to restrict the conservation reserve to the could undermine some of their good works. most erodible land. In addition to their But they did establish an objective by long-standing emphasis on wetlands, which to judge various conservation wildlife interests now focus on cropland methods--an enduring agriculture. Endur- conversion as a means of increasing the ing did not imply a static agriculture, but it variety and distribution of upland wildlife. held that the means to sustain agriculture, the physical integrity of the soil resource, must be maintained. How SCS Came to Be

Reprinted from Soil and Water Conservation News 6, no. 1 (April 1985): 3-4.

by Douglas Helms, National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

Those brief, exciting, often hectic 20 that ensured its demise after the months between September 19, 1933, when Depression. Through the years of reading, Hugh Hammond Bennett became Director corresponding, and conversing with the of the Soil Erosion Service (SES), and April handful of people active in soil conserva- 27, 1935, when the Soil Conservation Act tion, Bennett knew to whom he would was passed, were important times for the entrust the field work--the work that future course of the conservation move- would actually determine the success or ment. That there would be national legisla- failure of the program. These were the tion to provide for a continued commitment people who believed as he did in a coordi- to soil conservation was by no means nated approach to conservation employing assured. Current friends of the conservation "all practical measures of control in accor- movement can look to that period with a dance with the adaptability of the land." sense of admiration; not with a feeling that His early correspondence makes clear that no mistakes were made, but with an appre- he thought the coordinated farm plan would ciation for the early leaders who trans- involve the cooperative efforts of formed vision into reality. agronomists, foresters, range specialists, soil experts, engineers, and economists. Certainly, Hugh Bennett foresaw and worked for a government organization Equally important to the future of the work dedicated to soil conservation. His vision of was his determination that the money be a permanent agriculture- had no room for a spent on conserving farm lands with a brief flurry of emergency employment future, and demonstrating that expensive activities that would fade from the tapestry land restoration would not be necessary of conservation once the crisis had passed. under proper land use. Shortly after taking up the new work he wrote to his second in command, Walter C. The watershed-shed projects - - demonstra- Lowdermilk: 'We are getting into a line of tional as well as experimental--would work which I think is bound to carry reveal the benefits of conservation area on ...We have no insurmountable wall of wide, beyond the individual farm. Another prejudice standing out in front of us. The important tactic in the early days involved road is wide open, and if all of us are duly Bennett's attitude toward educating the consumed with the magnitude of the public. He wanted to influence the body undertaking, the importance of succeeding politic, not just the farmers. It was his in our plan, and the absolute necessity of ability to communicate, with the written not giving an inch until we have really and the spoken word, at all levels which accomplished something on a large scale, started and sustained the movement during then we are bound to carry on until we its early days. have completed the task laid out for us." To be sure, there were factors beyond SES1s It was as though Bennett's career had been control which created a climate favorable to an apprenticeship for the work he was now continuing the work: the persistent beginning. His experience- -and opinions as Depression, the dust storms blown eastward, to corrective measures- - was SES1s main and the magazines and newspapers with asset as the young group went about its heart-rending photographs which docu- work in a manner that enhanced its chance mented poor land and poor people in a for permanence, rather than in a manner clearer focus than ever before. Out in the field the demonstration projects were popular. Requests by farmers and their Congressional representatives for Civilian Conservation Corps camps and projects further enhanced the reputation of the Service. But the Congressional authorization for spending would expire on June 15, 1935. The impending deadline, combined with Bennett's desii-e for a permanent organization, brought things to a head.

Agricultural groups argued that such work belonged in the Department of Agriculture (USDA). Conservation friends in Congress stood ready to introduce legislation including all the authorities needed for a soil conservation agency. The prospect of legislation forced President Roosevelt to deal with the situation. He summoned Ben- nett to the White House in March 1935.

The conversation (as recounted by Bennett) showed how successful he had been. The President thought Bennett's group must be doing a good job since they had become the object of desire for acquisition. It seemed to the President that the agricultural nature of the work merited a change to USDA. With the President's blessing, events moved quickly and smoothly. On March 25, 1935, he transferred SES from the Department of the Interior to USDA. After brief hearings Congress passed the Soil Conservation Act which the President signed on April 27, 1935. All who had taken part in the movement could take pride in the charge of the Service, which was "to provide permanently for the control and prevention of soil erosion and thereby to preserve natural resources." Conservation Districts: Getting to the Roots

To be presented at the 7th International Soil Conservation Organisation Conference in Sydney, Australia, September 27-30, 1992.

by Douglas Helms, National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

The author thanks Anne Henderson, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., for her editorial assistance.

The theme of this conference, "People Pro- examine its elements if the district concept tecting Their Land," addresses the crucial seems promising. link in any soil conservation program, the landholder. Governments may try various Hugh Hammond Bennett, more than any means to promote soil conservation such as other person, influenced the development research, financial and technical assistance of the soil conservation movement in the to landholders, education, moral appeals, United States. Study and observation during and regulation. But if governments are to his career as a soil scientist in the U. S. succeed, they must take into account the Department of Agriculture convinced him attitudes and motivations of the landholders that soil erosion was a menace to long-term and ultimately enlist their cooperation. productivity of the land. The Great Implicit, if not always elucidated, in calls Depression provided Bennett with an for conservation is belief that conservation opportunity when public works programs has values for society as a whole and that were created to put people to work. Begin- we must conserve resources for future ning in 1933, as head of the Soil Erosion generations. Often these values fit nicely Service, he received some of the emergency with the everyday objectives of the land- employment money to demonstrate soil and holder, but not always. The question then water conservation methods in selected becomes how to satisfy these various objec- watersheds. The work proved popular and tives equitably. the Congress then created the Soil Conser- vation Service with the Soil Conservation The soil conservation movement in the Act of 1935. For the most part the early United States established a government agency continued to promote soil conserva- agency, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), tion through the demonstration projects as numbering about 13,000 employees spread trained soil conservationists worked directly throughout the country. SCS works in with farmers. The availability of labor and cooperation with nearly 3,000 conservation equipment greatly facilitated the adoption districts to assist landholders in the districts. of these measures (Helms, 1985).

The districts, which are often conterminous Meanwhile, M. L. (Milburn Lincoln) Wil- with counties, are organized under state law son, assistant secretary of the U. S. and are directed by locally elected directors Department of Agriculture (USDA) and one or supervisors. This partnership sustained of America's most innovative agricultural the conservation movement in the United policy-makers, had been thinking about States. This paper will focus on the ways to spread soil conservation beyond the historical experiences of working with local scattered demonstration projects, and to groups, specifically conservation districts, make it a force for agricultural reform. in achieving conservation. The purpose is Several principles guided his thinking. not to promote districts as an ideal instru- Farmers had to feel that they had an active ment worldwide, but to increase awareness role in promoting soil conservation if they of this system so that others may further were to accept it as a goal and ultimately a regular part of their farming operations. Also, Wilson recognized that the acceptance that has developed over the years is for the of conservation in the demonstration prr,- districts to sign agreements with individual jects rested partly on the fact that equip- farmers and ranchers. Then trained soil ment, labor, and the assistance of trained conservationists from the Soil Conservation soil conservationists were available to Service field offices worked individually farmers. This kind of assistance was not with them on conservation problems. available outside the demonstration projects. Belief in soil conservation was insufficient A few examples can illustrate the work of to spread adoption of conservation measures districts. For instance, they helped apply outside the projects. Wilson's dilemma was conservation to the land by making spe- how to make farmers feel more involved cialized equipment available. Districts often and in control, and how to provide the purchased specialized equipment such as assistance, not just on demonstration pro- grass seeders, spriggers, or tree planters and jects, but nationwide to bring soil conser- rented them to farmers. Most farmers vation to all the Nation's farmlands (Glick, would need such equipment only a few 1990). times. During the last couple of decades, districts have promoted various reduced With the assistance of Philip M. Glick, a tillage systems which leave crop residues on lawyer in the U. S. Department of Agri- the land surface and thus reduce soil ero- culture, Wilson's ideas were embodied in sion. The technique required specialized the 'Standard State Soil Conservation equipment or modifications in conventional District Law." The conservation district, as planting equipment in order to plant outlined in the standard law, was a new through crop residues. Advocates of conser- device in American federalism. It was clas- vation tillage have tried to gain converts by sified as a '!special district" because it had getting them to use the technique on a few limited purposes and was not a local unit of acres. If the farmers are satisfied that it general government as is the county or city. works well and profitably with their partic- Just to list a few of the powers of the dis- ular cropping systems, then they may well trict, it could conduct surveys and research, be inclined to purchase equipment. Some disseminate information, conduct demon- districts purchased equipment and rented it strations, carry out prevention and control to farmers for field trials with the idea of measures, acquire land and property, sue promoting a revolution in tillage systems. and be sued, and promulgate land-use regulations. In some instances these authorities In addition to making equipment available, paralleled the authorities of the Soil Con- some districts provided services such as tree servation Service, thus accommodating planting. The operations of the Southern cooperative ventures. In other cases the Soil Conservation District in West Virginia districts could do things which the federal in the early 1970s provided examples of government could not do. In short, adding what districts might do. The district's tree the districts enhanced and expanded the soil planting crew planted seedlings for district conservation movement. Philip Glick has cooperators for a fee. The district suggested that this type of American fed- employees helped construct watering eralism with cooperation among federal, troughs and develop springs. These activi- state, and local entities resembled not so ties promoted grassland farming over tilled much a layered cake, but a marble cake crops on the steeper land. District crews (Glick, 1967 and 1990). also helped in reclamation of gullied areas. Districts acquired plants which provided Organization of districts proceeded after habitat for wildlife from the state Depart- state legislatures passed a law based on the ment of Natural Resources and supplied "standard law." If the local people then them to the farmers at a fee. For farmers voted for the district in a referendum, they who wanted to develop stock watering elected directors and supervisors of the facilities from springs, the districts lent district. Then the districts signed an agree- equipment as well as selling supplies which ment with USDA. The working relationship were not available on the local market (Southern Soil Conservation District, 1972). development plans be reviewed by the dis- After World War I1 districts received sur- tricts for approval. Districts became leaders plus military equipment, which was also in the passage and enforcement of erosion adaptable for building terraces and and sediment control laws designed to installing other conservation practices. Now reduce sedimentation from construction most of these mechanical practices are sites. installed by contractors while the Soil Con- servation Service provides the guidelines The districts' national organization, the and specifications. But districts have been National Association of Soil and Water invaluable in providing conservation ser - Conservation Districts (later the National vices and materials which were not yet Association of Conservation Districts), sug- commercially viable. gested changes districts might make to be more effective in the changed world In a way the system of district and state (National Association of Soil and Water cooperation with the federal government Conservation Districts, 1966). The report of could produce a service that was greater NACD's District Outlook Committee urged than the sum of its parts. For instance, the districts to be inclusive and to be the Soil Conservation Service had the staff to natural resources representative not only of develop standards for various conservation agriculture but also of business, industry, practices and modify them to fit the local recreation, and community interests. State area. But the state, county or districts could leaders sought changes in the state conser- accelerate conservation by helping to pay vation district law to accommodate this for installing conservation practices or by broadened role. Between 1966 and 1969, hiring additional technical staff. In those some 82 changes were made in state conser- states which chose to hire additional staff, vation district laws (Sampson, 1985). Dis- one might walk into a field and find people tricts became a voice in erosion and sedi- paid by the federal government, the state, ment control laws designed to reduce sedi- or the district. Yet all would be doing sim- mentation from construction sites. ilar work, using similar methods. Through the years the financial contribu- The districts focused first on promoting soil tions of state and county governments grew. conservation. But additional federal and From 1973 to 1983, state apprgpriations for state legislation continually altered and conservation districts programs doubled expanded their role. New federal legislation from $42 million to $96 million. By 1992, for flood control in the small upstream the appropriations from state and local watersheds passed in 1954 brought involve- sources amounted to about $493,000,000. ment in watershed projects for flood con- Sources other than federal funds provide trol, drainage, recreation, municipal and for 7,000 employees, about the same num- industrial water supply, and other purposes. ber as the SCS people in field offices. Districts had to adjust to be an effective About one-half of the district employees force in a changed economy in the United are secretarial; thus SCS is providing a States. While many districts remained pre- larger portion of the technical staff. In a dominantly rural, others saw small towns few states, staff funded from state and grow and suburbia spread onto farmlands local sources outnumbered the Soil Conser- with the accompanying problems of vation Service personnel, but these states increased human activity and resource were the exception rather than the norm pressures. The information available from (NACD, 1991). the Soil Conservation Service through districts, such as soils information, knowledge Developments during the last two decades of flooding hazards, erosion control tech- in Nebraska represent another step in the niques, and a host of other information, maturation of the conservation district could be valuable in helping guide residen- ideal. Nebraska currently has 23 natural tial and business development wisely. resources districts with a broad - based nat - Counties might choose to require that ural resources agenda. Since the late 19th century special districts in Nebraska pro- government and to promote their interests. liferated as they were created for irrigation, Districts which include both rural and drainage, soil conservation, watersheds, urban areas can effectively deal with issues rural water development, reclamation, san- that connect the two such as water quality, itation, mosquito control, and other pur- flooding, and other issues. Since district poses. By the late 1960s there were some directors are elected, there may be some 500 special purpose districts created to deal fear that urban residents would dominate. with resource conditions. Officials in But according to Steven G. Oltmans, gen- Nebraska, especially Warren airc child; eral manager of the Papio-Missouri Natural Executive Secretary of the Nebraska Soil Resources District, which includes 'Omaha, and Water Conservation Commission, rec- the urban contingent has been generous in ognized that there were too many districts spending the district's funds in the coun- with fragmented authorities and too little tryside for traditional soil and water con- funding to be effective. They were influ- servation measures (Oltmans, 1992). enced by the analysis of districts made by the District Outlook Committee of the The natural resource districts do not see National Association of Conservation Dis- themselves as replacing the services pro- tricts. Without providing specific guidance vided by the Soil Conservation Service and the committee did recognize the problem of duplicating the expertise SCS brings to the proliferation of special districts and the conservation problems. Each district cannot need for soil conservation districts to reasonably do all the research needed and assume greater responsibility in the changed the development of methods and standards. rural world. Nebraska legislation passed in But they can help accelerate the application 1969 called for natural resources districts to of conservation practices in the countryside. commence operations in 1972. Nebraska The districts also worked on conservation consolidated 154 special purpose resource problems outside the purview of SCS. The districts into 24 natural resource districts in lack of administrative funds made the con- 1972 (Jenkins, 1975). servation district too dependent upon the Soil Conservation Service and perhaps too After 20 years some of the advantages of restricted in its natural resources agenda the Nebraska plan are obvious. One is the (Glick, 1990). The source of funding brings financial base. The legislation provided that Nebraska natural resources districts closer districts be funded from the property tax. to the original ideal of a district as a com- Statewide, districts received about one prehensive resource agency for the local percent of the property taxes paid in the area. With the shrinkage in the number of state. This contrasts with the "standard law" farm operators and the need for districts to which did not recommend that districts be have a firm financial base, the consolidated funded from property'tax. M. L. Wilson districts with broadened authorities merit believed such a provision would be the consideration. death knell of district law in state legislatures during the midst of the Depression Natural resource districts as they exist in (Glick. 1990). The assured funding makes it Nebraska are the exception rather than the possible to hire a professional staff, which rule. The assured funding increased the in turn makes the districts more effective. influence of the local entity. For too long Since the districts are much larger than the in their history many of the districts were typical soil and water conservation districts, allied exclusively with SCS or had little there are some economies of scale involved staff and funds to launch their own initia- and less money is spent for overhead tives. The Nebraska model may not be the expenses. The staff makes it possible for ideal for all of the United States, let alone districts to be .involved in a variety of the world. But it exhibits the potential of activities and cooperative agreements with the district concept. various state and local agencies, not just the Soil Conservation Service. The districts are large enough to have a voice in state Summary mental agencies on a wide range of resource What might one say about the importance issues. of districts in advancing soil and water conservation farming in the United States? Any conservation advocate outside the What are the possibilities for using the United States should keep a few things in concept elsewhere? First of all, the districts mind when evaluating the districts. The accelerated acceptance of soil conservation standard law was written with the in the United States by making landholders American system of federalism in mind. feel a part of the movement. The movement Any attempt to import the system should was not led solely by government agencies, carefully consider the cultural and govern- but also by landholders who converted mental system of the country. Also, it friends and neighbors to the values of con- should be remembered that part of the servation farming. On the other side, this effectiveness was that in the partnership the neighborly aspect has sometimes been a SCS employees and the farmers were for . source of criticism about districts. It was the most part from similar backgrounds difficult to make the hard choices where with similar values. This was a decided regulatory authorities were needed. This last advantage in persuading farmers to use issue has a paradoxical aspect. Recent fed- conservation farming techniques. Most SCS eral farm legislation in the United States employees came from farm families and contains conservation requirements for had earned college degrees in agriculture, farmers who receive crop support payments or a related field, at the state university. and other assistance from the U. S. government. But these regulatory activities In other countries the representatives of should be seen as an addition to the conser- government and local groups may not nec- vation movement, not a replacement. All essarily be of the same class or ethnic resource problems will not be solved group. Conservation did not escape from through this instrument, and the need for the heritage of colonialism with a particu- . local involvement will remain. larly appealing reputation among indigenous peoples. In some cases their recollection of Within the American system of government "conservation" involved thoughts of the the districts, through their national associa- expropriation of the most valuable lands for tion, have influenced Congress to provide white farmers and then the imposition of for soil and water conservation. They have onerous rule for natives farming the poorer, been a major force in securing funds for steeper, more erodible lands (Stocking, the Soil Conservation Service. In the early 1985). history of the movement, there were a couple of times when the Soil Conservation But the district concept can be an asset by Service might not have survived as an involving minorities who have not been agency without the support of the districts. fully represented in the conservation This is not to say there would have been no movement. For example, attempts to work governmental support of soil and water with native Americans have been was conservation. But there might well not have fraught with cultural misunderstanding been an agency charged to work primarily (Kelly, 1985). During the last decade sev- on soil and water conservation programs. eral native American tribes have formed Legislatively, the districts individually and conservation districts and are again cooper- through their association influenced other ating with SCS. The fact that the district is environmental legislation, and along with operated by local people empowers them. SCS they are seen as the primary delivery Since they can assert themselves as system to transfer legislative intent from decision-makers in the relationship, the Congress into action in the countryside. On potential exists to accomplish more than in the local level, the districts, especially in a paternalistic relationship. the case of Nebraska, offer a way to deal with a multitude of private and govern- Finally, valuable as the district concept is, look at it if you will as one piece of the possible answer to conservation problems, Sampson, R. N. (1985) For Love Of The not a panacea. The landscape of Land. National Association of Conservation conservation is littered with too many sim- Districts, League City, Texas. ple answers to complicated problems. Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. (1936). A Standard State References Soil Conservation District Law. Washington, D.C. Glick, P. M. (1967). "The coming transformation of the soil conservation district," J. Southern Soil Conservation District: 1972 Soil and Water Cons. 22: 45-53. Activities and Accomplishment & 1973 Plan of Work. (1972). 42 pages. Located in T- Glick, P. M. (1990). The Preparation of the 212A. National Association of Conservation Standard State Soil Conservation Districts Districts, Department of Special Collections, Law. Soil Conservation Service,. U. S. Iowa State University. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Stocking, M. "Soil conservation in colonial Africa," pp. 46-59. In Helms, D. and Helms, D. (1 985). "The civilian conservation Flader, S. L., eds. (1988) The History of corps: demonstrating the value of soil con- Soil and Water Conservation. Agricultural servation," J. Soil and Water Cons. 40: 184- History Society, Washington, D.C. 188.

Jenkins, H. M. (1975). A History of Nebraska 's Natural Resources Districts. Nebraska Natural Resources Commission, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Kelly, L. C. (1985). "Anthropology in the Soil Conservation Service," pp. 34-45. In Helms, D. and Flader, S. L., eds., The His- tory of Soil and Water Conservation. Agri - cultural History Society, Washington, D.C.

National Association of Conservation Districts (1 991). "Funding conservation district programs," NACD RCA Notes No. 74, Washington, D.C.

National Association of Soil, and Water Conservation Districts (1966). The Future of Districts: Strengthening Local Self - Gov- ernment in Conservation and Resources Development. Report of the Special Com- mittee on District Outlook. League City. Texas.

Oltmans, Steven G. (1992). Taped interview with Steven G. Oltmans, by J. Douglas Helms, National Historian of the Soil Con- servation Service, Omaha, Nebraska, March 10, 1992. Bennett, Hugh, H. (1881-1960), American Soil Scientist, Soil Conservation Leader, Author

To be published in the Encyclopedia of the Environment by Houghton Mifflin Company. by Douglas Helms, . National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

A native of Anson County, North Carolina, Gif ford Pinchot's advocacy of forest con- Bennett graduated from the University of servation and Harvey W. Wiley's fight for North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1903, and pure food and drug legislation parallel Ben- then joined the Bureau of Soils in the U. S. nett's vision. Department of Agriculture. While making soil surveys in the southern United States Bennett brought several attributes to the Bennett became convinced of the threat soil task of creating a national awareness of the erosion posed to the country's future menace of soil erosion. Before becoming the agricultural productivity. His numerous first head of the Soil Erosion Service, Ben- speeches and articles soon earned him a nett had already had a 30-year career as a reputation as the nation's leading advocate soil scientist, involving extensive periods in of soil conservation, and he was selected to the field observing the effects of soil ero- head a temporary New Deal agency, the sion domestically and in several foreign Soil Erosion Service in the Department of countries. Gullies were obvious to the the Interior, in September 1933. On April casual observer, but Bennett publicized the 27, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt danger of sheet erosion, a process in whi'ch signed the Soil Conservation Act which an almost imperceptible layer of soil is created the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) removed from the field. Thus, Bennett had in the Department of Agriculture. Bennett scientific credentials and credibility to set the course of the nation's soil and water reach a national audience. conservation programs as the first chief of SCS, a position he held until November 13, As a scientist Bennett wrote for profes- 1951. sional journals. After commencing his crusade for soil conservation, he wrote for Bennett came to be regarded as the "father magazines with a wider, and sometimes of soil conservation." He was significant in more influential audience. If not as elo- elevating concern about soil erosion from quent as some of the naturalist writers, he the level of a few disparate voices to a wrote clearly and with commitment about national movement of awareness and com- his cause. While en nett, the publicist, mitment. Soil conservation joined forestry recognized the need to reach the general and scenic areas as national conservation public through the popular press, it was, concerns. His successes are evident in fed- nonetheless, a government publication eral laws for soil conservation, a federal which became his best known article, Soil Soil Conservation Service, professional Erosion A National Menace, USDA Circular organizations, public interests organizations 33. Co-authored with William R. Chapline, committed to soil and water conservation, this piece provided a general survey of and increased emphasis on soil conservation erosion conditions which was used in in university curricula. securing legislative support for a national program of soil conservation. Bennett accomplished this task at a time when a few dedicated scientists in the Bennett had obvious political skills and was Federal government became advocates for a master at seizing the opportune moment. their respective causes, promoted federal He successfully lobbied for funds in 1929 legislation, and then served as heads of for a series of soil erosion experiment sta- federal agencies they had virtually created. tions and then supervised their work. When it became obvious that there would be The viability of soil and water conservation funds for soil conservation work, he pushed as national concerns was further assured by his ideas and his candidacy to head up the the creation of the Soil Conservation work. His sense of the dramatic was on dis- Society of America (now the Soil and Water play during the Senate Public Lands Com- Conservation Society) and The Friends of mittee hearings on the Soil Conservation the Land. Though not solely responsible for Act in April 1935. Realizing that a great either organization, Bennett was an influ- dust storm from the Great Plains was ential founding member of both groups. blowing eastward, he used its sky-darken- The former group, made up largely of ing arrival to dramatize the cause of soil people personally involved in the field of conservation and win approval for the leg- soil conservation, published the Journal of islation creating the Soil Conservation Ser- Soil and Water Conservation. The latter vice. group drew members from diverse back - grounds who were concerned with conser- Finally the ,nost valuable element of Ben- vation issues. Friends of the Land published nett's character was his passion for his a well-written, at times eloquent magazine, crusade. As a long-time colleague The Land, whose authors came from remarked, he loved to carry the message. diverse fields in business, science, litera- He spoke with a fervor that impressed ture, and other areas. politicians on Capitol Hill, scientists at the Cosmos Club, or farmers on the courthouse Hugh Hammond Bennett is buried in square aIi ke. Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, Virginia. After elevating soil to a national concern and securing legislation for a permanent commitment to its conservation, Bennett Further Reading made several decisions, contributions, that influenced national soil conservation pro- Bennett, Hugh Hammond. Elements of Soil grams, especially the Soil Conservation Ser- Conservation. New York: McGraw-Hill vice, for decades. He recognized the com- Book Company, Inc., 1947. plex causes of soil erosion and insisted that numerous disciplines be involved in devis- Brink, Wellington. Big Hugh: The Father of ing solutions. Bennett did not believe in Soil Conservation. New York: The panaceas, but thought that the solution to a MacMillan Company, 1951. complex problem should rely on the ana- lytical contributions from several physical Simms, D. Harper. The Soil Conservation and biological sciences including agronomy, Service. New York: Praeger Publishers, biology, forestry, engineering, range man- 1970. agement, soil science, and other disciplines. SCS recruited from all these fields and then Swain, Donald C. Federal Conservation devised training courses to give the field Policy, 1921 - 1933. Berkeley, California: staff broader training in a variety of disci- University of California Press,1963. plines. Bennett also insisted that SCS should work directly with farmers on conservation measures rather than simply disseminate information. Plans for conservation work on the farm should be designed specifically for that farm and be based on the capability of the land. The personal contact has made programs more effective and created as a source of political support for conservation programs. He Loved to Carry the Message

Reprinted from Cobblestone: The History Magazine for Young People (December 1983): 18- by Douglas Helms, National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

The problem of soil erosion in the 1920s nutrients that enabled it to produce healthy and 1930s had an impact on our entire crops. Although the erosion itself was not nation. But it was largely the effort of one always obvious in the fields, its devastating man that brought the problem to national effect on farm families was obvious in the attention and inspired the creation of the homes where Bennett stayed overnight. Soil Conservation Service, an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture Bennett continued work as a soil scientist in (USDA). That man was Hugh Hammond the USDA into the 1930s. His position as Bennett. head of soil surveys in the South and his writings in scientific journals and other Bennett was born near Wadesboro, North publications brought him an international Carolina, on April 15, 1881. He grew up in reputation. Yet he was frustrated that soil an area along Brown Creek where soil ero- conservation was being neglected. sion was a constant problem for farmers. As a young man he watched his own father Clamor for forest conservation had resulted build terraces in the effort to reduce ero- in the creation of the National Forest and sion. National Park systems, but the need for conservation on American farmlands was After earning a degree in chemistry at the ignored. Bennett decided that if no one else University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill would make soil conservation a national in 1903, Bennett moved to Washington, issue, then he would have to do it. He D.C., to work for the USDA Bureau of began to write articles for the popular Soils. Although he was hired to analyze magazines of the day- -not scholarly soils in the laboratory, he soon switched to writings for his fellow scientists but articles a job as a surveyor in the USDA's soil sur- for magazines that would arrive in the vey program. The surveys produced in the mailbox of the average American home. program were (and still are) used to help farmers decide which crops to grow on Probably the most influential of Bennett's their farms and what fertilizers to apply. writings was a USDA publication, Soil Erosion: A National Menace. Bennett and The work of the soil surveyor in the early his co-author, W. R. Chapline, estimated 1900s was indeed arduous- -lugging heavy that 500 million tons of soil flowed to the surveying equipment without the benefit of sea each year. They also believed that automobiles, digging hundreds of holes to another billion tons was deposited in loca- collect soil samples, calling on generous tions such as reservoirs and streams. In farmers for a night's lodging. While going 1928, in response to the publication, Ben- about his work in Tennessee, North nett's influence, and other factors, the Carolina, and Virginia, Bennett saw huge Congress provided money for a group of gullies that had been created by large-scale experiment stations to research the means erosion. He also became aware of another of conserving soil on agricultural lands. It type of erosion that was not obvious to the was a beginning. average observer. On some hillside fields, a thin layer of topsoil was washed away with The research was a valuable and necessary each rain. This process he called "sheet step, but Bennett still wanted a national erosion." Sheet erosion drained soil of the plan of action, The tragedy of high unemployment that came with the Great areas, officials in the USDA decided they Depression of the 1930s provided the could best solve problems if they worked opportunity for such a plan. On August 25, through conservation districts. Under this 1933, five million dollars was made avail- arrangement, the Soil Conservation Service able for soil conservation work. Because of would provide people trained in soil con- his reputation as an expert in the field, servation to the conservation districts. A Bennett was selected in September 1933 to locally elected board of supervisors would head the newly established Soil Erosion direct the conservation programs for the Service. He decided to start a series of area. The Brown Creek Soil Conservation demonstration projects on some of the District, including the Bennett family farm, nation's most eroded farmlands. Workers became the first district to sign a coopera- from the Civilian Conservation Corps and tive agreement with SCS on August 4, 1937. Works Projects Administration- -two pro- Today 2,932 conservation districts around grams that created jobs for the unem- the country include more than two billion ployed--would do much of the work. They acres. More than one billion acres of this would be aided by farmers, who also con- land is farmland. tributed labor and equipment. Bennett continued as Chief of the SCS until Through demonstration projects, Bennett November 13, 1951. He died on July 7, put his ideas to the test. He knew there 1960. would be no single or simple solution to soil conservation problems. Engineers, soil Bennett's work as a soil surveyor was often scientists, foresters, biologists, hydrologists, solitary and his fellow workers thought him and others would all contribute to the shy. But his vision and work resulted in effort, and each farm would have its own important changes. His zeal for soil conser- conservation plan. vation led him to become a rousing, inspiring speaker to Congress, fellow Bennett also believed in using each area of workers, and the American public. As one land according to its soil characteristics and colleague recalled, "He loved to carry the slope. If an area could not be used as crop- message." land without erosion, then perhaps it should be used for pasture, or woodland, or for something else. In this way, Bennett hoped to make it possible to use the land indefinitely without damaging its ability to produce.

Bennett won another victory in his campaign on April 27, 1935, when Congress passed the Soil Conservation Act. That act established the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) with Bennett as the Chief. Bennett's demonstration projects had been successful, but it was the Dust Bowl that convinced Congress of the need for the SCS. Eastward winds blew soil from the prairie states of Kansas and Colorado' all the way to the Atlantic Coast in the early 1930s, and awakened the American public to the effects of drought and wind erosion on the people of the Great Plains.

As the need arose to spread soil conservation outside the demonstration project Walter Lowdermilk's Journey: Forester to Land Conservationist

Reprinted from Environmental Review 8, no. 2 (Summer 1984).

This paper was given at "History of Sustained-Yield Forestry: A Symposium," at the Western Forestry Center in Portland, Oregon, on October 18-19, 1983, coordinated by the Forest History Society for the International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO) Forest Group (S6.07). The proceedings, edited by Harold K. Steen under the same title, were published by the Forest History Society, 109 Coral Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 in 1984. by Douglas Helms, National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

Walter Clay Lowdermilk often described his population density, had allowed scientists of profession as reading "the records which his era to view solutions to resource farmers, nations, and civilizations have problems as a set of discrete alternatives--a written in the land." Few others have view which further entrenched their fealty belonged to this profession. Certainly few to their chosen disciplines. had the inclination, ability, and opportunity to indulge in it as did Lowdermilk. The Walter Lowdermilk was born on July 1, profession required expertise in many fields 1888, in North Carolina, but spent his of study, but as practiced by Lowdermilk it childhood at numerous points westward was not a purely academic exercise. Rather during the family's extended migration to he sought an ambitious objective--a perma- Arizona. As a college student at the Uni- nent agriculture for the world. Through an versity of Arizona, he realized his dream of understanding of human activities in the earning a Rhodes scholarship. The curricu- past and the earth's response, he hoped to lum at Oxford permitted him time to study "find the basis for a lasting adjustment of forestry in Germany. Herbert Hoover's human populations to the Earth." 1 Commission for Relief in Belgium called Lowdermilk and other young Americans in Lowdermilk became a member of the early Europe to interrupt their studies. After the twentieth century conservation movement in scholarship years, he served as a ranger in the United States, q movement with a the Southwest for the Forest Service. strong scientific bent. The scientists held Returning from World War I, he became that treatment of natural resources should the Forest Servi e's regional research be in accordance with scientific principles, officer in Montana. S not propelled by emotionalism or untested theories. Lowdermilk's inquisitiveness, A man who enjoyed research work, he had intellect, and foreign travel took him on an found a position that offered satisfaction. unusual professional journey. Veering from Given his ability, there was opportunity for forestry, he circled the field of land con- advancement. But he was not to remain on servation- -a field encompassing several that career ladder. Soon he would be in sciences and disciplines. In foreign travels China, where, he later recalled, the "full Lowdermilk found situations where people's and fateful significance of soil erosion was relationship with the land had reached a burned into my consciou~ness."~ precarious balance, or an imbalance resulting in famines. Coping with these sit- Through the years in England and after- uations required an integration of ward, the young forester had corresponded knowledge from science, technology, and with Miss Inez Marks, a friend from Ari- engineering. Other scientists in the move- zona. On leave from her missionary work ment had not embraced a multidisciplinary with the Methodist Church in China, she approach. The abundance of natural agreed to meet him at the Rose Bowl, New resources in the United States, and the low Year's Day, 1922. Marriage plans quickly followed. Her entreaties that China desper- Surrounding hills were little used for ately needed talented scientists led to his timber. applying for a position with the University of Nanking's school of agriculture and The pair visited Sianfu, the capital city of forestry. The couple married in August and China during its Golden Age, where Todd departed for China in September 1922. wanted to inspect the irrigation works. The Lowdermilk's charge, for a small salary, area retained little of its former prosperity, was to assist in solving the flooding prob- which Lowdermilk conjectured had flowed lems and resulting famines. Exactly how a from a great irrigation project which was forester was to help with food production now "silted up and out of use." The forester remained a mystery as he attended univer- returned to his post at the University of sity classy to learn Mandarin during the Nanking with an impression of ''colossal first year. erosion'' contrasted with "evidences of former grandeur." Already he had decided to An expedition to the Yellow River solved expand his study of the sciences involved the mystery. There he stood atop a section with natural resources to include the actions of the 400-mile-long dike that held the of people as well. The trip had provided river 40 to 50 feet above the flood plain. "abundant material for an entr cing study This marvel was a result of Chinese labor of man's relationship to nature.""If necessitated by silting of the river's channel--aggradation in the terms of earth Historical research revealed that the Yellow scientists. River had changed course eight times since A.D. 11. Several times the river had been Lowderm'lk set out to find the source of restrained by dikes only to break free. Once the silt! In spring 1924, O.J. Todd, it emerged four hundred miles from its engineer of the International Famine Relief former outlet. Dikes, therefore, were Commission, accompanied Lowdermilk on a essential to using the plain for agriculture. two-thousand-mile trip on. the watersheds But building higher dikes, Lowdermilk of the Yellow and Wei rivers. Todd's mis- concluded, was not a lasting solution unless sion was to study the Wei-Peh irrigation the aggradation of the river ras reduced by project. Few foreigners had visited the area checking the supply of silt. Lowdermilk's of northwest China where the pair com- supposition that erosion caused frequent pleted a third of the journey afoot or on and severe flooding had been recognized in mulecart or muleback. In Shensi province, the United States, but only on the small they found a plateau consisting of deep, water courses, not on the lower reaches of undulated deposits of loessial soils. Depth, major rivers. The China experience- - fertility, and erodibility made these fine, siltation of a major river channel as a cause wind-deposited soils prime locations for of flooding and channel relocation- -was on man-induced erosion. In the deforesting a scale unknown in the United States. activities of the people Lowdermilk found the reason for the gigantic six-hundred- Lowdermilk's recommendation for flood foot-deep gullies, "So great is the demand control gave some indication of the breadth for fuel and wood that the mountainsides of his training in sciences, especially are annually shaved clean of 11 herbaceous geology, and his ability to assimilate the shrub and tree growth!' Paradoxes findings into a solution. The Yellow River abounded on the trip. Temple forests, and her tributaries had excavated a deep reproduced naturally and protected by Bud- channel into the plateau created' by the dhist priests, provided evidence of the de- wind - deposited soils. Recognizing that nuded hills' capability for sustaining vege- removal of vegetation allowed runoff to tation. Bench terraces festooned some carve gullies in the loessial plain and that slopes. Yet some of the best agricultural gully wash accounted for most of the silt, land on the level, alluvial plains was used he proposed attacking erosion by planting for timber production under irrigation. trees on the talus slopes at the'foot of the gullies. The forested gullies would be guarded and managed by villages as com- The communist uprising of March 24, 1927, munity forests to provide wood. Undis- in Nanking ended the Lowdermilks' stay in sected portions of the loessial plateau could China. Leaving behind all possessions, they be used for agriculture. Where and when barely escaped. At the University of Cali- possible, check dams should be used to fornia, he combined study for a Ph.D. from raise the base level of streams and prevent the School of Forestry (minors in soil incision by the gullies farther into the science and geology) with research at the plateau.10 Treatment of the watershed was California Forest Experiment Station. Here directly tied to famine prevention. He con- he reentered the fray over the effects of cluded that soil and water conservation vegetative cover on runoff, erosion, and were urgently necessary to increfle the flooding. On one of his treks in China, productivity of this region of China. Lowdermilk had heard the proverb, "Mountains empty- -rivers gorged." He Lowdermilk was not content to base his judged the application of timber manage- recommendations .exclusively on empirical ment in that locale to be superior [$ any evidence. Certainly the scientific forestry system he had observed in Germany. The school, whence he came, demanded another Chinese and other civilizations had recog- explanation. Using the runoff and erosion nized the value of forest cover and acted plot study method devised by F.L. Duley upon their observations. Scientists in the and M.F. Miller at the University of conservation movement demanded more Missouri, he and his Chinese associates set than proverbs for proof, and the influence up plots on twenty temple forests and on of forest cover on soil erosion and stream- denuded areas for comparison. After three flow had been warmly debated by hydrolo- years of study, he presented the findings. gists, engineers, and foresters. Runoff from denuded areas greatly exceeded that of temple forests or ,areas In the United States, the advocates of reclaimed through reforestation. The main scientific forestry on public lands, who reason for the excess runoff, he believed, emphasized a sustained supply of forest was that particles of soil on the denuded products as the major benefit of public areas clogged the pores of the il surface. ownership, received support from irrigation Forest litter arrested this action. SS farmers who needed an assured supply of water--water that was free of ditch-clog- Further study convinced Lowdermilk that ging silt. In their support of watershed forty to sixty percent of the uplands in protection they relied on observation, and northern China had little cover to retain were undeterred by the absence of scien- runoff. So great had been the rapid runoff tific proof. Lines of inquiry into watershed that it had reduced evaporation and brought treatment resulted not only from the on a period of decreased precipitation in inquisitiveness of the scientist's mind but the area. With this argument, Lowdermilk also from these public policy questions. projected a hypothesis that he would later Legislation for forest reserves, upstream apply to other lands. Scholars had long been reservoirs for flood control, and compre- presented with anomalies of twentieth cen- hensive water development programs tury poverty contrasted with evidences of touched off research by the government former civilizations which possessed a high agencies affected. The research results degree of culture and prosperity. Some could se@usly alter their project plans and scholars, notably Ellsworth Huntington and budgets. Baron Von Richthofen, found the answer in climatic change. In the case of north China, Lowdermilk believed that builders of large Lowdermilk not only saw soil erosion and engineering works downstream should pro- flooding as the reason for decline, but also vide for soil erosion control in the catch- claimed their e ects as the reason for a ment areas, as a portion of the project's climatic change. f 4 benefits was attributable to watershed management. The value of watershed management, however, had not been satisfactorily measured and described. A could view any rosion as the "geologic review of the literature convinced Lowder- norm of erosion. ,'1 Q milk that most watershed studies which tried to measure the influence of one factor Back in California, Lowdermilk set about on runflow were flawed. In an open setting measuring the other factors in runoff and there were too many variables which were erosion that would provide a "basis for observed, not measured. He must create a enlighte ed management of watershed laboratory type experiment which would areas!''' Experiments focused on elements isolate the factors, lpeasure them, and of the hydrologic cycle: precipitation, tem- explain the processes. perature, evaporation, runoff, infiltration, percolation, and transpiration. The Agri- In his study of the influence of forest litter cultural Appropriations Act of 1929 pro- on runoff and erosion, he used rainmaking vided funds to U.S. Department of Agri- machines, soil profiles transferred to tanks, culture agencies for erosion and runoff and measuring instruments of his design. In experiments. The research program made it 1929, he presented the confirmation for possible to establish experiments on a large, what he and others had observed. On bared isolated watershed. The San Dimas water- soil the raindrops splashed up muddy. As shed of southern California provided an muddy water percolated into the soil pro- excellent opportunity to test the effects of files, "fine suspended par les were filtered watershed management on water yield. out at the soil surface!" The thin layer Expanding towns and citrus orchardists at thus formed reduced percolation and the foot of the watershed had to dig increased runoff. The water-absorbing increasingly deeper wells to reach under- capacity of forest litter had little influence ground aquifers. Whether the vegetative on runoff. However, by keeping the water mantle should be burned to reduce transpi- clean, the litter maintained the soil profile ration or protected from fire for maximum open to percolation. The experiments con- ground water supplies was a matter of confirmed a hypothesis that Lowdermilk had troversy. To demonstrate and measure the first presented at the Third Pan-Pacific relationship of percolation to aquifer levels Science Congress in 1926 at Tokyo. Lowdermilk had Civilian Conservation Corps enrollees build water spreading Lowdermilk did not elaborate on the structures which led to a gravelly basin implications of his research. Perhaps this where the silt settle out and water perco- omission was in keeping with the accepted lated to the aquifers.40 method of presenting the results, but the value to soil conservation was obvious. If Though Lowdermilk had devised the forest litter served not as an absorber of research plan for San Dimas and supervised water, but as a buffer between the rain- the early work, he was not destined to see drop and the ground, then any vegetative it to completion. Events and foreign travel land cover could be valuable for soil ero- again intervened to set Lowdermilk back on sion control. Pastures, hay crops, any close the path to land conservationist. When the growing crop, or crop residues could serve Soil Erosion Service was established in as barriers to the erosion process. 1933, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Rexford Tugwell, who had toured the Cal- As Lowdermilk pioneered in the field of ifornia experiments, insisted that Lowder- reading records written in the land and milk serve as Ass'stant Chief to Hugh applied scientific explanations, he needed Harnmond Bennett!' Their personalities new terminology. At the Stockholm meeting differed greatly, but on the matter of con- he seized the occasion to introduce two serving farmland there were points of terms for the conservationist's lexicon. agreement. Bennett, like Lowdermilk, "Accelerated erosion" arose from the emphasized that conservation was not "artificial disturbance of factors which exclusively a matter of maintaining fertility controlled the development of soil profiles." on hillside soils. Lowdermilk had seen the In the absence of such disturbances, one effects on the Yellow River flood plain. Bennett, as an inspector of soil surveys in related to debates among scientists and the South, had seen the same effects on a government agencies. The bedload studies smaller scale in flood plains of the South involved the degree of sediment sorting by where sand, and eventually gravel, piled up stream action and the amounts deposited in on flood plains. Looking at the situation in stream channels. In a practical way, the strictly agricultural terms, the use of ero- studies countered the accepted method of sion-inducing farming practices on some of measuring erosion from a watershed by the least valuable lands was preempting t simply measuring the 'It emerging at the most valuable from food production. Is watershed's lower end. 2!! Thus, they held the belief that conservation should be applied not just to the individual In 1938 chance again intervened in Low- farm, but to an entire watershed. dermilk's life. As usual, he seized the opportunity. Representative Clarence Can- Both men also viewed the coordinated use non suggested that a survey of the Old of vegetal and engineering measures on the World could be useful in the United States' individual farm as necessary for soil con- efforts toward a permanent agriculture. The servation. Lowdermilk, the forester, trip, August 1938 to November 1939, realized that erosion control in a country involved more than twenty - five thousand such as China with famine problems could miles of automobile travel in Europe, the not be achieved strictly by vegetal control. Mediterranean area, and the Middle East. Bennett had obtained his conservation Here he perfected his art of reading the experience in the South, where the broad- land for evidence of past use and misuse. based channel terrace had been invented to Before undertaking surveys in each country, contend with erosion problems. He saw the Lowdermilk consulted agriculturalists, limitations of engineering measures as well scientists, and officials. Geologists and as their values. In Central America, he had archaeologists were especially interested, seen coffee interplanted with bananas, and valuable to Lowdermilk in explaining plantains, and other fruit-bearing trees on the cultural and physical factors involved in steep land, where they noneth ess provided land use. In addition to searching for soil excellent erosion control. " As an conservation and flood prevention measures institutional goal, the young Service would that might be imported to the United attempt to assimilate and coordinate many States, Lowdermilk was engaged in what he disciplines into its conservation program. called "agricultural archaeology." Ruins of Individually, the Service's field men some pre-industrial civilizations indicated a working on farms should be what prosperous agriculture, although these areas Lowdermilk called "land doctors." geneal now had serious resource problems. What practitioners of the conservation sciences. events brought about such conditions? What were ?&e lessons for contemporary civiliza- In addition to working with farmers on tions? watershed - based demonstration projects in critical erosion areas, the Service had a Lowdermilkts land-read records of past considerable research program which civilizations appeared in numerous articles. Lowdermilk directed. The experiment Indeed, there were "Lessons From the Old stations established under the 1929 Agri - World to the Americas in Land Use," as cultural Appropriations Act were already Lowdermilk titled an article in the annual engaged in research on terracing, crop report of the Smithsonian Institution. He rotations, stripcropping, tillage methods, gladly noted the cases of wise land use and their value to soil conservation. through centuries, but was usu#y obliged Lowdermilk added runoff and erosion to find a story of deterioration. The Soil studies that included the collection of Conservation Service published a summary, hydrologic, climatic, physiographic, erosion Conquest of the Land Through 7,000 Years, history, and sedimentation data. While these in 1953 and followed it with several fifty-year long watershed studies were to reprintings until more than one million be comprehensive, particular aspects were copies were distributed. Readers who know Lowdermilk only through this publication prominence lay in the assured food supply: have perhaps a truncated view--that of the ''Thereupon Kuanchung became fertile ter- globe-trotting chronicler of calamities ritory without bad years; whereupon Ch'in awaiting civilizations that abuse their became rich and powerful and finally con- resources. He realized that a civilization's quered the feudal princes." The Chinese decline could not be interpreted solely on remade the irrigation system eleven times the basis of soil erosion. However, in during twenty centuries in their never- writing the pamphlet, he embarked on a ceasing battle with silt. Piles of excavated didactic mission aimed at all Americans, silt thirty-five feet high lay on the canal not just farmers. Soil fertility was a matter banks in the fourteenth century. Usually of concern for the farmer. Maintaining the they preferred digging new canals to clear- medium for fertility--the physical body of ing out sediment. During the eighteenth soil resources- -concerned the nation. With- century, while the Chinese labored cease- out i$,8 "liberty of choice and action" was lessly at keeping the canals open, the irri- gone. gated acreage was only one-tenth its original size. American engineers, under the World War I1 terminated the trip in Europe direction of Lowdermilk's old traveling but it opened a new opportunity, a return companion O.J. Todd, used modern equip- to China. At the behest of the Chinese ment and reinforced concrete to rebuild the government, Lowdermilk undertook the project. Even with modern equipment the dangerous journey to advise the Chinese problems remained, because water entering about increasing their food supply. During canals following heavy rains in 1931-32 the intervening years in the United States, measured 46 percent silt by weight. The he had continued to study the agricultural irrigation farmer in China, like his coun- archaeology of China. While in China he terpart in the Western United States, had to bought gazetteers, local histories, which look to waters d protection as a source of Dean R. Wickes, a Chinese language spe- silt-free water.9% cialist, then researched for evidences of erosion problems. This research showed that Controlling erosion on the upper reaches of in northern China, an area with a small watersheds became a passion for Lowder- percentage of level land, the population had milk's generation of conservationists. They increased threefold since the mid-eigh- favored land cover for increased absorption teenth century. This rapid population and engineering works for the controlled increase sent people to the hills for fire- disposal of water without erosion. The wood and arable land, without any orderly upstream reservoir on the small watersheds installation of engineering measures for soil was an integral part of the river develop- conservation. Unlike areas of central and ment--an assertion that was often con- southern China, they had no elaborate tested. Proponents of the control and use of bench terraces to protect farmland. The headwaters had stated their case in the gazetteers provided accounts of clearing the publications Littl Waters and Headwaters: slopes, removing farmland from the tax Control and Use.'' In the later 1940s they rolls as wasteland, and abandoning homes had another opportunity when Morris along streams due to frequent flooding. Cooke, a force behind Little Waters, became chairman of the President's Water The forester turned historian found an Resources Policy Commission. Lowdermilk impressive case for the effects of erosion assumed chairmanship of the Committee on on agricultural productivity in the Wei-Peh Standards for Basic Data. The Cooke and irrigation system along the Wei River. Lowdermilk views held sway in the com- Begun at least as early as 246 B.C., the mittee report that emphasized a compre- system had irrigated 400,000 acres. hensive, interdisciplinary approach. The According to Lowdermilk's research, the interdependence of land and water called area became prosperous and dominated the for watershed management which had been surrounding territories. A Chinese neglected due to "our natural endowment chronicler believed the reason for and relatively low population density!' Furthermore, the small watershed, the unit States, he wrote Palestine: Land of Promise, of watershed management preferred by the which proclaimed that the land could once authors, was a cultural unit. The watershed again support a large population. After unit had to be small enough so that resi- retirement from the Soil Conservation Ser- dents understood its influence on their vice he worked with the Israelis to imple- lives. Then they would devote the time and ment some of the measures outlined in the money needed to bring it to fruition as a book. Many Israelis favored technical assis- community watershed. Lowdermilk's expe- tance for agricultural development over rience in semi-arid climates came through direct food assistance. That sentiment in the committee's attitude toward flood was concisely conveyed when Minister of control. Where feasible, reservoirs should Development Mordecai Bentov coined the not be used solely to control floods but saying, "We don't gged powdered milk; we also to store storm waters for later use. 3 1 need Lowdermilk." While there, Lowder- milk helped establish at Haifa a school to The attitude toward reservoirs and train conservationists, a school which later engineering works illustrated, as did other bore his name. The Lowdermilk School of beliefs, the length of Lowdermilk's profes- Agricultural Engineering emphasized the sional journey from forestry. He had come basic sciences as preparatory to agricultural to believe that the earth had to be prepared studies. Students took two years of mathe- to accept the benefits of rain. In his system matics, chemistry, physics, geology, and of "physiographic engineering," reservoirs biology before moving on to the agricul- could be designed to perform functions tural sciences. A job-related project in the other than storing water and controlling fifth year was necessary to earn the floods. For example, reservoirs could create degree. 4 intermediate base levels of stream cutting which reduced head cutting of tributaries. The fifth year requirement of field expe- Downstream, the clear water flowing from rience reflected the Lowdermilk experience. a reservoir could excavate alluvial fill in a He believed that field work was a necessary channel 33nd reduce the frequency of component of research. In the Soil Conser- flooding. vation Service, field personnel were to be encouraged to suggest alternative ways of As a man of many sciences, Lowdermilk accomplishing conservation objectives. Field also became a man of many reputations. work, especially in an area such as China, Most Americans knew him from his call to where farming had been practiced for cen- heed the lessons of the Old World in con- turies, could uncover useful information. serving soil resources. Archaeologists and There was always the possibility that "some historians searched the physical and docu- unheralded genius may have already found mentary remains of civilizations for refuta- the solution to our problem, a solution in tion or confirmation of his land reading whole or in art if we know what we are expertise. In the international scientific looking for!" After all, it was in the field, community his reputation rested on the on the Yellow River, that Lowdermilk's hydrologic studies. The Chinese and Israelis career as a land conservationist began. recalled his humanitarian activities to increase food production. Endnotes Lowdermilk's experience in Israel illustrated that facility in physical sciences which Lowdermilk, Walter C., "Down to Earth," allowed him to interpret past land use pat- in Transactions American Geophysical terns also made him a master at proposing Union (Washington, D.C.: National Research measures for increased food production. Council, 19441, p. 195. , During the trip to the Middle East in 1938- 1939, Lowdermilk became inspired by the For a discussion of conservation as a efforts of urban-born European Jews to scientific movement see Hays, Samuel P., reclaim land. Upon returning to the United Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency (1959; reprint New York: Atheneum, 19791, Off and Soil Erosion," Agricultural p. 2. Engineering 12 (April 1931): 108.

Brink, Wellington, 'Walter C, Lowder- l7 Lowdermilk, "Further Studies of Factors milk," Holland's 61 (December 1942): 8. Affecting Surficial Run-Off and Erosion," in Proceedings of the International Congress Lowdermilk, Walter C., Conquest of the of Forestry Experiment . Stations, 1929 Land Through 7,000 Years, Agriculture (Stockholm, 1929). p. 625. Information Bulletin No. 99 (1953; reprint Washington, D.C.: Government Printing l8 Ibid. Office, 1973, p. 13. l9 Lowdermilk, Walter C., "The Role of Walter Clay Lowdermilk Interview, p. 61, Vegetation in Erosion Control and Water Bancroft Library, University of California, Conservation," Journal of Forestry 32 (May Berkeley. 1934): 531.

Lowdermilk, Walter C., "A Forester's 20 Lowdermilk Interview, pp. 121- 129. Search for Forests in China," American Forests and Forest Life 31 (July 1925): 427. 21 Ibid., pp. 133-134.

Lowdermilk, Conquest of the Land, p. 14. 22 Bennett, Hugh Hammond. The Soils and Agriculture of the Southern States (New Lowdermilk, "A Forester's Search," p. 4- York: Macmillan Company, 1921). p. 283. 46. 23 Bennett, Hugh H., "Agriculture in Cen- Lowdermilk, Walter C., "Erosion and tral America," Journal of the American Floods in the Yellow River Watershed," Society of Agronomy 17 (June 1923): 318- Journal of Forestry 22 (October 1924): 15. 326. lo Ibid., pp. 11-18. 24 Lowdermilk Interview, p. 160.

Lowdermilk, Walter C., "Factors Influ- 25 Ibid., p. 202. encing the Surface Run-off of Rain Water," in Proceedings Third Pan Pacific Science 26 Lowdermilk, Walter C.. 'Terracing Land Congress (Tokyo, 19261, p. 2147. Use Across Ancient Boundaries," mimeographed (Washington, D.C.: Soil l2 Ibid., pp. 2122-2147. Conservation Service, 1 940), pp. 1- 133.

l3 Lowdermilk, Walter C., 'The Changing 27 Lowdermilk, "Lessons From the Old Evaporation-Precipitation Cycle of North World to the Americas in Land Use," China," Engineering Society of China 25 Annual Report of the Board of Regents of (1925-1926): 97-147. the Smithsonian Institution, 1943 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing l4 Lowdermilk, "Forestry in Denuded Office, 1944), pp. 413-427. China," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 152 28 Lowdermilk, Conquest of the Land, p. (November 1930): 130. 30.

For a discussion of some of the debates 29 Lowdermilk. "Forestry in Denuded see Hays, Conservation and the Gospel of China," pp. 127-141; Lowdermilk, Walter C. Efficiency. and Wickes, Dean R., "Ancient Irrigation Brought Up to Date," Scientific Monthly, l6 Lowdermilk, Walter C., "Studies of the 55 (September 1942): 209-225; "China and Role of Forest Vegetation in Surficial Run- America Against Soil Erosion," Scientific Monthly, 56 Part I (May 1943): 393-413; typescript, p. 37, Soil Conservation Service Part I1 (June 1943): 505-520: History of Soil History Office, Washington, D.C. Use in the Wu T'ai Shan Area (North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1938), pp. 1-31.

30 Person, H.S., Little Waters A Study of Headwater Streams & Other Waters, Their Use and Relations to the Land (Washington, D.C.: Soil Conservation Service, Resettle- ment Administration, Rural Electrification Administration, 1936), pp. 1-82; Head waters: Control and Use, Papers Pre - sen ted at the Upstream Engineering Con - ference Held in Washington, D.C. Septem - ber 22 and 23, 1936 (Washington, D.C.: Soil Conservation Service, Forest Service, Rural Electrification Administration, 1937), pp. 1-261.

31 A Water Policy for the American People: The Report of the President's Water Resources Commission (Washington, DL.: Government Printing Office, 1950). pp. 123-125.

32 Lowdermilk, Walter C., "Physiographic Engineering: Land - Erosion Controls," in ~ransactionsAmerican Geophysical Union (Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, 1941), pp. 316-320.

33 Conversation with Abraham Avidor, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, December 2, 1983. Richard D. Siegel, Deputy Assistant Secre- tary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, brought this saying to my attention and Mr. Avidor, who grew up on a kibbutz and who knew Mr. Bentov supplied the details. Bentov was seeking to promote the development of agriculture and viewed the direct food assistance as an inhibiting factor. Avidor reports that the saying was quite prevalent in Israel in the 1950s.

34 Lowdermilk Interview. pp. 61 0-61 1.

35 Lowdermilk, Walter C., "Preliminary Report to the Executive Yuan, Government of China, on Findings of a Survey of a Portion of the Northwest for a Program of Soil, Water and Forest Conservation, 1943," The Civilian Conservation Corps: Demonstrating the Value of Soil Conservation

A public works program of the depression-ridden 1930s became a godsend to Hugh Bennett in his attempt to show how land might be farmed within its capabilities.

Reprinted from Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 40, no. 2 (March-April 1985): 184-

by Douglas Helms, National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

Most conservationists are familiar with the future course of soil conservation. Major contributions the Civilian Conservation Robert Y. Stuart, chief of the Forest Ser- Corps (CCC) made to forestry and recre- vice, asked that state and private land be ational projects for the established conser- made eligible as work areas. Otherwise, . vation agencies of the 1930s, the Forest men from the East would have to be trans- Service and National Park Service. But ported west of the Rocky Mountains, where other agencies or their predecessors, such as 95 percent of the public domain lay (8). the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Stuart's argument was persuasive in part. Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, The Act for the Relief of Unemployment and Soil Conservation Service (SCS), also allowed soil erosion control work on state made use of CCC labor. For example, CCC and federal land, but restricted work on work enabled SCS to demonstrate the value private land to activities already authorized of conservation activities. The federal role under U.S. laws, such as controlling fire, in soil and water conservation, therefore, disease, and pests in forests and "such work did not end after the Great Depression and as is necessary in the public interest to the termination of emergency employment control floods." The future of CCC work in programs. soil conservation on private land henceforth depended on interpreting provisions of the Today, the CCC is the beneficiary of a act. positive public reputation that has obscured the history of problems that any large On the day Roosevelt signed the bill, Sec- organization of individuals almost retary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace necessarily has. But that is not our story for wired each governor to send a representa- now; it is the CCC's contribution to the tive to Washington to discuss cooperation on cause of conservation. forestry work. He also mentioned the flood control work and surmised that it "probably Putting voung men to work [included] control of soil erosion." In 1932, one-fourth of America's men between the ages of 15 and 24 could not But soil conservation work was to be find work. Another 29 percent worked only severely .circumscribed. In April a U.S. part-time (8). Incoming president Franklin Department of Agriculture (USDA) repre- D. Roosevelt proposed on March 21, 1933, sentative met with Roosevelt, who wanted that Congress create "a civilian conservation CCC work on erosion and flood control corps to be used in simple work, not inter- directed to solving flooding problems over fering with normal employment, and con- broad areas rather than benefiting an fining itself to forestry, the prevention of individual parcel of land. CCC Director soil erosion, flood control and similar pro- Robert Fechner reiterated the president's jects." reservations about work on private land to the governors in May. Congressional deliberations resulted in several alterations to Roosevelt's proposal, one Concern about the public's objections to of which held great significance for the expenditures of federal funds on private lands caused some of Roosevelt's reserva- allowed farmers to continue farming with- tions. He continued to warn Fechner about out reducing income. Land that was too the criticism that too much work on private steep and erodible would have to be con- land would bring (3, 4). Also, Roosevelt, verted to pastureland or woodland to pro- like many of his contemporaries, too often vide groundcover throughout the year. On thought soil conservation required land use cultivated land a mixture of interdependent changes from cropland to woodland and and mutually supportive structural and was unfamiliar with the many conservation vegetative practices needed to be tailored to practices that could be installed on cropland the needs of each farm and farmer. Ben- with CCC labor. But he also had to heed nett's years of observation had taught him the calls for a full share of CCC camps in to be wary of single-method approaches those states where the acreage of public that could create new problems while miti- land was small. Thus, Roosevelt asked gating existing ones. Fechner and Wallace to grant requests from midwestern states for soil erosion control Bennett's approach did not require drastic camps. changes in the crops that farmers grew. But his ideas about farming land according to Within USDA, the Forest Service adminis- its capabilities did entail rearrangement of tered the erosion camps similarly to its state fields to follow contour lines, changes in and private forestry work. Under signed planting methods, and use of cover crops. It agreements with states, personnel from state would have been difficult enough to sell agencies and land grant colleges actually the new conservation farming system with- operated the camps. CCC efforts followed out asking farmers, during the depth of the soil erosion control guidelines established Depression, to borrow money for seed, fer- by USDA that limited work to "controlling tilizer, equipment, and labor to install ter- gullies by means of soil-saving dams, forest races, waterways, and fences and to planting and vegetation." Gradually the improve pastures. Furthermore, Bennett concept was extended to include construc- wanted to demonstrate the values of con- tion of terrace outlets. servation on an area larger than the individual farm- -demonstration projects of The first soil erosion control camp under watershed size where the concentration of Forest Service and state control opened in CCC labor would be ideal. Clayton County, Alabama, on June 18, 1933. By September 1934, there were 161 SES encountered difficulty acquiring camps, such camps. however, especially because soil conservation, in the eyes of the CCC administrators, There the matter of the so-called soil ero- was being attended to in USDA. Nonethe- sion camps rested until August 25, 1933. less, CCC allotted 22 camps, less than half Then Secretary of Labor Harold Ickes, also the number requested, to SES in April acting in his dual role as administrator of 1934. the public works, allotted $5 million for soil conservation work under the National Linking the two pieces of legislation--the Industrial Recovery Act of June 16, 1933. CCC act and employment act under which On September 19, 1933, a USDA soil scien- SES operated--permitted Bennett to imple- tist, Hugh Hammond Bennett, the country's ment his coordinated, comprehensive plans acknowledged expert on soil conservation. for conservation farming. Money from the moved to the Department of the Interior as public works appropriation bought the sup- head of the newly formed Soil Erosion Ser- plies, while CCC supplied the labor. The vice (SES). The soil erosion camp guidelines solicitor of the U.S. Department of the then in effect hardly fit -the SES director's Interior ruled that the public works money notions of soil~conservation. could be used for work on private land, as proposed by Bennett. The restrictions on To Bennett's thinking, erosion had to be CCC work in soil conservation largely were reduced through a coordinated effort that reinterpreted. trees while providing little feed for cows. Coon Valley leads the way Most of the cooperative agreements In May 1934, Fred Morrell, in charge of provided that the woodlands would not be CCC work for the Forest Service, visited grazed if CCC crews fenced them off and Coon Valley, Wisconsin, which was destined planted seedlings where needed. to become one of the most successful demonstration projects. There he found Ray SES also tried to control gullying, especially Davis, director of the project, ready to use when gullies hindered farming operations. the "camps to further any and all parts of their program ...to demonstrate proper farm Streambank erosion presented another management to control sheet erosion." What problem. While the conservation measures Bennett and Davis had in mind for Coon on cropland would ultimately reduce sedi- Valley and other areas went far beyond ment flowing into Coon Creek, streambank simply plugging gullies, planting trees, and erosion was still a problem. The young building terrace outlets. CCC'ers built wing dams, laid willow matting, and planted willows. The Coon Valley project, characterized by the narrow, steep valleys of southwestern In the area of wildlife enhancement, Wisconsin's Driftless area, illustrated how workers established some feeding stations to Bennett and the CCC broadened the scope carry birds through winter. But generally of soil conservation activities. Through the the schemes to increase wildlife populations winter of 1933- 1934, erosion specialists on were of a more enduring nature. Gullies Davis' staff contacted farmers to arrange and out-of- the-way places that could not five-year cooperative agreements. Many of be farmed conveniently served as prime the agreements obligated SES to supply wildlife planting areas. Some farmers CCC labor as well as fertilizer, lime, and agreed to plant hedges for wildlife that also seed. Farmers agreed to follow recommen- served as permanent guides to contour dations for stripcropping, crop rotations, stripcropping. Insofar as possible, trees rearrangement of fields, and conversion of selected for reforested areas were also ones steep cropland to pasture or woodland. that provided good wildlife habitat (13). Alfalfa was a major element in the stripcropping. Farmers were interested in Between the fall of 1933 and June 1935, alfalfa, but the cost of seed, fertilizer, and 418 of the valley's 800 farmers signed lime to establish plantings had been a cooperative agreements. Aerial photo- problem during the Depression (13). graphs revealed that long after the demonstration project closed, additional farmers Another key erosion-reducing strategy was began stripcropping. From Coon Valley, increasing the soil's water-absorbing this practice spread during the 1940s, capacity by lengthening the crop rotation 1950s, and 1960s into adjacent valleys of and keeping the hay in stripcropping in the Driftless area (15). To James G. place longer. A typical three-year rotation Lindley, head of CCC operations for Ben- had been corn, small grain, then hay nett, this dissemination was the "sincerest (timothy and red clover). Conservationists form of flattery." advised farmers to follow a four- to six- year rotation of corn, small grain, and hay The discrepancy between this program and (alfalfa mixed with clover or timothy) for the more restricted one operating through two to four years. the states did not go unnoticed. Director Fechner certainly preferred uniformity. The Grazing of woodlands had contributed to Forest Service had no great enthusiasm for increased cropland erosion. Trampling soil keeping the soil erosion camps, but to turn and stripping groundcover reduced the them over to SES would cause problems forest's capacity to hold rainfall and with the states. Nor was the Forest Service increased erosion on fields downslope. inclined to broaden its program to resemble Moreover, grazing slowed the growth of Bennett's SES program. After visiting Coon Valley, the CCC representative for the The expanded camp program brought CCC Forest Service, Fred Morrell, believed that crews to new farming areas with a variety SES was contravening the President's of conservation problems. Nonetheless, a instructions because the "Act [CCC] is majority of camps were located in the apparently a forestry Act." prairie states and eastward, especially the areas of row crop farming in hilly areas SCS assumes a greater role under humid conditions. The Reconnais- If Roosevelt knew, and he probably did sance Erosion Survey of 1934 provided not, that soil erosion had been interpreted additional guidance on where demonstra- so broadly, he certainly did not reprimand tions were most needed. The map of CCC anyone. The President appreciated an inno- camps under the expanded program often vative mind, initiative, and a facility for coincided with maps of the areas of severe bending the rules. Bennett received a com- erosion. pliment rather than a scolding. Years afterward, he told and retold the story of being In addition to the type of work performed summoned to the White House. Roosevelt at Coon Valley in a dairying and general explained how he, without detailed knowl- farming area, CCC crews also worked with edge of the program, knew Bennett and his orchardists in the Northeast. There, CCC colleagues were doing a good job because labor was used as an inducement to get established agricultural organizations farmers to lay out orchards on the contour, wanted to absorb the new and as yet tem- build terraces and provide outlets for porary agency. According to Roosevelt's established orchards and, most importantly, political instincts, the desire for conqu st plant cover crops (9). was a measure of the quality of the prey. f An agent of chanye But Roosevelt did act to unify the programs Generally, the CCC camps and demonstra- by moving SES to USDA in March 1935. tion projects served as agents for agricul- Bennett and his group's impressive showing tural change. An SCS engineer reported were no small part in the President's from Columbus, Nebraska, that "the ter- decision to support and sign the Soil Con- racing prompted by the camp is the first servation Act in April 1935. Later that that has been done in this county." Southern month the newly renamed Soil Conservation farmers had terraced land for a long time, Service took over more than 150 CCC but feared grassed outlets and waterways as camps previously under the general super- sources of weeds. Thus, camp SCS-2, a vision of the Forest Service. black CCC camp at Collierville, Tennessee, received compliments for convincing ten- As the Depression continued, SCS assumed ants to accept Bermudagrass outlets and a greater role in supervising youth work pastures. The project was judged to be the through CCC. For example, in fiscal year best example of such work in the state. Not 1937 an average of 70,000 enrollees occu- one farmer in the Duck Creek Demonstra- pied about 440 camps. Ninety percent of tion Project at Lindale, Texas, used the camps worked not on the watershed- Bermudagrass for soil conservation when based demonstration projects but in a work the project began, but there were 2,138 area whose radius encompassed about acres of Bermudagrass a few years later 25,000 acres. As local communities began (14). During an era when fertilizer was used organizing soil conservation districts and sparingly, if at all, on pastures, the labor signing cooperative agreements with USDA and supplies available through the CCC in 1937, SCS began supplying a CCC camp made possible a demonstration of the to further each district's conservation pro- importance of pasture improvemeqt. gram (11). During the life of CCC, SCS supervised the work of more than 800 of As Hugh Benentt's plan to work with the 4,500 camps. Black enrollees worked in nature involved more vegetation, especially more than 100 of those camps. on highly erodible areas, there was a great need for pIanting materials. CCC crews worked at the nurseries established in con- landowners. But CCC and SCS established junction with demonstration projects. some of their larger, coordinated projects Sometimes a CCC camp worked exclusively on federal and state lands. The Rio Grande at a larger nursery. In 1936, after taking watershed above Elephant Butte Reservoir over the Bureau of Plant Industry's erosion in New Mexico included both public and nurseries, SCS had 48 major nurseries, private lands. The reservoir, a Bureau of which produced 130 million trees and Reclamation project, had a capacity of 2.6 seedlings for the CCC work areas and million acre-feet of water when completed demonstration projects. CCC crews took to in 1917. In the fall of 1935, SCS began the pastures, range, and woods in the same deploying CCC camps to work on conser- year and collected 664,973 pounds of native vation measures to slow siltation of the grass seed and 1,647,064 pounds of conifer reservoir. By 1937 silt had reduced the and hardwood seed for nursery stock (10). reservoir capacity 20 percent.

Collecting grass seed was also part of the Enrollees from seven camps worked above conservation program in semiarid areas, the dam, while those from three camps where regeneration of rangeland for grazing below the dam concentrated on flood con- often involved CCC work in seeding and trol for the towns. Within a year the 10 fencing for grazing distribution and contour camps built 14 large impoundment dams furrowing, developing springs, and building and 49 smaller ones for stockwater and water spreaders and stock water dams for flood control, 6 miles of fence, and 900 water conservation. Enrollees at Camp SCS- miles of contour furrows. They dug 123,000 4 near Huron, South Dakota, for instance, feet of ditches to divert water from gully spent most of their time in 1938 and 1939 heads. To further control gullies, they built building stockwater ponds. During the life 30,000 check dams, seeded or sodded 19.6 of the SCS-supervised camps, enrollees million square yards on banks, and planted built 134,167 miles of contour furrows to 407,000 trees (11. improve range and reduce erosion. Some projects combined flood control for In areas of small, irrigated farms, work on towns with water retention for agricultural leaky canals, overuse of water, and control uses. Camp SCS-4-N built a 2,400-foot, of erosion on steep, irrigated slopes had to wire - bound rock diversion structure across be incorporated into the program to attract Angel Canyon to protect El Rito, New cooperation. One strength of CCC and SCS Mexico, from flooding. The water was leaders was' their ability to recognize the diverted along a 20,000-foot dike, where need for new work and add it to the con- waterspreaders carried it to cultivated land servation program and concept. and improved pasture.

Further west the mediterranean climate Camp SCS-25 at Safford, Arizona, devel- made the Pacific Coast a prime area for oped water spreaders for water infiltration vineyards and orchards. As it did for on state lands in the Gila River Valley. orchards of the Northeast, SCS promoted Camp SCS-7 at Leeds, Utah, developed contour planting and cover crops. Winter levees and dikes and built flood-control cover crops were particularly important on devices to protect irrigation systems. the Pacific Coast, where much of the rain falls during those months. On the Corralitos Native American CCC enrollees worked Creek Demonstration Project at Watsonville, under the auspices of the U.S. Department California, enrollees worked on 29 miles of of the Interior's Indian Service, which car- I terraces and grade ditches and constructed ried out the functions of feeding, clothing, 33 major outlet structures. and transporting enrollees that the U.S. Army performed for other camps. SCS A ~ublicland 'focus too developed land management plans for sev- CCC work on farms and ranches provided eral reservations, including the largest SCS the model for future SCS work with work area, the Navajo Project. Along with other laborers, the Indian CCC workers proving the validity of his ideas about the installed numerous measures from the benefits of concentrated conservation reservation's conservation plan (5, 6). treatment of an entire watershed. The large-scale approach also permitted experi- Enrollees at camp SCS-7, Warrenton, Ore- mentation. Few of the conservationists' gon, participated in a project that became techniques were new, but the process of internationally known to experts on coastal fitting them together was. The work led to sand dunes. A jetty built at the mouth of the refinement and improvement of conser- the Columbia River in the late 19th century vation measures still used today. resulted in scouring of the channel bottom. The sand drifted down the coast to be This experience, among both SCS staff and driven inland by strong winds onto the the enrollees, provided a trained, technical overgrazed sand dunes. This combination of core of workers for SCS for years to come. events caused a wide sand flat, often cov- Former enrollees joined the staff and dur- ered by water at high tide. CCC enrollees ing the early years, CCC funds provided logged and split fire-killed timber, donated for nearly half of the agency's workforce. by the county, to build a picket fence along In addition to contributing to the passage of the beach. They then planted European the Soil Conservation Act of 1935, the CCC beachgrass on the dune that formed over also was instrumental in helping the soil the picket fence. The work restored the conservation district movement off to a coastal area as a popular recreational site (2, healthy start. When the states began 7). enacting soil conservation. district laws in 1937, it came as no surprise to the SCS Cooperative agreements with state highway field force that the first districts were departments allowed CCC enrollees to work organized near CCC camp work areas. on roadside erosion problems. Before the close of the CCC camps, 841 miles of CCC's real contribution, however, lay in roadside demonstration projects were com- proving the feasibility of conservation. The pleted (12). positive'public attitude associated with CCC work, including soil conservation, helped to To be sure, not all of the ideas for conser- create an atmosphere in which soil conservation originated with SCS. Local commu- vation was regarded, at least in part, as a nities and states brought their problems to public responsibility. the attention of SCS and CCC officials. When the CCC program began, the Kansas Forestry. Fish, and Game Commission Endnote announced that it wanted to construct a series of lakes in state parks with CCC Bennett, Hugh H. "To the Rescue of Soil labor. The commission met objections that Conservation." Address to the National large structures were out of the purview of Association of Soil Conservation Districts, the CCC by agreeing to pay for materials San Diego, California, February 2, 1955. and design work. The Forest Service supervised the work until SCS became part of USDA. The construction of each dam References required the fulltime work of a CCC camp. The camps built at least seven lakes larger 1. Granger, C. W. 1937. The C.C.C. and soil than 100 acres. conservation in the South west. Soil Conser - vation 2(8): 161-164. 173. CCC valuable to SCS In retrospect; the material accomplishments 2. McLaughlin, Willard T., and Robert L. of CCC activities, while important, seem Brown. 1942. Controlling coastal sand dunes less important than the educational experi- in the Pacific Northwest. Circ. No. 660. ence for conservation. The work of the U.S. Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C. CCC crews was valuable to Bennett in 3. Nixon, Edgar B. 1957. Franklin D. Roo- sevelt and conservation, 191 1 - 1945. Franklin D. Roosevelt Lib., Nat. Archives and Records Serv., Hyde Park, N. Y.

4. Owen, A. L. Riesch. 1983. Conservation under F.D.R. Praeger, New York, N.Y.

5. Parman, Donald L. 1967. The Indian civilian conservation corps. Ph.D. diss. Univ. Okla., Norman. 6. ------.The Navajos and the new deal. Yale Univ. Press. New Haven, Conn.

7. Reckendorf. Frank, et al. 1985. Stabilization of sand dunes in Oregon. In Douglas Helms and Susan L. Flader [eds.] The History of Soil and Water Conservation: A Symposium. Agr. History Soc., Davis. Calif.

8. Salmond John A. 1967. The civilian conservation corps: A new deal case study. Duke Univ. Press, Durham, N. Car.

9. Seaman, James A. 1938. Enrollees aid northeastern orchards. Soil Conservation 3(9): 243.

10. Soil Conservation Service. 1936. Annual report. U.S.D.A., Washington, D.C. 11. ------. 1937. Annual report. U.S.D.A., Washington, D.C.

12. ------. 1941. Annual report. U.S.D.A., Washington, D.C.

13. ------. Project monograph: Coon Creek Project, No. Wis-I, Coon Valley, Wisconsin. Washington, D.C.

14. ------. Project monograph, Tex -2, Lindale, Texas. Nat. Agr. Libr., Beltsville, Md.

15. Trimble, Stanley W., and Steven W. Lund. 1982. Soil conservation and sedimentation in the Coon Creek basin, Wisconsin. Prof. Paper 1234. U.S. Geol. Surv., Reston, Va. Coon Valley, Wisconsin: A Conservation Success Story

Prepared for a talk at the 50th Anniversary of the Coon Valley Demonstration Project, Coon Valley, Wisconsin, August 13, 1983. by Douglas Helms National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

The town of Coon Valley hosted a celebra- To head the watershed- based demonstration tion yesterday to mark the 50th year of one projects, Bennett would appoint acquain- of America's conservation success stories. tances who were also working on soil ero- Coon Valley is located in the Coon Creek sion problems. At La Crosse, Wisconsin, watershed in southwestern Wisconsin. The Raymond H. Davis was conducting research picturesque valley with fields of stripcrop- on soil conservation as superintendent of ping winding around the hillsides, offers a the Upper Mississippi Valley Erosion startling transformation from the 1930s' Experiment Station. Thus, Bennett wanted scene of rectangular fields with straight one of the demonstration projects in the rows that induced soil erosion. Driftless area of narrow, fairly steep valleys where research results from the La Crosse In 1933 a new federal agency, the Soil experiment station could be tried. As the Erosion Service, selected Coon Creek as the Coon Creek watershed was representative of first watershed in which to demonstrate the a much larger area, the methods that values of soil conservation measures. This proved successful could be spread through- agency became the Soil Conservation Ser- out the unglaciated section of the Midwest. vice (SCS) in 1935. Under the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, soil ero- Davis responded enthusiastically. He soon sion control was included as one means of seized on the 91,000-acre Coon Creek public employment. The announcement watershed as the best location for a suc- caught the attention of a soil scientist in the cessful demonstration. Important in his U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hugh H. decision was the cooperation he anticipated

Bennett. For years Bennett had ' been from farmers. They seemed to be ready for making speeches and writing articles to a change. A few farmers were already alert Americans to the need to do some- attempting stripcropping. The strips of hay, thing about soil erosion. After discussions alternated with strips of corn, slowed the between public works administrator Harold runoff of water and reduced erosion from L. Ickes and Secretary of Agriculture Henry the corn strips. But most of the area was A. Wallace, Bennett became head of the beset by erosion problems. Gullies hindered Soil Erosion Service in September 1933. farming. Coon Creek was subject to frequent, intense floods. Some valuable bottom Bennett had $5,000,000 to demonstrate how land had reverted from cropland to pasture farmers could plan farming operations to due to floods. Trout abandoned the sedi- include soil conservation for long-term ment clogged stream. productivity. He decided to select a number of erosion -prone areas for demonstrations. That the Coon Creek farmers raised dairy Through cooperation with farmers, he and beef cattle and thus needed hay and would demonstrate the validity of his ideas pasture encouraged the prospect for contour . about soil conservation. In addition to the stripcropping and retirement of the steeper long-range value of sustained productivity, fieIds to pasture. Davis wrote to Bennett, Bennett was convinced soil conserving "If it were not for the diversified type of measures would increase the farmers' agriculture generally practiced and the incomes relatively large areas of timber, the entire area would be a barren waste within a short time. Since most of the farmers here try to diversify their farming operations, any suggestion, Ernest G. Holt became the biol- comprehensive erosion control program ogist for the staff. should be relatively easy of accomplishment because it would mean only a change in Through the winter of 1933-34, the erosion certain farming methods rather than a com- specialists contacted farmers to arrange 5- plete change in the agricultural set-up." year cooperative agreements. The agreements often obligated the government to Initiatives by Coon Valley farmers and supply fertilizer, lime, and seed. Farmers businessmen and officials at the University agreed to follow recommendations for of Wisconsin led to Coon Creek's selection. stripcropping, crop rotations, rearrangement Noble Clark, assistant director of the of fields, and retirement of steep land to experiment station, and biologist Aldo pasture or woodland. Alfalfa was a major Leopold welcomed Davis' proposal. Davis element in the stripcropping program. and Clark traveled to Washington, D.C., to Farmers were interested in alfalfa, but the meet with Iiugh H. Bennett on October 3, cost of seed, fertilizer, and lime to establish 1933. On October 10, Bennett appointed plantings had been a problem during the Davis a regional director with authority to Depression. select a demonstration area in the Driftless area. Another key element in reducing erosion was building up the water absorbing Enthusiastic response by Coon Valley area capacity of the soil by lengthening the crop farmers decided the issue as to where the rotations and keeping hay strips in place project would be located. In mid-October, longer. A typical three year rotation on the Regional Director Davis met with 125 farms had been corn- -small grain - -hay farmers at Coon Valley who listened to his (timothy and red clover). Conservationists proposal for soil conservation work. They advised farmers to follow a four- to six- promised to present a petition by 500 to year rotation of corn- -small grain- -hay 600 of the valley's 800 farmers requesting (alfalfa mixed with clover or timothy for that the project be located at Coon Valley. two to four years.) Davis was pleased beyond expectation. He wrote to Bennett, "In fact, I was surprised Civilian Conservation Corps enrollees and at the way the farmers grasped the impor- emergency employment workers were tance of such a program. They all realize available. The town of Coon Valley rented the necessity of something (sic) being land for a CCC camp. The young men and done.... I feel that we need not worry about other workers were quite useful in a num- lack of cooperation in this particular area." ber of phases of the conservation work. They crushed the locally available limestone With the decision made, I. N. Knutson, to provide the lime needed to establish the Coon Valley banker, urged farmers to hay and pasture planting. Terracing cooperate. Mail carrier Ben Einer notified required considerable labor, as did the farmers. Davis began preparing for the fencing and reforestation work. spring work. Aerial photographs were to be made for the farm planning. Seed, fertil- Grazing of woodland had been a con- izer, and equipment had to be acquired. tributing factor to erosion from cropland. Davis also needed specialists to visit each Trampling down the ground and stripping cooperating farmer to determine the needed ground cover reduced the forest's capacity work to reduce erosion. To do this work, to hold rainfall. Moreover, the grazing Davis hired Herbert A. Flueck, Marvin F. delayed tree growth while providing little Schweers, Joseph P. Schaenser, and John R. feed for cows. Most of the cooperative Bollinger. Others hired during the initial agreements provided that the farmer would days were Gerald E. Ryerson as agricultural not graze the woodlands if the CCC engineer and Melville H. Cohee. Aldo workers fenced them off and planted Leopold believed that the program could be seedlings where reforestation .was needed. used to increase wildlife in the area. At his The workers also tried to control gullies, situation. They calculated that erosion has especially where they hindered farming been reduced at least 75 percent since 1934. operations. Streambank erosion presented Sediment reduction came without another problem. While the soil conserva- converting much cropland to other uses. tion measures would reduce sediment There has been a 6 percent reduction in flowing into Coon Creek, there was still the cropland since 1934. With less sediment problem of bank cutting and deposition in flowing into Coon Valley, the trout the stream. Wing dams, willow matting, and returned as Raymond Davis had hoped and planting willows were the most used expected. methods of control. The young conservationists gained valuable Workers also established feeding stations to experience at Coon Creek and the other 174 carry birds through the winter. Gullies and demonstration projects. On the cooperating out of the way places, not conveniently farms, they tried numerous ideas. A few farmed, were used for wildlife plantings. failed, but many are in use today. SCS Some farmers agreed to plant hedges for people who started at Coon Valley moved wildlife which also served as permanent on to other responsible positions. Marvin guides to contour stripcropping. In so far as Schweers became SCS's state conservationist possible the trees selected for reforested in Wisconsin and Herbert Flueck held the areas were also ones that provided good sane position in Minnesota. Gerald Ryerson wildlife habitat. and Melville Cohee eventually moved to SCS's national headquarters. Leopold's What then were the results? Clearly the friend Ernest Holt became head of SCS's farmers of Coon Valley came to believe wildlife work and earned an international stripcropping with longer crop rotations was reputation. Numerous others took the Coon the system of farming best suited to the Creek experience and moved to other area. From fall 1933 to June 1935, 418 of demonstration projects. the valley's 800 farmers signed cooperative agreements. Others would have joined, but Coon Creek and the other projects were the Soil Conservation Service shifted new designed to demonstrate the value of soil funds to other projects. Aerial photographs conservation to farmers. In doing so, they reveal that long after the demonstration also attracted a larger audience and con- project closed, additional farmers began tributed to the passage of the Soil Conser- stripcropping. From Coon Valley this prac- vation Act of 1935, which made SCS a tice spread during the 1940s, 1950s, and permanent agency in the U.S. Department 1960s into adjacent valleys of the Driftless of Agriculture. area. It is now the commonly accepted way to farm hillsides. Gradually the demonstra- But one need not look to legislation and tion projects were phased out. But begin- landmarks for the significance of the Coon ning in the late 1930s SCS provided techni- Creek project. Its heritage is available for cians to locally authorized conservation all to see who venture that way. districts to assist farmers with conservation measures.

Since Coon Valley is one of the nation's most studied watersheds, we know the effects of the conservation practices on erosion and sedimentation of streams. In a 1982 study, Stanley W. Trimble, geographer at the University of California at Los Angeles, and Steven W. Lund, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, used earlier sedimentation studies by Vincent McKelvey and Stanford Happ in assessing the current Impact on Wildlife Guided SCS From Start

Reprinted from Soil and Water Conservation News 10, no. 9 (December 1989): 3-4. by Douglas Helms, National Historian, Soil Conservation Service and Billy Teels, National Biologist, Soil Conservation Service

As Hugh Hammond Bennett went about conservation into soil conservation pro- assembling a team to start soil conservation grams. demonstrations in late 1933, Aldo Leopold's classic Game Management had just been Bennett, who had hunted the woods in his published. Its central thesis, and the central youth and tramped the country as a soil thesis of the new discipline of game scientist, had reached the conclusion that management, held that "game can be wildlife was less abundant than in his restored by the creative use of the same youth. Bennett also had written seminal tools which have heretofore destroyed it- - articles on the influence of erosion on veg- axe, plow, cow, fire, and gun." etational change. While he did not dwell on the effects on wildlife, the impact on The concept fit perfectly the notion of quality and quantity of food for wildlife rearranging farming operations to conserve was clear. soil. Methods for wildlife conservation could be used on the farm in conjunction Farming had at one time benefited some with soil conservation methods. varieties of wildlife. The interspersion of forests, swamps, and fields of small grains Leopold and others had come to realize that and other food crops provided the three publicly owned wildlife areas could help crucial elements of survival--cover, food, preserve some large predators and provide and water--and actually resulted in an habitat for some migratory birds, but the increase of bobwhite, cottontail rabbits, and impact of these publicly owned areas was certain nongame birds. The "edges" or zones limited. The use of the vast areas in farm- between different vegetational types gave land would eventually determine the nature wildlife a variety of habitats that increased of the nation's wildlife population. The their ability to thrive. realization that public agencies alone could not provide for healthy wildlife population But larger fields and the use of heavy, was in part the foundation of Leopold's modern equipment reduced this variety and concept of a land ethic--that it was the caused a decrease in wildlife habitat. responsibility of all land users to conserve Merging wildlife considerations with soil land resources, including wildlife. conservation sought to re-create these edges or zones of habitat. Hugh Bennett, his small staff, and a group of professors at the University of Wisconsin Fencing of woodlands to eliminate grazing planned a soil conservation demonstration reduced erosion, improved timber produc- project for Coon Valley, Wisconsin. tion, and provided more wildlife habitat. Leopold, then a University of Wisconsin Stripcropping, especially with hay crops and professor, suggested that biologist Ernest small grains, benefited wildlife. Field bor- Holt be hired to add wildlife considerations ders slowed water runoff and provided to project plans. In Bennett, the founder of more edges for wildlife habitat. Biologists SCS, Leopold found a ready convert who recommended plants with high wildlife supported the integration of wildlife value for badly eroded areas. In addition to Coon Valley, other demon- of measures for fish and wildlife in the stration projects in North Carolina, Great Plains conservation Program, Water Pennsylvania, and South Dakota employed Bank, Conservation Reserve Program, biologists. But the discipline had little 'Swampbuster," and other programs to make presence in USDA until a Secretary of the job of planning easier. Agriculture's memorandum in November 1935 authorized a section of Wildlife Farmers and ranchers are becoming more Management in SCS. By 1938, the staff interested in wildlife-associated recreational nationwide had grown to 79 people. income. This, plus the public's growing interest in fish and wildlife, will likely Holt recruited such people as William Van result in additional programs and authorities Dersal and Edward H. Graham, who that need the expertise provided by biolo- became noted experts and authors in the gists. field. Graham's Natural Principles of Land Use examined the ways in which knowledge of living things could help guide land management.

Actual field work provided SCS biologists an opportunity not only to increase wildlife on the farms, but to learn new methods of wildlife enhancement. The field biologists worked with farmers and SCS field staff to incorporate wildlife considerations into farm plans. They disseminated the lessons of their practical field experience through numerous guidelines, technical bulletins, and popular articles.

With the expansion of programs and national legislation to enhance fish and wildlife, the role of biologists and the requirements made of them have changed. Rather than serving as planners who spend a great deal of time developing the wildlife section of conservation plans, they now more likely work as trainers who instruct others in how to integrate biology with the various SCS programs.

Concerns about the impacts of small watershed projects on fish and wildlife habitat increased the biologist's role in evaluating design changes to lessen adverse impacts on wildlife. The passage of the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act have further broadened the scope of the biologist's role.

SCS biologists are now required to have a thorough knowledge of SCS and other USDA programs to address fish and wildlife concerns. Biologists advise on policy matters and evaluate the effectiveness Ranging Back to History

Reprinted from Soil and Water Conservation News 10, no. 8 (November 1989): 3-4. by Douglas Helms, National Historian, Soil Conservation Service and Harlan De Garmo, National Range Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service

Today, approximately half of all ranchers rangeland. Ranchers could certainly observe cooperate with the Soil Conservation Ser- changes in their range and in the mixture vice in developing their range management of plants and their vigor after heavy systems. From its inception, SCS has been grazing. But the exact relationship of range concerned with rangeland as well as crop- to the number of cattle and the timing and land. the intensity of use of the range remained complex. The highly variable nature of When SCS began operations in the 1930s, it rainfall complicated the matter. Impacts of was well recognized that the effects of ero- poor or wise usage of the range on beef sion on rangeland presented as much of a production would not immediately be problem as the erosion on cropland. The obvious. The task of the young conserva- U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest tionist was to persuade ranchers that range Service had begun imposing grazing fees to management benefited not only the land, try to reduce overgrazing on the rangeland but also, given time and patience, the under its control. Researchers in USDA, rancher. many of them in the Forest Service, had begun to examine the relationship of grass The range specialists in SCS needed a sys- cover to flash floods and to explore the best tem to promote range management that was methods of trying to establish grasses on understandable to the SCS field technicians rangelands. Erosion from rangeland was and ranchers alike. Ranchers needed a sys- recognized as a threat to large Government- tem that would give them some indication financed reservoirs for flood control and as to when and how much the range'might irrigation water. be grazed without causing deterioration and would allow rangeland in poor condition to By the 1930s, USDA plant explorers were improve. being sent to discover "drought resistant" plants for the semiarid West. Concerns over Early 20th-century range specialists came to the condition of rangeland led to a USDA realize that intense grazing caused a change survey in the 1930s, "The Western Range:' in the composition of range plants. Some plants increased, others decreased in the The USDA bulletin ''Soil Erosion: A mixture; new plants, or invaders, appeared. National Menace" furthered Hugh Hammond Bennett's crusade to awaken About the same time, ecologists such as agriculturalists to the dangers of soil ero- Frederic Clements at the University of sion. His coauthor, William Ridgely Chap- Nebraska were studying prairie plant com- line, who was in charge of grazing research munities. Clements theorized that grasslands for the Forest Service, wrote the section on were a community in various stages of plant the western grazing lands. succession progressing toward a climax. By applying this concept to rangeland, SCS The assignment of the young SCS range developed range condition classes- -poor, specialists was to work with ranchers to fair, good, or excellent. E. J. Dysterhusis, develop grazing systems that would con- an SCS range scientist, applied the serve and improve the condition of principles of quantitative ecology (inventorying the plant community) to the system. The variance of the existing plant community from the potential climax community determined the range condition for that site. Relic sites provided an approxi- mation of the climax community.

Armed with this information, the range specialist could then determine the range condition for the ranchers and advise them on grazing practices that would help maintain or improve range conditions.

The range site and condition system has served SCS and the range well for several reasons. First, this system is easily understood. Second, by trying to approximate or maintain natural range conditions, it pro- duces a plant community that is valued for many uses, such as wildlife habitat, water retention and infiltration, and erosion control.

Various specialized grazing systems have been proposed and used. However, the range site and condition classification has remained the foundation of SCS's range management assistance. Indeed, surveys between the 1930s and the present have indicated a general improvement in rangeland. International Conservation: It's as Old as the Hills

Reprinted from Soil and Water Conservation News 12, no. 2 (July- August 1991): 18- 19. by Douglas Helms, National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

All conservation is international in the When the Soil Conservation Service started sense that few of the methods tried, at least field operations in the 1930s. it also started those that are successful, remain isolated in investigating the nature and control of ero- one region forever. sion. Much of this involved research at experiment stations. The early European migrants to North America who would make a "Nation of But Hugh Hammond Bennett, then Chief of immigrants" brought their culture, including SCS, and Walter Lowdermilk, the Assistant their agriculture. The oft-told story is that Chief, were firm believers in learning from America's problems with soil erosion foreign countries. Their interest extended derived from a type of agriculture devel- not only to particular practices, but also to oped in a land of moderate rainfall and a broader understanding of the impacts of slopes. Its transferral to a land of intense erosion on the welfare of nations. rainfall and steep slopes caused soil erosion. Both traveled widely. On his trip to But that is only part of the story. Europe Europe, the Mediterranean area, and the also sent methods of conservation. Scottish Middle East, Lowdermilk examined the farmers had long been regarded by their influence'of erosion on civilization. SCS has contemporaries as backward. But in the 18th distributed more than 1 million copies of century, Scotland revolutionized the way its his bulletin about the trip, "Conquest of the hilly lands were farmed to such an extent Land Through 7,000 Years." that its farming became regarded as the best in Europe. Sir John Sinclair converted SCS erosion history staff studied historical the Scots to horizontal ridges (on the con- soil conservation practices, in both the Old tour). For very steep lands, Sinclair recom- World and the New, for solutions that could mended the turn-wrest plow, a progenitor be used in work of the new and burgeoning of the hillside plow. Soil Conservation Service.

Some' of the German groups settling in Other countries established soil conservation North America became model farmers who agencies in the late 1930s and 1940s. Sev- concentrated on maintaining fertility on eral founders of those agencies visited and small, intensively used farms rather than studied the U.S. system. Indeed, a trip was following the pattern of land exhaustion, almost obligatory. SCS made its published abandonment, and westward migration. manuals on soil conservation available in Spanish. The immigrants learned from the Native Americans, who had adapted agriculture to SCS started a system whereby young stu- climate and geography. Native American dents of soil conservation would come to methods varied from the slash and burn of the United States to work in field offices the East to intricate irrigation and water- and learn the latest conservation methods. spreading systems in the West. Americans This method had another important aspect: during the 18th and 19th centuries made When returning to work in his or her native many adaptations and ingenious inventions land, the conservationist should be attuned of their own. to any cultural or geographical conditions that might call for modifications of the methods used in the United States. In the decades since World War 11, SCS has become more involved in foreign assistance missions. Current thinking on the best means of technology transfer seems happily matched with some of SCS's preferences and operating methods. Throughout its history, SCS has emphasized the technically trained person assisting the land user.

Experience has shown one of the preferred methods of technology transfer to be when the foreign country plays a role in the decision-making. Institution-building, such as helping establish a soil and water conservation unit operated by that country's citizens, bears great promise, not only for the present, but also for the future--which, after all, is what conservation is about. The Development of the Land Capability Classification by Douglas Helms, National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

In understanding the land capability classification (LCC), the author benefited greatly from conversations with Richard W. Arnold, Kenneth C. Hinkley, Tommie J. Holder, Donald E. McCormack, and Ralph J. McCracken.

The 1985 Farm Bill which Congress is cur- classification for the purposes stated in the rently considering includes provisions that bills. have far-reaching consequences for conservation. Part of the concern over erosion How did the LCC come to be regarded as a during the last decade or so has focused suitable indicator of erosion hazards? First, attention on USDA farm programs and we need to investigate the origin of the specifically on the possibility that the pro- system, see how the Soil Conservation Ser- grams encourage the use of very erodible vice implemented and used it, and see how land for clean-tilled crops. One tactic it has been put to uses other than the ones advocated in restructuring programs has stated. For over forty years the Soil Con- been to discourage the bringing of highly servation Service has used land capability erodible land into production. In the 1985 classification as a planning tool in laying farm bill this provision has been called out conservation measures and practices on '"Sodbuster." The other thrust has been to farms so as to farm the land without serious encourage the removal of highly erodible deterioration from erosion or other causes. land from cultivation to be put to other The land capability classification is one of productive uses. The "Conservation Reserve" innumerable methods of land classification would removl highly erodible land from that can be based on broad interpretatio s cropland uses. of soil qualities and other factors of place.3

But how do we identify these highly erodi- The current LCC includes eight classes of -ble lands for purposes of writing legislation land designated by Roman numerals I thru and operating USDA programs? The Sod- VIII. The first four classes are arable land- buster provision uses the land capability -suitable for cropland--in which the limi- classification to identify highly erodible tations on their use and necessity of conser- land, specifically classes IIIe, We, VI, VII, vation measures and careful management and VIII; while the Conservation Reserve increase from I thru IV. The criteria for clause gives the Secretary of Agriculture placing a given area in a particular class discretion to use LCC and/or the erodibility involve the landscape location, slope of the index--a system based on quantifiable fac- field, depth, texture, and reaction of the tors in the universal soil loss equation. soil. The remaining four classes, V thru VIII, are not to be used for cropland, but The discussions have raised questions as to may have uses for pasture, range, wood- the value of land capability classification, land, grazing, wildlife, recreation, and particularly for identifying erodible farm- esthetic purposes. Within the broad classes land. The merits and limitations of the LCC are subclasses which signify special limita- have not been without debate, but previous tions such as (e) erosion, (w) excess wet- discussants have been mainly soil scientists ness, (s) problems in the rooting zone, and and soil conservationists. Their discussions (c) climatic limitations. Within the sub- seldom reached the pages of the profes- classes are the capability units which give sional journals. Now farm organizations and some prediction of expected agricultural conservation groups have differing opinions yields and indicate treatment needs. The as to the value of land capability capability units are groupings of soils that have common responses to pasture and crop plants under similar systems of farming.3 In from Bennett's voluminous correspondence choosing to designate classes not suited to and numerous articles. One of his first continuous cultivation, the drafters of the forays into suggesting corrective action for legislation seized on classes VI thru VIII soil erosion was a more traditional type of and subclasses IIIe and IVe. The question land classification - -the sepration of forest for the policy and law makers is whether lands from farmland based on soil type or the land capability classes, especially IIIe series. Based on his years of work in the and IVe, are accurate and the best method South he wrote an article on classification of identifying erodible land. of forest lands in the proceedings of the Third Southern Forestry Congress published The most common problem pointed out is in 1921. He admitted that there was little that the land capability subclasses do not experimental research on tree productivity necessarily indicate the degree of erosion on or cost-of -production information to justify a progressive and consistent basis. For classifying certain soils as forest soils. But example it is possible that a subclass IIIe he definitely believed that there were other soil is more erodible than a IVe soil. There criteria which disqualified some soil types are reasons inherent in the grouping of soils as farmland. He wrote, "Through the in the LCC to explain this situation. But it Coastal Plain and Piedmont regions... there nonetheless causes some confusion when are here and there areas of eroded rolling looking upon the LCC as an indicator of lands and even of stony lands which are er~sion.~Since the system was designed to obviously not adapted to farming on deal with numerous factors of suitability of account of opographic unfavorableness or land for agricultural uses, a review of the stoniness... !'Since slope is one of the fac- development of LCC should add some tors influencing soil formation, it followed degree of understanding to the debate over that certain soil series were nearly always measuring erodible soils for program pur- found on slopes. The Susquehanna clays poses. were one such soiL6 Lauderdale was another soil that usually occurred on rough Hugh Hammond Bennett, the creator and topography. He classed other lands as forest first chief of the Soil Erosion Service, land because of stoniness or poor drainage, influenced nearly all aspects of the Soil but he was also concerned with the influ- Conservation Service. While he did not ence of slope on erosion. In the Piedmont originate the LCC, he embraced it. More section of Georgia he believed that over a importantly for our discussion the LCC was million acres were best suited to timber, born out of the attempt to farm land with- because of "rolling or gullied surface and out loss of quality or quantity. The early stoniness, and probably an equal area, if soil conservationists often spoke of devel- not more, should be devoted to timber or oping a permanent agriculture in the grass or both because of its slope and United States- -a system of cultivation resultant susceptibility to washing, repre- under which land would be used without senting land which under the ordinary sys- deterioration. This attitude was the tems of cultivation eventually will be com- philosophical heritage of the land capability pletely and irreparably destroyed.d To classification. Bennett's thinking the student of soils had a particular reason for wanting to contribute As a soil surveyor for the Bureau of Soils, to the reforestation effort. It was he who Bennett became concerned about the prob- had seen the most "land wastage through lem of soil erosion. Promotion to inspector unnecessary ero 'on ... and wasted effort on of the Southern Division of the soil survey poor farm land."8 work afforded him an opportunity to view problems on a wider basis. Foreign assign- Also, Bennett was becoming aware that ments also influenced his thinking. Long erosion was not related strictly to the before the development of the land capa- degree of slope. Evidences of different bility classification, it is possible to detect degrees of erodibility certainly existed in some of the thinking that would go into it the United States, but foreign travel provided striking examples. While working geographer, when agriculturalists learned on the soil survey of Cuba, Bennett found a the best methods of farming "under the "peculiar tropical" soil in which the clay varying conditions of climate, soils, sl particles clustered together in floccules and vegetative cover and agricultural usage." ?fe9 allowed rapid infiltration of water. The soil seemed " o be not in the least susceptible to Slowly, the U. S. Department of Agriculture erosion." 4 and a few state experiment stations were beginning to accumulate some of the By 1928 Bennett had formed some ideas information Bennett believed was needed to about the causes of erosion. These were "(1) design farming methods under these vary- soil character, (2) character of vegetative ing conditions. One of his first successes in cover, (3) degree of artificial ground modi- the crusade for soil conservation was the ficati~r~(4) degree of slope, and (5) cli- creation of a group of soil erosion and mate. He preferred not to rank the moisture conservation experiment stations. causal factors in importance, except that he Congressman James Buchannan added an thought "soil character probably should amendment to the 1930 Agricultural head the list."ll To illustrate the influence Appropriations Act to provide for the sta- of soil properties on erodibility he con- tions. By the summer of 1930 there were trasted an Abilene clay loam in Texas six stations established and another four where 27 inches of rain removed 40 tons of were added. Bennett hoped to. have some 25 soil from an acre of bare land on a two per to 30 stations eventually.16 At the least he cent slope with a Cecil sandy clay loam in hoped to have stations in the 18 f+osion Piedmont North Carolina where 36 inches problem areas that he had identified. The of rain removed 25 tons per acre rom bare stations began evaluating the influences of ground on a nine per cent slope.'' Nation- various combinations of crop rotations, wide, this was not the best comparison to tillage practices, and mechanical and engi- make as the Cecil sandy clay loam was also neering conservation practices on erosion. a highly erodible soil. But Texas and North Bennett, under the title, "In Charge, Soil Carolina were two of the few places where Erosion and Moisture Conservation Investi - the agricultural experiment stations had gations," supervised the research of the gathered data on erosion. While the Pied- Bureau of Chemistry and Soils, while the mont soils were very erodible, there existed Forest Service and Bureau of Public Roads soils in the U. S. on steep slopes with little handled other stations. Prior to the estab- erosion, namely clay lands in the Pacific lishment of these stations the information Northwest w ich were used mainly for fruit about influences of farming systems on production. 1 !? erosion had indeed been scant. Texas had established a stati at Spur devoted to soil Gradually field observations led Bennett to erosion research!' while Missouri and some ideas about farming systems and slope North Carolina had some soil erosion work of the land which were revealed in his among t e r experiment station research writing. He corresponded with J. Russell programs.9d Smith, a geographer, who wrote Tree Crops. Smith wanted to devote lands too steep for The stations were to provide some of the cultivation to tree crops--not just timber quantitative data from field plots that was but all manner of food, forage, fibre, oil, needed to devise soil conservation farming and other crops. In the Southern Piedmont, methods. But there remained much to be Bennett wrote to Smith, slopes over 15 per learned from the point of view of cent should not be plowed except to estab- examining where erosion had occurred and lish grass or legumes, and that it was the reasons. In many ways the product of "unwise to use any of these Piedmont slopes this thinking, the erosion survey- -which for continuous production of the clea was to influence the land capability classi- tilled crops except in nearly level areas. fication--was another Bennett-inspired The solution to man-induced erosion would idea. As head of the soil erosion investiga- be at hand Bennett wrote to another of tions he supervised detailed soil erosion surveys in some localities in Kansas, Vir- should not only map erosion, but also sug- ginia, West Virginia and Texas. He summa- gest the possible and desirable uses of the rized t e results in Geographical Review in land. In the section pertaining to the survey 1928.28 In selecting sites for the soil ero- the authors averred that it was an "effort to sion and moisture conservation experiment account for the present conditions of the stations Bennett ordered similar erosion land in terms of slope and use as a basis for surveys. These surveys differed from later determining the best major use for lands of erosion surveys in that there were few cate- various s i types in the Lower Piedmont gories of information gathered. They con- counties!''' In this regard, it was the sisted mainly of the depth of soil and sub- philosophical predecessor to the LCC. soil losses along with measurements of erosional debris on footslopes and valley The detailed survey covered five areas of lands. 2 1 8,000 to 10,000 acres plus a strip one- eighth mile wide and 210 miles across the But the erosion survey that was to influence lower Pie ont from the Savannah River to the operation of the Soil Conservation Ser- AlabarnajPDuring the survey, the investi- vice came later. In 1933 the Georgia gators found it necessary to modify their Experiment Station of the University of categories. Eventually they settled on 4 Georgia and several bureaus in the U. S. slope groups: A (0 to 3%), B (3 to 7%), C (7 Department of Agriculture collaborated on to 12%), and D (over 12%). There were a study of Georgia's land use problems, twelve erosion classes with the description with a view towards improving the eco- including information on the amount of A n0m9~andsocial life of the rural popula- horizon lost due to sheet erosion, the tion. Glenn L. Fuller, who had been in amount of B horizon lost due to sheet ero- charge of soil surveys in Georgia, which sion, and whether the gullying was shallow were conducted cooperatively with USDA, or deep. Other categories covered fre- headed the survey of erosion conditions in quently overflowed land, and land too gul- the lower Piedmont - -popularly called the lied to permit cultivation. An underscored Old Plantation Belt--where fifty per cent numeral in the system indicated reestab- of the farms ha been abandoned between lishment of cover that had stopped gullying. 1920 and 1930?3 Never one to quell his Other survey i dicators covered soil series enthusiasm on the importance of his calling, and land use.' The survey allowed for Bennett wrote to a colleague they were some correlations by soil type. Due to soil working on "some real erosion surveys, the formation processes soil was often corre- first ever made in the hi tory of the world lated to slope groupings; and therefore some so far as I know of!" The surveying land use recommendations could be made method involved classification of land based based on soil type. In their recommenda- on sail, slope, degree and kind of erosion. tions the authors placed all the upland soils What made it unique--the first in world-- in five groups, a thru e, with general to Bennett was that they tried "to classify recommendations of land use and where and map erosion conditions in their relation terracinh and "soil improvement" were to other physical characteristics of the land needed. and to the yjricultural capacity and needs of the land." Later in the same year, 1933, Bennett had the opportunity he wanted--a chance to The authors did not use the term "land demonstrate the value of soil conservation; capability," but there are clearly precedents the notion that farmers could safely raise to the land capability classification. The crops without excessive soil erosion. In the items in the survey were similar to those demonstration areas where the newly later used by SCS in farm planning and in formed Soil Erosion Service would work determining the place of land use in the with farmers there was a need to first land classes of LCC. Moreover, the Georgia gather information about the land, its cur- study, including the erosion section, was to rent condition and uses, so as to plan the be a planning document. The erosion survey on-farm conservation measures. Bennett, the chief of the new service, selected areas near the experimental stations so that the F' - wind accumulations 0 to 6 inches deep, information learned there could be of use, covering less than one-third of the area but there remained a need for a survey of delineated from which the topsoil previ- individual farms as means of planning. The ously has been removed and the accumula- soil surveys being made by the Division of tions are now partially stabilized Soil Surveys in the U. S. Department of Agriculture were of little help in farm L - cultivated planning, according to Bennett, other than in identifying soil types. It was not on the 6B - slope suitable for cultivated crops, scale needed, and had little or no informa- with a dominant slope of 6 percent for area tion on slope, kind. 38d degree of erosion, delineated and current land use. 12 - Cecil sandy loam 33 The newly formed Soil Erosion Service would conduct its own surveys for purposes With this information in hand for of farm planning. They decided to use individual farms it was then time to plan aerial base maps on a scale of one inch to conservation measures. The task was to 500 feet beca e of the detail desired in translate the complex symbols, denoting the farm planning?' A Section of Conservation physical conditions of the land, into Surveys, headed at first by Bennett's col- recommendations of corrective land use. laborator from Georgia, Glenn Fuller, Concurrently, the farm planners had to established procedures and issued instruc- explain the need for changes with the tions. The survey centered on four factors: farmers. The result of these needs were (I) character and degree of erosion, (2) first called "classes of land according to use present land use or coverr3$I) percent and capabilities." class of slope, and (4) soil. The information was expressed in the following order: The procedures for developing the capability classes were published in the Soil Erosion - Land Use Conservation Survey Handbook of August ------1939 under the name of E. A. Norton, who Slope - Soil then3jeaded the Physical Surveys Divi- sion. But J. Gordon Steele, a staff member, recalled that the system was developed Thus, the hypothetical composite symbol , somewhat earlier and that the handbook represented the culmination of a team effort.

It came about between 1936 and 1936. We were all thinking, all the time, all of our soils men all over the taken from Procedure For Making Soil country, about how to inter- Conservation Survey meant: pret these surveys for prac- - tical use. This grouping into 3 - 25 to 75 percent of the topsoil lost by land capability came about sheet erosion with erosion stabilized quite naturally I think as a joint effort. I suppose Roy 7 - occasional gullies, uncrossable by tillage Hockensmith and I had implements probably as much to do with it as anyone. But who R - 25 to 75 percent of the A horizon lost furnished us our ideas I do by wind action not know .... We were looking for a practical and a simplified, some people said a land classification conference, his soil over simplified, interp ta surveyors did not necessarily see the system tion of technical details. $8 - as permanent. They hoped "merely to establish a national basis of classification The original system, and the explanations ~hic$~wouldbe good for a generation or of its development and proposed use, are two." interesting in light of later revisions and uses of the land capability classification. In the field, technicians were to develop the tables with information to show where land There were to be four classes of arable should be placed in the capability classifi- land, Roman numerals I thru IV. The cation based solely on physical characteris- classes indicated the most intensive tillage tics. Then the SCS technicians, other state that could be used while permanently and federal agricultural agencies, and the maintaining the soils.36 The farmer could local people were to develop tables showing cultivate Class I without special practices, the alternatives- -cropping systems, prac - while Class I1 could be used with simple tices, measures, and soil treatment - -recom- practices. Class 111 required complex or mended for each 'class of land.41 The intensive practices, and Class IV was not Physical Surveys Division directed the field recommended for continuous cultivation. offices to complete the tables by the time Class V, because of topography, stoniness, the SO& conservation survey was com- erosion, poor drainage, or some other fea- pleted. ture could not be used for even occasional cultivation. Classes VI through IX were In developing the tables, SCS technicians reserved for grazing regions. The first three were to rely on their observations as well as of these classes, VI through VIII, applied to the experience of farmers so as to combine grazing land that should be managed with "local e erience with technical an increasing degree of care; w le Class IX knowledge!' According to Norton the was land unsuited to grazing.' In setting "experience of the local farmers and up the classes according to use capability, ranchers is interpreted in scientific terms soil conservation surveyors should consider and both science and local experience are four factors: "(I) permanence of the soil if combined to develop a classification cultivated (susceptibility to erosion); (2) designed to a ist in obtaining good land productivity of the soil as conditioned by management!'' Norton and colleagues who native fertility, capacity for retention and produced the first instructions realized the movement of water, salt content, aeration, implications of such a procedure and that or other factors; (3) the presence of any "the classes developed for differe t areas factor that would interfere with cultivation, may not be precisely comparable!'' With- such as stoniness or a hardpan layer; and out stating so, they undoubtedly saw this as (4) the climatic en~ironment,,~prticularly a minor problem. The objective was con- temperature and precipitation. Thus, the servation farming, not uniformity among thinking that went into the first version of regions. the system included some of the limiting factors that would later be formalized into The first instructions also left some room subclasses. for development of what were to become the subclasses. To assist in farm planning, The originators of the system also realized technicians were allowed to develop sym- that classes of land were not permanent. bols for groups of practices to correct ero- Any number of changes in the land such as sion problems or unfavorable physical. con- accelerated erosion, accumulation of salts, ditions such as poor drainage or stoniness. artificial drainage, or supplies of irrigation But any further subdivisions, for specific water would 'call for reclassification of the practices, were discouraged in the interest area. Likewise the introduction of new of qfntaining the simplicity of. the sys- crops and f ming methods would call for a tem. About a year after the Soil Conser- reappraisal." As Norton explained later at vation Survey Handbook had been issued, Norton elaborated on the issue of further and Nebraska in 1941 he found that there dividing the system. Subdividion of the was "a tendency for the field men to map major classes, based on "soil types, capability classes direct, rather than map topography, or some other physical factor," the soil, slope, and erosion as it actually would be advisable provided the recom- existed in the field." Such a procedure, or mendations for correction by crop rotations, shortcut, has ften been a temptation, here practices, and measures could be made and abroad.54 I. Gordon Steele told the uniform. But he did not want further sub- author that someone was always coming up units on the maps. After all, the purpose with the idea of expediting capability clas- was to simplify the information from the sification, by dispensing with detailed soil soil conservation surveys. When productive surveys on yjich to base the capability indexes were available, they could classification. On the national level the included, but in tables, not on the maps. 4.pe staff tried to achieve uniformity of the capability classifications between regions- - Norton and colleagues anticipated some of ensuring that the same soil type was placed the coming criticism that the system was in the same class in each region. The not attuned enough to the economics of regional office had the same chore in farming. He admitted that there were regard to classification on the state and area "physical, economic, and social factors," level. According to Hockensmith, both involved in changes needed to maintain control gr ps had problems achieving land in a permanently productive condition uni forrnity. 34 while, at the same time, using it for agriculture. But it was best to start with a clas- Two events influenced the conservation sification based solely on physical condi- surveying work--the rapid formation of tions, against which the economic and social conservation districts and World War 11. factors could be "correlat to make a com- After local areas began forming districts in plete land classification!" What this meant 1936, the operations of the program in practice was that the SCS technician and expanded rapidly, while World War I1 farmer worked out these matters in the removed experienced personnel. To meet farm conservation plan. the increased demand under these conditions, SCS changed its surveying techniques Major changes were not long in coming to in 1943. They developed a new type map the land capability system. In September which would be immediately available. This 1940, SCS divided Class V into four classes, map denoted "land units that have uniform V thru VIII. Apparently over the objections management requirements." The Service of some eastern CS officials, the western claimed that little detailed information of contingent won.4g The range management value was lost and that they could speed up specialists preferred thei range surveys 'to their surveying with this method. This sur- the capability classes.'~ The revision vey, like the more detailed soil conservation reserved the first four classes for survey, was used to classify land capabili - cultivatable land, and established three ties. The over 31,800,000 acres surveyed in non-cultivatable classes, V - VII, which fiscal year 1943 made for a total of more could produce permanent vegetation for than 156,000,000 acres covered by detailed grazing and woodland under increasing surveys. The surveys section and their limitations. The final class. VIII, %id not workers, by October 1943, had completed ~roducevegetation for agriculture. The the land capability tables and recommenda- earlier version had divided the land capa- tions more than 800 conservation dis- bility into classes for arable regions and tricts?'Most of the districts in 1943 which classes for grazing regions. The revision had completed classification recommenda- attempted to establish a national system. tions were in the southern states, where t early district movement was strongest. 5% As with any new system there were some The surveyors preferred to make surveys of problems in implementation. When Norton's whole sections of soil conservation districts, assistant, Roy Hockensmith, visited Kansas counties, or watersheds. Throughout the course of the war increasingly they had to grouping in the three-tiered system. The give up this concept and map 'ndividual .capability unit could provide a great deal of farms for conservation planning. 51 interpretive information to the farmer. The unit consisted of soils that were nearly Although some surveyors in the military unif0rn6~in "possibilities and management returned to SCS after the war, the survey needs." Where detailed information was work was further strapped by the increased available from research and practical expe- needs of conservation planning. During rience on the best cropping systems and most years, the surveyors were mapping conservation measures, the material would more than 30,000,000 acres. One result of be available in field offices in technical the work load was to allow experienced and guides for the farmer. Obviously the trained farm planers to make their own recommendations and interpretations tied to maps for use in conservation plannw. At the capability units needed constant least two regions adopted this policy. upda i as new technology became available. by After World War 11, the Soil Conservation Survey Division turned its attention. to In addition to the primary purpose of farm improvements in the land capability classi- planning, SCS was making other uses of fication. It seemed that different states and land capability classification. Two other regions continued to classify similar soils uses included area land use planning and differently. Studies were under way to inventorying conservation needs. Beginning harmonize the discrepancies across state and in 1938 SCS issued a series of "Erosion and district boundaries. In areas other than the Related Land Use Conditions," which were humid cropland sections of the east, sur- renamed "Physical Land Conditions" in veyors were having some problems in clas- 1941. The surveys were made by the soil sifying land. Committees were appointed in conservation survey methods mentioned the late 1940s to study particularly nettle- earlier, and usually covered a demonstration some problems, namely how to map and project, a watershed, a soil conservation classify wetlands, land nee 'ng irrigation, district, or a county. Beginning with the and dry-land farming areas. $6 publication of the erosion survey of the Crooked Creek Project near Indiana, Also, there were changes in the system Pennsylvania in 1940 by J. G. Steele and R. after the war. By 1947 subclasses had been G. Mowry, the Service began using LCC to authorized to show particular limitations tabulate the acreages of particular soil and problems within a class. The attitude groups, cropland, idle land, pasture, and had always been to keep the subclasses woodland in each capability class. The from proliferating so as not to make the grouping suggested the land use adjustment system more complicated. Roy Hocken- needed and the conservation treatment smith, who succeeded Norton as head of needed, but the maps were not produced in the Physical Surveys Division, wrote that suffic' nt detail to enable on-farm plan- the subclasses should ''used only when ning.$' in creating soil conservation surveys absolutely necessary." According to and the capability groupings SCS made the Albert A. Klingebiel, who worked on one distinction between the published survey of the committees on LCC in the late made on a scale for areawide planning and 1940s. Bennett finally settled the matter by the more detailed unpublished surveys for decreeing that there would be no more than on-farm conservation which were kept in four subclasses. Some of the soil conserva- local SCS offices. tion survey staff believed that the uses of LCC would have been served better by In 1945 SCS issued Soil and Water Conser- including few additional limitations for vation Needs Estimates for the United subclasses. 81 States which included estimated current acreages of land use - -cropland, grazing By 1949'the land capability units had been land, and woodland-- under four groupings: added. The capability unit was the lowest (1) classes I, 11, and 111, (2) class IV, (3) classes V, VI and VII, and (4) class VIII. react under various uses- -or SCS had started collecting the ata and "interpretations" as they were called. From making the estimates in 1942.68 Almost this point of view the soil conservation sur- coincidentally with introducing LCC as a vey was too attuned to one objective, or farm planning tool, SCS had added other interpretation- -land capability classification objectives, inventorying resources and for farm planning. In Kellogg's view, by areawide planning. gearing the survey'of soil properties to one purpose, the survey could fail to meet other By the late 1940s the Service was referring needs or interpretat' ns and another survey to its soil conservation surveying activities would be necessary. b8 as the "National Land -Capability Inven- tory." In appealing to Congress, Bennett But the SCS surveys were more extensive said the inventory should be completed as than surveys completed under the Division soon as possible. His rationale was that in a of Soil Surveys, and were in fact the only national emergency we would need, full surveys available for much of the country. production - -without harming the resources. When SCS's Division of Conservation Sur- The national inventory would supply t veys was mapping 30 million acres in 1950, information needed in the effort. 2% it had 700 surveyors compared to fewer Gradually in the late 1940s the land capa- than 100 sur yors in Kellogg's Division of bility classification was proposed-for uses Soil Surveys.7% other than planning on-farm conservation, most often for tax assessment. Roy Hock- The land grant college association had long ensmith, then head of the Soil Conservation called for the merger of the two surveys. Surveys Division, advised that LCC maps Bennett's retirement made possible the when "properly interpreted may serve as a merger of the two divisions into SCS with valuable guide in rural land assessments." Kellogg as its head. Henceforth, there He advised keeping the physical, or fairly would be one soil. survey. The merger also permanent factors, separate from the eco- had profound implications for soil survey nomic, temporary dat when setting up the interpretations, including the land capabil- system of assessments.%7 ity classification. It linked the main user agency, SCS, with the group making stan- One reason SCS adopted the LCC for other dard soil surveys. As such it sped 'up the uses was that it was the only s urce of soils interpretation of soil surveys for various interpretation the agency had.g8 It was this uses. difference in attitude and approach that had been a source of contention between Also, Kellogg ordered a revision of LCC. Bennett and his SCS and Charles Kellogg's Albert A. Klingebiel in the 1950s worked Division of Soil Surveys in the USDA's on a revision of LCC which would give soil Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils, and Agri- scientists a "specific basis, criteria, and cultural Engineering. The Division and its assumptions to use to p ce soils into units, predecessors had been carrying out soil sur- subclasses, and classes!'h It was an effort veys in cooperation with the land grant to make the system national and to tighten universities since the late 1890s. But the the criteria in an attempt to ensure that any funding was low and only a small portion particular soil would be classed similarly of the country had been surveyed when SCS wherever it occurred. It would leave less started its soil conservation surveys on a room for individual interpretations in clas- much larger scale to service the action side sifying soils. of its program- -farm planning. The attitude of the Division of Soil Surveys as explained Classification had tended to be relative by Charles Kellogg, its chief, was that the within a state and area covered by SCS soil survey should be a comprehensive regional offices. The best soils would be inventory of the soils' properties and char- placed in Class I and the other soils would acteristics. Then soil scientists made pre- be judged and classified relative to Class I. dictions of how one could expect soils to For instance, SCS staff in Alaska had classified some soils--the best in that state--as would provide guidance for the Class I, but they were directed to move classification of all soils throughout the these soils to a hig&r category because of country. climatic limitations. The studies and work that went into Agricultural Handbook 210. In the field, land capability classification Land - Capa bility Classification, issued in was well received and well suited to its 1961, reconciled some of these intended purpose of serving as a guide to discrepancies of classification. Also, the on-the-farm rearrangement of fields and published soil surveys, after the merger of crops as well as the adoption of conserva- the two soil surveys, began placing the soil tion practices. The terminology of LCC was series in the LCC. This provided another well understood by people in the soil con- means of striving toward uniformity in servation profession. Discussions of prime classifying soil series into only one class or farmland and land subject to erosion were subclass. often couched in terms of the LCC. Therefore it was understandable that the The attempt to create a uniform system subclasses within LCC were proposed for illustrated one of the important points in the 1985 farm bill to designate erodible the evolution of LCC. Originally the system land. allowed a great deal of flexibility at the local level. Local experience and observa- But the LCC is not the system preferred by tions were relied on in placing soils in a some professional soil conservationists, es- class and especially in developing conserva- pecially soil scientists. Briefly stated, their tion treatments. Simultaneously, the use of position is that the LCC is not the best LCC for inventorying the need for further system for identifying highly erodible soils. conservation work and the quality of land The contention is that LCC neither identi- available created a desire that the system be fies particular soil characteristics such as uniformly applied throughout the country. erodibility, nor provides a means of These rather disparate objectives were dif- measuring those soil properties. In the LCC, ficult to reconcile to everyone's satisfaction. it is the combination of soil characteristics, and more specifically the interaction among Another trend noticeable in the evolution those properties, that results in the place- of LCC has been the constant refinement. ment of a particular soil in a class or sub- Originally LCC was heavily weighted to class. The classes identify these combina- cropland in humid areas. Through the tions of limitations for use, not specific 1940s, individuals and committees worked limitations such as erodibility. on problems of classifying rangeland, woodland, irrigated land, and dry farming Their other argument is that they have a areas. Also, the originators of the system better method. Beginning with the estab- were aware of problems in farming other lishment of the erosion or conservation than erosion hazards--other limitations experiment stations in the early 1930s, which might cause a crop failure. Concep- USD A began gathering quantifiable tually, these were included, but there was a information on the factors involved in ero- tendency to try to refine LCC to better sion. By 1956 there were 7,000 plot-years define the system in terms of limitations. and 500 watershed-years of basic data Thus, there was the formal addition of the a~ailab1e.i)~The information made possible subclasses. Here again there was tension the development of the Universal Soil Loss between differing objectives. When one Equation which, in the words of one of its considered the educational value of LCC in advocates, "brought systematic quantifica- getting farmers to look at their land in tion farm planning," for soil conserva- terms of conserving it based on inherent tion? The six factors- -rainfall erosiveness capability, there was a desire to keep the (R), soil erodibility (K), slope length (L), system simple. At the same time, in slope steepness (S), cropping and manage- attempting to create a national system, soil ment practices (C), and supporting conser- scientists tried to devise a system that vation practices (PI - -provide a prediction of expected soil loss, and indicate a set of proposed as a means of making precise alternatiy/g conservation measures to reduce measurements there were of course differ- soil loss. As in the case of LCC, the sys- ences of opinion about their suitability. tem was developed mainly for the purpose of planning conservation measures, but with the possibility of measuring the influence of the various factors. For use in the 1985 Farm Bill, a study team of SCS and Eco- nomic Research Service experts proposed an erodibility index composed of the RKLS factors and a T factor which indicates per- missible soil loss while maintaining productivity.

Representatives of some farmers, especially the National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD), favor retaining the land capability classification for identifying highly erodible lands. Their reasoning is that LCC is well known to USDA agencies and to farmers. They fear that the mathe- matical formula in the erodibility index will be understood by few, even in some USDA agencies which will have to carry out provisions of the farm bill. In the words of Charlie Boothby, Executive Vice-president of NACD, "the Universal Soil Losrf6Equa- tion is not universally understood." Also the implementation of the sodbuster and conservation reserve, if they become law, will not please every landowner. In such cases, it is argued, having a system which the land owner understands will be prefer- able. Also, they are concerned about who will make the calculations under the erodibility index for all the farm and ranch land involved.

However the matter is resolved, the attempt to identify erodibility has illustrated once again the nature of government's use of science, in this case soil science, in carrying out its authorities. From the 1930s, USDA, and especially SCS, has needed a means of making judgements about the causes of soil erosion in order to operate programs designed to conserve soil. Government funds were put into the scientific effort to devise a system. The result has been the land capability classification and the universal soil loss equation. While precision in measurement was desirable, it was not always necessary for furthering the program. When these planning tools were Endnotes l3 Ibid., p. 590.

For a discussion of the various means of l4 Bennett to J. Russell Smith, November measuring erodibility see Donald E. 7, 1932, Bennett Correspondence, RG 114, McCormack and Ralph E. Heimlich Records of the Soil Conservation Service, "Erodible Soils: Definition and Classifica- National Archives. Hereinafter, the abbre- tion," A and P Staff Report No. 85-2 viations RG for record group and NA for (Washington, DC: Soil Conservation Service, National Archives will be used. March 1385). Bennett to Douglas C. Ridgely, July 2, For a discussion of what is implied by the 1930. RG 1 14, NA. term "land classification" see Charles E. Kellogg, "Soil and Land Classification," l6 Ibid. Journal of Farm Economics 33 (November 1951): 499-513. l7 Hugh H. Bennett, The National Program of Soil and Water Conservation," A. A. Klingebiel and P. H. Montgomery, Journal of American Society of Agronomy Land Capability Classification, Agriculture 23 (May 1931): 370; and Agricultural Handbook No. 210 (Washington, DC: Soil Department Appropriation Bill 1930, 70th Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Congress, 2d sess., p. 312. Agriculture, 1961). pp. 1-3. Appropriation Bill 1930, p. 3 15. For a discussion on this and similar questions see Linda K. Lee and Jeffrey Goebel, l9 Bennett, "Geographical Relation of Soil "The Use of the Land Capability Classifi- Erosion," p. 584. cation System to Define Erosion Potential on Cropland," A and P Staff Report No. 20 Ibid., pp. 579-605. 85- 1 (Washington, DC: Soil Conservation Service, November 1984). 21 Hugh H. Bennett, "Adjustment of Agriculture to Its Environment," Annals of Hugh H. Bennett, "The Classification of the Association of American Geographers Forest and Farm Lands in the Southern 33 (December 1943): 185: and Bennett, States," Proceedings of the Third Southern "Geographical Relation of Soil Erosion," pp. Forestry Congress. July 20-22, 1921, p. 74. 579-605.

Ibid., p. 75. 22 W. A. Hartman and H. H. Wooten, Georgia Land Use Problems, Bulletin 191 Ibid.. p. 82. (Experiment: Georgia Experiment Station, May 1935). foreword. Ibid.. p. 93. 23 Glenn L. Fuller, "Charting the Effects of Hugh H. Bennett, "Geographical Aspects Erosion in the Old Plantation Belt of the of Cuban Soils," Geographical Review 18 Southern Piedmont," Transactions of the (January 1928): 80. American Geophysical Union 1934, Part I1 (Washington. DC: National Academy of lo Hugh H. Bennett, "Geographical Rela- Science, 1934), p. 495. tion of Soil Erosion to Land Productivity," Geographical Review 18 (October 1928): 24 Bennett to J. Russell Smith. May 31, 587. 1933, RG 114, NA. l1 Ibid., p. 587. 25 Bennett, "Adjustment of Agriculture to Environment," p. 186. l2 Ibid., pp. 584 and 589. 26 Hartman and Wooten, Georgia Land Use 40 E. A. Norton, "Land Classification as an Problems, p. 91. Aid in Soil Conservation Operations," The Classification of Land. Bulletin 421. 27 Fuller, "Charting the Effects of Erosion," (Columbia, Missouri: Agricultural Experi- p. 495. ment Station, December 19401, p. 298.

28 Hartman and Wooten, Georgia Land Use 41 Field Memorandum 848-A, April 10, Problems, pp. 94-96. 1940, Roy Hockensmith Papers, University of Wyoming, Laramie; and District Circular 29 Ibid.. p. 122. 17, February 8, 1940, SCS offices Wash- ington, DC. 30 Bennett, "Adjustment of Agriculture to Environment," p. 186. 42 Norton, Soil Conservation Survey Hand- book, p. 15. 31 For an example of a published farm planning map taken from aerial surveys, see 43 Norton, "Land Classification as an Aid," Soil Erosion: A Critical Problem in p. 296. American Agriculture (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1935), pp. 36- 44 Ibid., pp. 296-297. 39. 45 Norton, Soil Conservation Handbook, p. 32 Glenn L. Fuller, Procedure for Making 14. Soil Conservation Surveys: Outline No. 4 (Washington, DC: Government Printing 46 Ibid., p. 18. Office, 1936), p. 1. 47 Norton, "Land Classification as an Aid," 33 Ibid., pp. 19-20. A discussion of the p. 302. survey may also be found in Glenn L. ~uller,"A system for Correlation of Land 48 Ibid., p. 295. Forms and Covers with Soil Classification," Soil Science Society Proceedings 1 (1936): 49 R. L. Von Treba to R. D. Hockensmith, 463 - 468. June 30, 1947, Notebook #5, Hockensmith Papers. 34 E. A. Norton, "Classes of Land According to Use Capabilities," 50 Interview with J. Gordon Steele by Dou- mimeographed, Soil Science Society of glas Helms, August 22, 1985. America, New Orleans, November 1938. 51 Field Memorandum SCS #848-B 35 Interview with J. Gordon Steele by 'Supplementing definitions of classes of Douglas Helms, August 22, 1985. land according to use capability", September 28, 1940, Hockensmith Papers. 36 Norton, Soil Conservation Survey Hand- book, p. 14. 52 R. D. Hockensmith to E. A. Norton, October 30, 1941, Notebook # 1 1, Hocken- 37 Ibid., pp. 16-20. smith Papers.

38 Ibid., p. 15; E. A. Norton "Classes of 53 Interview with. J. Gordon Steele. Land According to Use Capability," Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 4 54 R. D. Hockensmith to E. A. Norton. (1939): 380. February 9, 1942, Notebook #11, Hock- ensmith Papers. 39 Norton, Soil Conservation Survey Hand - book, p. 14. 55 Report of the Chief of the'~oi1Conser- vation Service, 1943, p, 26. (Ph. D. diss., Harvard University 19581, p. 56 R. D. Hockensmith and J. G. Steele, 362. The Gardner thesis has been extremely Classifying Land for Conservation Farming valuable to the author because of informa- Farmers' Bulletin No. 1853 (Washington, tion on LCC as well as leads provided in DC: US. Department of Agriculture, 19431, the bibliography. back cover. 67 Roy D. Hockensmith 'The Use of the 57 Report of the Chief of the Soil Conser- Land -Capability Maps vation Service, 1944, p. 24, and Report of for Rural Real Estate Assessments," the Chief of the Soil Conservation Service, reprinted from Proceedings of the Forty- 1945, p. 29. First Annual Conference on Taxation, sponsored by tke National Tax Association, 58 Henry R. Adams to M. R. Hershberger, 1948. August 12. 1947, and Ralph 0.Lewis to All State Soil Scientists, September 25, 1947, 68 Interview with Albert A. Klingebiel, Notebook 20, Hockensmith Papers. July 30, 1985; and Gardner, "National Cooperative Soil Survey," p. 276.69. 59 ''Soil Conservation Survey Division. Annual Report 1947," typescript, September 69 Kellogg, 50il and Land Classification." 18, 1947, Notebook #20, Hockensmith pp. 493-513. papers; Report of the Chief of the Soil Conservation Service, 1947, pp. 27-28; 70 Gardner. "National Cooperative Soil Sur- Report of the Chief of the Soil Conserva- vey," p. 274. tion Service, 1948, p. 30. 71 Interview with Klingebiel. R. D. Hockensmith, "The Scientific Basis for Conservation Farming," Journal of Soil 72 Ibid. and Water Conservation 2 (January 1947): 14. 73 L. Donald Meyer and William C. Mold- enhauer, "Soil Erosion by Water: The Interview with Albert A. Klingebiel by Research Experience," in Douglas Helms Douglas Helms, July 30, 1985. and Susan L. Flader, eds., The History of Soil and Water Conservation (Washington, 62 R. D. Hockensmith and J. G. Steele, DC: Agricultural History Society, 1985), p. "Recent Trends in the Use of the Land- 96. Capability Classification," Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 1949 14 74 Ibid. p. 97. (1951): 384. 75 L. D. Meyer, "Evolution of the Univer- 63 Ibid.. p. 387. sal Soil Loss Equation," Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 39 (March -April 1984): 64 J. G. Steele and R. G. Mowry, Erosion 102- 103. and Related Land Use Conditions on the Crooked Creek Project near Indiana, Pa., 76 Conversation with Charlie Boothby, Erosion Survey No. 16 (Washington, DC: Executive Vice - President, National Soil Conservation service, 1WO), pp. 14- 15. Association of Conservation Districts, August 30, 1985. 65 "Soil and Water Conservation Needs Estimates For the United States," (Washington DC: Soil Conservation Service, 1945). p. 1.

66 David R. Gardner, 'The National Coop- erative Soil Survey of the United States," Eroding the Color Line: The Soil Conservation Service and the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Reprinted from Agricultural History 65, no. 2 (Spring 1991): 35-53.

by Douglas Helms National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

As a young graduate in agriculture from Service in the South who worked with black North Carolina A&T University in the farmers. This paper describes the first depression year of 1938, John Maynard Blacks working in the Soil Conservation Jones had difficulty finding a job in his Service and examines the efforts in discipline. Teaching agriculture in high response to the Civil Right Act of 1964 to school was cine possibility. Working for the expand equal opportunities for employment state extension service was another as well as equal access of minority farmers possibility, since most of the extension ser- to government programs. vices in the South hired black county agents on a segregated basis to work with black The organization that John Jones joined, farmers. Indeed Jones knew these jobs like many another in the burgeoning existed because the county agent had Department of Agriculture, had its birth in occasionally visited the family farm near the Depression. Hugh Hammond Bennett, Bahama, North Carolina. As with many of who grew up near Wadesboro, North the white farm children who went off to Carolina, where John Jones was first the land-grant college and earned a degree employed, had completed nearly three in agriculture, their first choice was not decades as a soil scientist in USDA when necessarily returning to the family farm. his crusade against soil erosion culminated Upon finishing college Jones' first job was in receiving some of the emergency as the principal of a three-teacher school. employment funds, with which he planned During World War 11, he worked at a to employ people to demonstrate the value hospital at Fort Bragg in Fayetteville, North of soil conservation. The passage of the Soil Carolina. The hospital paid better than high Conservation Act of April 27, 1935 gave school teaching. An announcement posted some assurance that the agency would con- on the bulletin board prompted him to take tinue even after the Depression emergency the civil service exam for jobs in agricul- had passed. Beginning in 1937, President ture in the U. S. Department of Agricul- Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Department ture. of Agriculture began encouraging local groups to form conservation districts and The Soil Conservation Service offices in elect local supervisors who could then sign Washington, D. C. and the regional office at cooperative agreements with USDA. Spartanburg, South Carolina, offered Through the 50 years since that time, the interviews. Preferring to stay in North main support given to the nearly 3,000 Carolina, Jones took the initiative and conservation districts has been placing contacted the state office of SCS in trained soil conservationists throughout the Raleigh. After an interview with Earl countryside to work directly with farmers Garrett, the state conservationist in North and other landowners. It was this corps that Carolina, Jones began his career at the SCS John Jones joined. office in Wadesboro, Anson County, North Carolina. 1 The Soil Conservation Service, like its other New Deal-born brethren, the Farm Security Jones thus became the first black profes- Administration and the Agricultural sional "soil conservationist" in North Adjustment Administration, dealt directly Carolina. He was one of a very small corps with farmers from the Washington office of black employees of the Soil Conservation through regional offices. It encountered some Washington conflict with the state opportunities for employment of the black extension services, a cooperative venture enrollees. Richard Moody was the between the U.S. Department of Agricul- exception. The enrollees of Moody's com- ture and the states, especially the land- pany learned to lay out and build terraces, grant universities. State extension services to seed and fertilize pastures, to run con- were fairly autonomous with few nationally tour lines , for stripcropping and contour directed mandates. Nonetheless, most of the rows, as well as other vegetative, mechani- extension services in the southern states cal, and engineering measures. It was here made some attempt to hire trained black that Moody says he both acquired an inter- agricultu alists to work with black est in and knowledge about soil conserva- farmers. i tion: "Having experiences with various duties like that led me to believe that there Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the still was a lot of help that was needed for Soil Conservation Service seems not to have farmers, and particularly black farmers. I had a consistent policy either in working found that lack farmers are very easy to with Blacks or in hiring graduates of the work with.' k 1890 universities to work on a segregated basis with black farmers. The first black Moody returned to Prairie View, received college graduates working with .SCS seem his degree, and then started teaching at themselves to have taken the initiative in Hempstead, Texas. While there he took the applying for jobs. Undoubtedly there was Civil Service entrance exam and recalls that resistance in sections of the South to hiring he refused to indicate race on the form, Blacks, and the existence of the few believing he would have little chance for testifies to the lack of a policy for building job interviews if he listed his race. Shortly a large black field force. afterwards he was contacted by the Soil Conservation Service about a job in Tyler, Texas seems to have progressed the farthest Texas. Dubious of the sincerity of the job toward developing a separate and segregated offer, he requested a 60-day leave of service to work with black farmers in East absence from the school board so that he Texas. Again the origins seem to have been could return to his teaching job if the new based not so much on design, but partially employment was unpleasant. upon chance. Richard Moody was the person selected to work with these farmers, Moody went to work in the Soil Conserva- but again the SCS did not seem to go out tion Service office in the Federal building looking for an individual. The individual in Tyler. Texas, in 1942. The CCC experi- came to them. Moody was born near ence served him in good stead in building Giddings in Lee County, Texas, where his terraces and putting in other conservation father owned a small farm. The Depression measures. After accompanying SCS techni- interrupted his education at Prairie View cians for a while, he started conducting A&M, and he joined the Civilian Conser- meetings and speaking to other SCS work vation Corps (CCC). Along with the Forest units in an effort designed to test the Service and the National Park Service, SCS acceptance and the possibility of opening supervised the technical aspects of the work up black units to work predominantly with projects that the young CCC enrollees black farmers. After working out of the undertook. During the life of the CCC, SCS SCS office in Tyler and proving his abilities supervised the work of more than 800 of and knowledge of conservation matters, the 4,500 camps. Black youths made up Moody opened an office about a block more than 100 of those CCC companies away. While continuing to work with the many of which worked on private land. 3 black farmers in the area, he took in black Numerous CCC supervisors and enrollees trainees. The trainees learned the technical came to work for the Soil Conservation aspects of soil conservation while working Service, especially after the Soil Conserva- with black farmers of Smith County. Some tion Act of 1935 opened thousands of new of the black farmers of the area already jobs. However, there were few such had been acquainted with the Soil Conser- vation Service. One of the early eastern regional office at Spartanburg, demonstration projects, Duck Creek, in South Carolina, said that in nine states in Smith County, had included some black- his region- -excluding Texas, Arkansas, and owned farms. In fact the first cooperators Oklahoma--there were eight full-time tech- to sign an agreement with the Soil Erosion nicians and five full-time aides working Service had been Bragg and Julia Ann exclusively with black farmers. There were Morris, black farmers of the area. Louis an additional 276 part-t'me aides and Merrill, who had directed the Duck Creek laborers on the SCS payroll. 8 project, was now the regional director for the SCS region covering Texas, Louisiana, As Bennett saw more of the work of the Arkansas, and Oklahoma. 5 employees, he seemed inclined to increase hiring to reach the South's black farmers. Moody and the trainees worked on the same As he prepared for the annual meeting of things that had been emphasized in the the regional directors in 1950, he wrote to project, such as terraces and stripcropping, them: "I have been doing some thinking and tried to convince more farmers to use recently about the opportunities for trained cover crops, especially legumes, that would Negro agricultural workers in the Soil prevent erosion while adding fertility to the Conservation Service. I have run into a few soil. In an effort to increase income and to of them in my travels across the country-- shift some land from row crops, they and they seem to be doing good work--and emphasized improving pastures by utilizing the thought occurs to me that we might use fertilizer. Not infrequently, Moody and his to advantage a number of additional tech- trainees had to do their best to overcome nicians over and above those already superstitions that hindered adoption of new employed!'g ideas. Some of Moody's trainees began moving to new locations where there were Bennett asked the regional directors to give sufficient black farm owners for a new some thought to the best means of office. One trainee, Floyd Sanders, opened increasing the work-force. He added that an office in Jefferson, Texas in 1944. Other the student trainee program could be used, trainees went to other locations in Texas. and that SCS could give some advice to the Unfortunately, several of the trainees, as educators in the region as to the college well as Moody, became victims of a courses required to qualify as a soil conser- retrenchment after World War I1 when vationist, These two methods of increasing preference was given to returning enrollment were, of course, those used after servicemen. 6 the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Bennett also proposed granting leave without pay to Evidently SCS did not contemplate hiring black employees who might want to Blacks as soil conservationists in the early improve their education. Bennett further days. At the Log Cabin Center in Hancock asked the regional directors to come u County, Georgia, in 1946 Hugh Hammond with some ideas for the,summer meeting. 18 Bennett told the assembled black farmers: "In those earlier days of the program, we Claude A. Barnett, director of the hardly foresaw either, that in a few years Associated Negro Press, prodded Bennett we were going to have a corps of colored increase employment of Blacks. IP technicians- -capable, trained soil conserva- According to Barnett, the two had "talked tionists to go out into the fields and work about this problem for several years." understandingly with the farmers in Barnett employed the statistics on black developing and a plying complete farm farm ownership in the South 'in making his conservation plans." S case, and promoted the Extension Service and Farm Bureau in North Carolina as At that time, according to Bennett, the SCS examples of using trained . 12black southeastern region had 50 black techni- agriculturalists to work with farmers. cians, of whom 11 were in Georgia. In 1950 Thomas S. Buie, director of the SCS south- Again Bennett planned to discuss the matter University before being drafted into the with the regional directors. "I agree with Army. After the war he returned to Barnett that we should try to have some Tuskegee for his degree in agriculture. He negro technicians, and this is a matter that was in his second year of teaching voca- must be taken up with the Region tional agriculture at Bernice, Louisiana, 19 Directors during the summer meeting." when the district supervisor of vocational Barnett's arguments about the amount of agriculture approached him to replace Fasen land controlled by Blacks would have as the work unit conservationist at Gram- appealed to Bennett, who had elements of bling College. simplemindedness endemic' to crusaders. The effect of land concentration on SCS When Blankenship took the job in January program delivery was becoming obvious to 1951, he had two technicians and a clerk to the SCS people and raised the question of assist him in working a six-parish area objectives. Was it the number of farmers around Grambling. Unlike many of the assisted that was important, or was it the white conservationists, Blankenship received amount of land covered by conservation no structured training at other SCS field measures? The emphasis in the popular offices before starting work. He received press and the newspapers in the last few most of his training from the SCS techni- decades on the loss of small farms has cians who travelled out from the area and disguised to a certain extent the degree of regional offices to assist local field staff concentration of farm land that existed in with aspects of engineering, agronomy, earlier decades. The concern was not forestry and other matters. He recalled that strictly related to black farmers, but it cer- engineer Robert Wilder was particularly tainly applied to them. In 1951, 43.5 helpful in training him in laying out ter- percent of the farms SCS assisted were less racing, ponds, and writing conservation than 100 acres, while only 7.6 percent were plans for the farm. There was also a con- over 500 acres. Yet the conservation farm siderable amount of woodland improvement plans on the former group totalled 50 and pasture improvement to be done as million acres, while the' land in the latter fields in row crops were being converted to group was 90 million acres. Bennett also pasture and woodland. In addition to planned lJo discuss this matter at the assisting farmers with the technical aspects meeting. of conservation, Blankenship helped them apply for cost-sharing money. Many Bennett would soon be out as chief of SCS farmers had difficulties acquiring money to when he reached the mandatory retirement apply practices. Often minorities would not age. The reorganization of SCS in 1953 seek financial assistance due to fear, lack of abolished the regional offices and placed knowledge, or a history of poor service. administrative matters, including hiring, at Blankenship would take them to the local the state office level. However, reviews of Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation the starting dates of black employees in the Service office to apply for cost-sharing. SCS reveal that quite a number started in When Blankenship went to work, many the early 1950s. so Bennett's interest in the minorities in the areas had not heard of the very e y 1950s probably had some limited Soil Conservation Service. He began holding effect!' In Louisiana, A. G. Fasen had night meetings to acquaint farmers with been working out of an office at Grambling SCS. Blankenship's impression of the status College. When Fasen decided to take of SCS's work with Blacks was that another job, SCS located Leon Blankenship, assistance was provided to the more aggres- who was teaching agriculture at a nearby sive, and progressive, black farmers who high school. Blankenship grew up near would ,ask for assistance. Since the white Saline, Louisiana, where his parents owned work unit conservationists had plenty of a 600-acre farm. Both parents were public work, they were not making the effort school teachers. All six of the children needed to recruit, persuade, and encourage. attended college; only Leon chose agricul- Later in Blankenship's career, he was in the ture as a career. He attended Tuskegee state office in Alexandria, Louisiana, and was responsible for increasing minority At Ruston Blankenship had worked in the participation in programs. He stressed that hill area of Louisiana where most of the actively seeking out minorities had to be a black farmers were congregated. Evidently part of the job requirement of the district the state authorities decided that farmers in conserv tionist if progress were to be the delta near Tallulah should receive simi- made. 1t lar assistance. The Resettlement Adminis- tration had purchased lands in the 1930s for In response to the Civil Rights Act and projects to provide farms to black farmers reports of the U. S. Commission on Civil near Mounds. Most of the land needed Rights in the mid-1960s, SCS closed its drainage to be productive cropland. But it segregated offices and Leon Blankenship seems this crucial need had not been taken had to close his office at Grambling College care of in the 1930s. The need remained in and move to the Soil Conservation Service the 1950s i farmers were to have a chance office at Ruston. Unlike most Blacks to succeed. f9 working for the Soil Conservation Service, Blankenship had been a work unit conser- One day Blankenship received a call from vationist under the general direction of the Don Richardson, the area conservationist, area conservationist. Now he was on the inquiring whether he knew someone who staff of a work unit conservationist, but he might work with farmers near Tallulah, generally continued working with Blacks Louisiana. He recommended Obie Masin- and continued to have his staff under his gale, whom he had met at Southern Uni- direction. In the new arrangement he versity. Masingale was born in Texas and worked with soil conservationist Don grew up on a farm in Marion County about Spencer, whom he had known since child- fifteen miles southwest of Jefferson, Texas. hood. Spencer had worked with Blanken- Like Blankenship, Masingale had known of ship's father, who was a cooperator with the work of the Soil Conservation Service. the Soil Conservation Service. Evidently His father had been a cooperator with SCS. Spencer was one of the white work unit Floyd Sanders had been a vocational agri- conservationists who attempted to involve cultural teacher in the county before going all people in SCS programs. As Blankenship to work with SCS in Jefferson. described it "He did what he ould to make sure minorities got ser~ices.''~~Spencer had Masingale trained under Blankenship until worked with vocational agriculture teachers the fall of 1953 when he went to work near in the black schools to get conservation into Tallulah as a work unit conservationist with the curriculum. When Spencer decided to an office in Thomastown High School. retire, he recommended that Blankenship Masingale believed that drainage was succeed him as the district conservationist crucial to success on the former Resettle- to head the office since he knew the area ment Administration projects. Few of the and the farmers. But he was not selected black farmers had good, well - drained soils. for the job. It was not until 1974 that Because of the slight relief and high water Blankenship moved from working primarily tables, Masingale believed that the average with Blacks. He moved to Shreveport to farm would produce a crop only one out of work with the Trailblazer and Twin Valleys three years. Thus, there was the need for Resource Conservation and Development drainage if the land were to be used for project. For the first time he had whites row crops. As in the case of Blankenship, working for him primarily doing work Masingale had to go out and recruit vegetating school grounds, city parks, road- farmers. Since drainage was the main work sides, and drainage ditches. From that job, needed, money was more of a constraint he went on to the state office of the Soil here than in some other conservation work. Conservation Service in Alexandria. It was Most farmers needed financial assistance. his job to increase p~ticipation of Some assistance was available in the form minorities in SCS programs. of cost-sharing from the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. A few farmers knew about the aid. Masingale recalled, Hughes had been selected to work on a program to increase black employment in It was an educational process the agency in the early 1960s. He probably to most of the black farmers. came to the attention of the national office In the first place, a lot of of SCS because of his work on the Johnson them didn't know what was Creek Watershed, where the cooperation of available through the ASCS black farmers was needed in order for the (Agricultural Stabilization project to succeed. This watershed, one of and Conservation Service) the many projects SCS worked on under the office in cost-sharing. You Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention had to explain that to them. Act of 1954, was one of the first to be Many of them were willing studied for its effects on the incomes of the to carry out the projects and residents. Conservation education leader do the drainage, but they Martha Munzer had high-lighted the act in didn't have the money, or her book, Pockets of Hope. After his work 7% too much in debt to get on the watershed, Hughes moved to the SCS lt. state office in Nashville, where he worked on programs to improve service to minori- At least Masingale believed the reason for ties in the state. There, the state conserva- hiring black soil conservationists in tionist in Tennessee, J. Ralph Sasser, was Louisiana, few as they were, was to try to the most active of the state conservationists reach people who were being ignored, He in the South in promoting more services to believed that: black farmers. Hughes moved to Washing- ton to help in the effort to provide equal ... the SCS people in the opportunity in hiring and programs. country would work with those people who could do President John F. Kennedy placed Vice- the drainage, or get the President Lyndon B. Johnson in charge of terraces made, or plant the the President's Committee on ual Em- pastures- -the elite black ployment Opportunity (PCEEO)?' Johnson farmers who understood and insisted that in contracting and employ- they had money or could get ment, the federal government should not it. So they worked with merely follow a negative nondiscriminatory them. They wouldn't lose policy. Rather, they should take affirmative time with the fellow that action to ensure participation by minorities. you had to court and explain The committee commenced collecting to him, really explain to statistics on minority employment in the him. Because he did not government. Former Secretary of Agricul- know about ASCS. Many of ture Orville Freeman recalled a telephone them didn't. We've had to call late one night in early 1961: take them in. They were scared to go in the office. The telephone rang and it We've had to take them in was then Vice President, and apply. Let them see that Lyndon Johnson, and he said yoflcould apply and then get to me very sternly that it. looking over the records he was not at all satisfied with He continued his work in Louisiana until the minority representation 1961 when he was asked to transfer to the in the Department of Agri- SCS state office at Nashville, Tennessee. culture and that it was about There he was to replace James Hughes, who time that I got bus and did had moved to th national SCS office in something about it. $4 Washington, D. C. 52 But USDA continued to have the reputation opinion that it was highly important that of being the slowest of the cabinet depart- positive moves to employ groes not be ments to hire blacks. Of the people in the limited to one agency alone."99 department in a position to have an impact, the Administrative Assistant, Secretary At the urging of the new president, Lyndon Joseph M. Robertson, weighed in on the Johnson, Congress passed a major Civil side of activism. Robertson believed the Rights Act in 1964. In addition to placing department would make little progress as greater emphasis on equal employment in long as routine procedures were followed. hiring, the act also focused on the equality He advised the Secretary: of participation in government services, by stating that: "No person in the United States The inertia in this area is shall, on the ground of race, color, or unbelievable until you see it national origin, be excluded from partici- at first hand. We continue to pation in, be denied the benefits of, or be live in a pattern of culture subjected to discrimination under any pro- that has been developed over gram or ac 'vity receiving federal financial the last century, and to get assistance!" Among government depart- us out of this is going to ments, elimination of discrimination had take, in my opinion, direct required special emphasis in the Depart- involvement by the Secretary ment of Agriculture. Through the years the of Agriculture and by his transfer of scientific and technical infor- agency heads and. that this mation, the administration of price-support, program must be given a acreage controls, voluntary soil conservation different order of priority activities, and other programs, and even the from sugar, or rural areas, or use of regulatory type activities had relied any other commodity. If not, on cooperation and acquiescence at the state we will make about the same and local level. State and local committees rate of progress that we have composed of appointed or selected volun- made in the past two teers f en helped administer USDA pro- years. 2 5 grams?d Overall it was a system that made for effective delivery of programs to the In his role as in-house advocate, Robertson countryside. But it was not designed to also sent Freeman Martin Luther King's respond immediately to national laws and famous and eloquent letter of April 16, priorities, still less to deliver a rapid 1963, written from the Birmingham, response to the spirit of the Civil Rights Alabama city jail. King was responding to Act, which went against the grain of local clergymen who had referred to King's mores, such as segregation. action in the civil rights movement as "unwise and untimely." The United States Commission on Civil Rights reviewed farm programs in 1964 and The Secretary was becoming more involved issued their report in 1965: Equal and authorized J e Robertson to require Opportunity in Farm Programs An monthly reports.2gAdministrator Donald A. Appraisal of Services Rendered by Agencies Williams of the Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agri- reported to Freeman that he held a meeting culture. In the 16 southern states there were of the state conservationists on June 18, 6,100 Soil Conservation Service employees 1963, and "all but two (of the state conser- in July 1964. There were only 40 Blacks in vationists) had made special effort during that work force. Half of the 40 were in the past year to employ Negroes in various jobs classified as professional. The survey vacancies." Several states were focusing on of SCS operations covered 67 counties working with the 1890 schools on their where there were large numbers of black curriculum. But the state conservationists of farmers. Sixty-six of the counties had one the southern states obviously did not want conservation farm plan for every four white to be alone in efforts and "voiced the farm owners. Twenty-six of the counties reported one plan for every four black farm field offices in the rural counties was owners. The study also revealed that hiring crucial to accomplishing integration in work black soil conservationists to seek out black assignment and w rk with districts by 39 farmers had increased participation in those smoothing the way. counties. The study included one anomaly: Madison County, Mississippi, where the The other major thrust of the Civil Rights white soil conservationist had prepared movement was, of course, to increase conservation plans for 54 percent of the employment of Blacks in SCS. With Carl white-owned land #d 77 percent of the Lindstrom and Jim Hughes of the personnel black-owned land. While accumulating section of SCS taking the lead, the agency the information, SCS found that of the had a short-term and long-term goal. Blacks who had conservation plans "a satis- Short-term goals involved quickly factory number were applying conservation increasing the number of black employees practices." The agency believed it an indi- through recruitment and working with the cation that greater efforts to reach Blacks 1890 land-grant schools to suggest easily would result in increa3td conservation achieved curriculum changes that would farming in the South. Despite the quickly increase the number of qualified inequities, the commission found that SCS applicants for jobs in SCS. The longer-term had been making efforts to recruit more goal in Lindstrom's strategy was to work black professionals and had been working with the 1890 universities on curriculum toward eliminating segregated offices. The changes involving major realignment in larger task remained, to provide equal course content, to the end that graduates opportunity in employment as well as would b well qualified for professional ensuring that "the quantity and quality of positions!4 The curriculum work was cru- service available to Negro landowners [was cial because most of the jobs with promo- not1 dependent upon t e number of Negro tion potential in SCS required college staff in a given area." 38 credits in the agricultural and natural sciences. The heads of field offices, the soil Soon after the passage of the Civil Rights conservationists, had college training in Act, agencies were being required to make agriculture. Through tradition, many of the reports on progress. The Inspector General jobs in personnel, budget, finance, and of USDA studied SCS operations in the other administrative support were filled by South. SCS could quickly end the segrega- people with degrees in agriculture and who tion in offices. They undertook a study to had worked at the field level as soil conser- determine whether Blacks were being vationists. promoted as rapidly as whites. Such actions only involved internal decisions. Others In addition to the people at the SCS state actions involved the good will of the office, Carl Lindstrom and James Hughes agency's clientele- -the farmers. Black soil travelled to the 1890 schools advising them conservationists were no longer to be on the changes needed in curriculum and restricted to working with black farmers. recruiting students for the student - trainee Black landowners were not to be restricted program. Some of the small number of to receiving help only from blacks. The Blacks who already worked for the SCS in service was to try to make sure that the the South also recruited, while themselves black SCS employees participated in serving as role models for those who meetings of conservation districts as did wanted to pursue a career in agriculture. their white counterparts. While there had The program had a marked effect on the been exceptions to all these cases before the colleges of agriculture and SCS. Grant Seals, Civil Rights Act, Administrator Donald A. who went to Florida A&M University as Williams conceded the situation needed to Dean for Agriculture and Home Economics be corrected. He was soon asking state in 1969, recalled the impact: conservationists in the South to report on progress. Williams also reminded the field Upon my arrival, I found that the attitude of the white staff in SCS the summer SCS program already operative ...The first agency in USDA could, by offering job few participants from' opportunities, cause these dramatic FAMU had been agricultural increases in student enrollment demon- education or agronomy strated the impediment that lack of job majors. Upon the advice of opportunities had been to the development SCS, FAMU had employed a of the agricultural curricula at the 1890 soil scientist to 'teach soil schools. survey and any other needed courses to constitute quali - From a very low base, the number of black fying agronomy graduates. employees grew. There were 83 Blacks on Students were recruited in the rolls in 1962, 94 in 1963, 146 in 1964 high school and were hired and 368 in 1965. As of September 30, 1990, out each summer thereafter there were 12,821 permanent full-time as trainees learning about employees of the Soil Conservation Service. soils. They were also earning Black employees numbered 926 of whom moneys for their tuition. As 627 were male. Of greater importance, 409 our recruiting program got of the black males were in "professional" stronger for the School (of job series, where there is a greater chance Agriculture) as a whole as for advancement in the organization. well as for soil science, the Another 132 Black males are in the number of SCS enrollees "technical" jobs where there is a chance for increased. At its peak, we advancement if some education goals are must have had nearly fifty met. The numbers for females are 43 pro- students in all four years of fessional, 63 administrative, 54 technical, training. We were graduating and 117 clerical. Thus the number of black . an average of 8-10, half of females is significantly lower than the per- whom were then recruited centage of black females in the labor force. by the Forest Service which Like most other government agencies, the hadn't invested anything in Soil Conservation Service has an equal the program. But we still employment program to try to address placed at lea half to two problems such as the overconcentration of thirds in SCS. % black females in clerical jobs. The increase in black employment, from the days where The increase in hiring is also reflected in there were only 40 black employees in the developments at Southern University. As South out of over 6,000, has not eliminated early as 1965, the university added a course all concerns about discrimination. There are in soil science. Some agricultural majors sufficient formal complaints filed (under had taken summer jobs with SCS. Hezekiah the procedures of the Civil Rights Acts) Jackson, Dean of the College of Agriculture throughout the agency to attest to the fact at Southern University, wrote to SCS'S that individuals believe they are being dis- administrator Donald Williams on October criminated against because of race. 20, 1965, "You might also be interested in knowing that our recent relations with the The degree to which Blacks have been able Soil Conservation Service have contributed to move into the top jobs is also a concern. to increasing our agricu t ral enrollment Whatever the makeup of the top adminis- 500% over the last year!''g Working with trative jobs should be, it is clear that some 1890 universities to ensure that their grad- individuals have advanced in the adminis- uates had the necessary courses to place tration. With the exception of the two top them in position to pursue a career was jobs in SCS--the Chief and the associate laudable in many respects for it served both chief--blacks have served in most other job the interests of the students and the agency. categories throughout the organization. A But the changes in enrollment starkly black employee has now served as a state revealed the sad state of affairs that pre- conservationist in Arizona, California, ceded the Civil Rights Act. That a single Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jer- sey, Nevada, and Wisconsin. A University Allen 'w. Jones, "The South's First Black of Arkansas-Pine Bluff graduate, Peahie Farm Agents," Agricultural History 50 Reed, was the Deputy State Conservationist (October 1976): 636-44; and "Thomas W. in Arkansas before moving on to the state Campbell: Black Agricultural Leader of the conservationist's position, first in Maryland New South," Agricultural History 53 and currently in California. At the national (January 19?9): 42-59; Wayne D. Ras- office, Sherman Lewis and Platter Campbell mussen, Taking The University to the have been division directors. Lewis is cur- People: Seventy-five Years of Cooperative rently an assistant chief. Jacqueline Sutton Extension (Ames: Iowa State University was the deputy associate chief for adminis- Press, 1989), 7, 52, 68, 72, and 103. tration. Douglas Helms, "The Civilian Conserva- In summary, the few Blacks who worked tion Corps: Demonstrating the Value of Soil for the Soil Conservation Service in the Conservation." Journal of Soil and Water 1940s and 1950s served their clientele well Conservation 40 (March - April 1985): 187. by focusing on those who were not being reached. To take one example, John Jones Interview with Richard A. Moody, Tyler, recalled that when he went to work in Texas, May 17, 1990. Anson County, North Carolina there were a few Blacks, those with fairly large farms, Louis P. Merrill, Soil and Water Conser- who were cooperators with SCS. But some vation in the Western Gulf Region: Part 11, of the black farmers in the northwest The U. S. Soil Erosion Service, Project No. corner of the county around Burnsville and 20, Duck Creek, Smith County, Texas other communities did not have conserva- (Temple, Texas: Soil Conservation, 1982), tion plans. By the time Jones left the 72. county, all the black farme~jjof the county were cooperators with SCS. Jones and his Interview with Richard A. Moody, Tyler, contemporaries were role' models for the Texas, May 17, 1990. generation of recruits who joined SCS after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The response Hugh Hammond Bennett, "Conservation to the Civil Rights Act involved some inno- Farming for Better Living," Address pre- vative approaches in working with the 1890 pared for delivery by Dr. Hugh H. Bennett schools to gain recruits. Some of the at the annual soil conservation jamboree at recruits of the mid - 1960s have progressed Log Cabin Center, Hancock County, through the administrative levels of the Georgia, August 13, 1946, p. 5. (Hugh agencies. Yet, it remains obvious that con- Hammond Bennett Papers, Department of tinued vigilance is needed to ensure that Special Collections, Iowa State University those who do the public's business serve all Library, Ames, Iowa, hereafter HHB the public and provide equal employment Papers.) opportunities for those interested in soil and water conservation. he seeming decline in black technicians may be due to increased hiring during World War I1 and then the loss of jobs to Endnotes returning servicemen. "Negro Soil Conser - vationists," Notes prepared for use by Dr. Interview with John Maynard Jones, Ba- T.S. Buie in panel discussion on "The hama, North Carolina, September 29, 1990. Changing Status of the Negro in Southern During the course of the interview, the Agriculture," Rural Life Conference, interviewer discovered that his great-uncle Tuskegee Institute, Tuskegee, Alabama, Cuther Ross had worked with John Jones at June 18-20, 1950, T.F. Buie Speeches. Soil Wadesboro laying out soil conservation and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, practices. Ioa 2. Hugh Hammond Bennett to All Regional Directors, August 22, 1950, HHB Papers, 24 Orville Freeman, Oral History, February Folder 2213. 14, 1969, p. 2, Lyndon B. Johnson Presi- dential Library, Austin, Texas. lo Ibid. 25 Joseph M. Robertson to Orville Free- My former boss at the National man, June 6, 1963, Folder "Civil Rights," Archives, Harold T. Pinkett tells me that he General Correspondence, Record Group 16, met Barnett's widow at an Association for Records of the office of Secretary of Afro-American History meeting. She told Agriculture, National Archives and Records him that Barnett was one of the "dollar-a- Administration, Washington, D.C. Here- year" advisors to the three successive secre- inafter the abbreviations GC, RG, and taries of agriculture, Henry A. Wallace, NARA will be used. Claude Wickard, and Ezra Taft Benson. 26 Orville Freeman to Don Williams, July l2 Claude A. Barnett to Hugh Hammond 11, 1963, Folder "Civil Rights," GC, RG Bennett, May 5, 1951, HHB Papers, Folder 16, NARA. 2213. 27 Donald A. Williams to Orville L. Free- l3 Hugh H. Bennett, Memorandum for man, June 24, 1963, Folder "Civil Rights," discussion at Regional Director's Meeting, GC, RG 16, NARA. June 7, 1951, HHB Papers. 28 Secretary's Memorandum No. l56O., l4 Ibid. Implementation of Civil Rights Act of 1964, July 10, 1964, Folder "Civil Rights," Study of Blacks in SCS in 1964, Records GC, RG 16, NARA. relating to civil rights, History Office, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. 29 For a recent and important interpretation of USDA working relationships, see l6 Interview with Leon Blankenship, David E. Hamilton, "Building the Associa- Alexandria, Louisiana, May 15, 1990. tive State: The Department of Agriculture and American State Building," Agricultural l7 Ibid. History 64 (Spring 1990): 207- 18. l8 Ibid. 30 Equal Opportunity in Farm Programs An Appraisal of Services Rendered by l9 Donald Holley, Uncle Sam's Farmers: Agencies of the United States Department The New Deal Communities in the Lower of Agriculture: A Report of the United Mississippi Valley (Urbana: University of States Commission on Civil Rights Illinois Press, 1975), 1 12- 13. (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1965), 85-89.

20 Interview with Obie Masingale, Baton -31 Ibid., 89. Rouge, Louisiana, May 12, 1990. 32 Ibid., 89. 21 Ibid. 33 Donald A. Williams to State Conserva- 22 Study of Blacks in SCS in 1964, Records tionists, Advisory LEG- 10, March 17, 1965, relating to civil rights, History Office, Soil Civil Rights Records, History Office, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

23 Hugh Davis Graham, The Civil Rights 34 Carl A. Lindstrom, Memorandum, Equal Era: Origin and Development of National Employment in SCS, July 15, 1965, Civil Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, Rights Records, History Office, Soil Con- 1990), 38-40. servation Service, Washington, D.C. 35 Grant Seals to the author, September 12, 1990.

36 Hezekiah ~ackson,Dean of the College of Agriculture, to Donald A. Williams, October 20, 1965. Civil Rights Files, His- tory Office, Soil Conservation Service.

37 Interview with John Maynard Jones, September 29, 1990. SCS and '1890' Graduate.: Of Mutual Benefit

Reprinted from Soil and Water Conservation News 11, no. 2 (July-August 1990): 8-9.

by Douglas Helms, National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

The number of black employees in the Soil private colleges. But the schools called for Conservation Service has increased at in 1890 in the second Morrill Act consti- varying rates over the years. A few were tuted State-supported higher education for hired in the 1940s, primarily to work with blacks in much of the South, because the black landowners. Greater numbers joined first Morrill Act had benefited whites only. SCS following civil rights legislation in the 1960s. Many of the blacks who have worked in the Soil Conservation Service are products Over the years, many of the blacks who of this environment. They are graduates of have worked for SCS have been children of the 1890 Institutions and Tuskegee Univer- landowning black farmers. Blacks have sity, children of the landowning farmers. owned farmland in the United States since before the Civil War, although the number During the 1940s, SCS hired a limited increased fairly dramatically toward the end number of blacks to work in counties with of the 19th century. large populations of black landowners. Bishop Holifield held such a position in Though a distinct minority, some free Florida, as did John Jones in North blacks in the South acquired land before Carolina, Howard Hardy in South Carolina, the Civil War. By 1830, some 647 rural free and Maurice Godley in Virginia. blacks in Virginia had acquired land. On the eve of the Civil War in 1860, there In Texas, Richard Moody, a Prairie View were 1,316 black farmers and rural land- A&M graduate, went to work for SCS in holders in Virginia who had property Tyler. In addition to working with black valued at $369,647. Maryland's rural black farmers in Smith County, Moody and his landowners numbered 519 in 1830 and staff helped train additional blacks as soil 2,124 in 1860. conservationists to work in other parts of Texas. One of the trainees, Floyd Sanders, Despite the financial obstacles and the opened an SCS office at Jefferson, Texas, resistance to selling land to blacks, they where his staff assisted black landowners in continued to acquire land after the Civil the Marion-Cass Soil Conservation District. War. Between 1870 and 1890, in the upper Southern States of Kentucky, Maryland, In 1951, SCS established the first of two Missouri, and Virginia, the number of offices in Louisiana to work with black black landowners increased from 6,859 to farmers. Leon Blankenship and his staff at 39,859. One out of three black farmers SCS's Grambling college office worked owned land. In the lower South, where with hill country farmers on terracing, resistance to selling land to blacks was pasture improvement, woodland develop- greater, the progress was slower. Usually, ment, and farm ponds. Work unit conserva- less than one out of five black farmers tionist Obie Masingale began work in the owned land. Delta parishes in January 1952 and helped farmers with landleveling, pasture renova- A passion for education accompanied the tion, and drainage. yearning to own land among many of the former slaves. Missionary societies estab- The civil rights movement of. the 1960s lished some of the first colleges for blacks focused attention on securing the funda- after the Civil War. There were a few mental right to vote for all Americans and ending segregation. The Federal Gover- and encourage students to undertake careers nment began emphasizing equal opportunity with SCS. in employment and equal access to Gov- ernment services. During the 1960s, SCS staff met with college presidents and officials and urged them The establishment of the President's Com- to increase course offerings in soil science, mittee on Equal Employment Opportunity one of the main requirements for qualifying in 1961 spurred Federal agencies to hire as a soil conservationist. additional qualified blacks. SCS in Tennessee and North Carolina signed up a With the prospect of employment by SCS few trainees from "1890" universities in and other agencies and the option of addi- 1963. Also in 1963, James Hughes, from tional courses in agricultural fields, enroll- Tennessee, became special assistant on ment in agricultural degree programs intergroup relations at SCS national head- increased. For example, the 1965 freshman quarters. class at Florida A&M included 40 students in the School of Agriculture--twice the In response to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enrollment in 1964. SCS closed segregated offices and moved swiftly to eliminate segregation in work How much or how little progress has been assignments, which had been deemed dis- made toward fulfilling the promise of equal criminatory. opportunity in both the Federal Govern- ment and society can be debated. The grad- A 1965 policy stated that "SCS personnel uates from the 1890 Institutions and who are members of minority groups are Tuskegee University who joined SCS in the not to be restricted to working solely with 1960s have now spent more than 20 years minority group landowners and operators." with the agency. During that time, they Furthermore, 'SCS minority group have served at practically all levels in SCS. employees will meet with district governing bodies in their regular meetings." More importantly, the racial makeup of the corps of soil conservationists in SCS is far The United States Commission on Civil different than it was on the eve of the civil Rights issued a report in 1965 on the pro- rights movement. grams of the U.S. Department of Agricul- ture. Of 6,100 SCS employees in 16 States in the South, the Commission found that 40 were black and only about half were in job categories considered professional.

SCS's strategy to hire more black professionals included signing up student trainees to work in the summer. The students could determine if this was the type of career they wanted, and could tailor college courses accordingly. The number of SCS student trainees increased in the years immediately following the Civil Rights Act, from 9 in 1965 to an estimated 60 in 1968.

SCS also hired "1890" university professors for the summer to familiarize them with the agency's work. SCS hoped the professors would incorporate their newly gained knowledge in the next year's courses Women in the Soil Conservation Service

To be published in Women in Natural Resources 14, no. 1 (September 1992). by Douglas Helms, National Historian. Soil 'conservation Service

"Tama Jim" Wilson, who served for the Bureau of Chemistry hired a number of longest tenure of any Secretary of Agricul- female chemists. Others found employment ture (1897- 19131, found the importuning in the Bureau of Home Economics where for jobs in the department the most vexing the bureau chief, Louise Stanley, was the part of the job. "Finding places for highest paid and highest ranking woman deserving women on the request of Senators scientist in the federal government. But who righteously plead their cause is the Stanley was the exception as other women greatest di ficulty I meet with," he wrote to scientists did not have the oppor unity to a senator.' He found the situation of the advance in rank and remuneration. k unmarried women particularly distressing, as he confided to an old friend. "This is a Women librarians worked in the Depart- great national eddy where human driftwood ment's library, which in time became the, lodges. Young ladies are begging for the most outstanding agricultural library in the cheapest kind of labor here, who should go world. During the early twentieth century into families and do housework ....So you see several women held the post of Librarian of I have to look at the sad side of life here USDA. World War I1 was perhaps the high and sometimes I feel l'ke taking my hat and point in women's employment in USDA. In going home to Iowa!'' The few women in 1939, 20 percent of the employees were the early days found employment in the women.. The figure was 34.09 per cent in lower paid jobs. In March 1864, nearly two 1943, before dropping back to 21 percent in years after the creation of the U. S. 1947.5 Department of Agriculture, the Commis- sioner received authority to employ women Probably the .first female employee of the as clerks. In 1891 there were 169 women in Soil Erosion Service, predecessor to the Soil the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Conservation Service, was Lillian H. constituting about 12 percent of the Wieland. On September 19; 1933, Hugh employees. Throughout the government Hammond Bennett transferred from USDA about 14 percent of the government typists to the Department of the Interior to head were women. the Soil Erosion Service. The following day Lillian H. Wieland entered on duty as his The Bureau of Animal Industry hired secretary. Among the 12 employees in the women in field offices to do routine Washington office in October 1933 were microscopic examinations of me t, which Wieland, &aura G. Fitzhugh, and Alberta was required by an 1891 law! A few Stanback. Most of the early women women slowly found their way into profes- employees of the Soil Erosion Service and sional positions. Among federal government the Soil Conservation Service, as it was departments USDA was the largest renamed in 1935, were in secretarial and employer of women scientists, hiring about clerical positions where they were integral two-thirds of the government total in the to the success of the operations. From its 1920s and 1930s. American Men of Science beginning as a few scattered demonstration listed 19 women scientists in USDA in the projects, SCS developed into a national 1921 edition and. 61 in the 1938 edition, organization with upwards of 3,000 offices two of whom were in the Soil Conservation and more than 15,000 employees. The main Service. The Bureau of Plant Industry was a work of the agency was working directly leader in government in hiring women with farmers and ranchers on conservation scientists, especialry plant pathologists. The problems. Such a far-flung organization relied, in part, on competent professional government license plates. I drive into this secretarial and clerical work. station, roll down the window as an old fellow, the attendant, approaches the car, During the rapid initial growth of the orga- and I say, 'Fill it up, please.' He doesn't nization, everyone felt the pressure to make answer, just looks at me--then he proceeds a favorable impact so that the work would to walk around the car. When he gets back continue. Frances Hershberger recalled the to the open window, he says, 'Does bhe early office work in Maryland. 'TI] think all government let women drive their cars?"' of us secretaries felt we helped to get the project for SCS in Maryland off to a good In addition to the Soil and Water Conserva- start. We worked diligently from 8 to 5, & tion Society, SCS also has had a long asso- for the first few months worked overtime. ciation with the conservation districts and We not only worked 5 full d s a week but their national organization, the National also 1/2 day on Saturday!' Though the Organization of Conservation Districts. early secretarial staff may not have worked Women have also played a large part in this personally on conservation practices on the cooperation- -probably none more so in the farm, they could enjoy the sense of group formative period than Mrs. Ellen Cobb of accomplishment. Estella B. Williams started Spartanburg, South Carolina. While a secre- working in Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, in tary with the Soil Conservation Service, she 1935 and later transferred to Maryland. At began helping with the meetings of South the age of 91 (in 1989) in a retirement Carolina's state association of conservation home in Hagerstown she wrote, "I still love districts. By 1931 she regularly attended to go through the country and see the strip and kept notes at the meetings and asfpted cropping etc. (18 with the growth of the organization. E. C. McArthur, the first head of the state Like their male counterparts, quite a num- association, led an effort to organize a ber of the women who found employment national meeting of district officials. Mrs. in the early days made a career of the Cobb went to the meeting in Chicago in work. Secretaries throughout the organiza- 1946 whei the National Association of Soil tion have often been invaluable in Conservation District Officials was orga- providing continuity in cases where heads nized. Later Mrs. Cobb recalled the mood of office changed frequently. They know of the meeting that was so instrumental in the organization and the key conservation the history of the conservation movement in partners in state agencies, conservation dis- the United States. It "was hot as Hades tricts, and other areas. when those 17 men, plus McArthur, plus little me, sat around a table in the Morrison Some states did not have clerks for districts; Hotel, and discussed the merits of a the area clerk would travel to the districts national organization, and I won't deny that to do the work. Marjory A. McTavish, the some of them were doubtful; but afier area clerk at Butte, Montana, made work much talll that great leader McArthur sold trips to each of 11 district offices four his idea." The group authorized McArthur times a year. Now, when she speaks to to hire Mrs. Cobb as the Executive Secre- groups and encourages young women to tary. McArthur died in an automobile acci- consider a career in the federal government, dent in 1947, and Kent Leavitt of Mill- she uses a story to illustrate some of the brook, New York, was elected as the presi- attitudes that were all too prevalent about dent. Mrs. Cobb was clearly the most women's role in the federal government in knowledgeable person about McArthur's the 1960s. "I was making a three-day trip, plans for the infant organization. Mrs. Cobb spending a day at Three Forks, then moved to Millbrook and lived in a rented Townsend, and then Helena. I stopped in house which served both as her home and East Helena for gasoline. Now--this is in the office of the National Association of the early 1960s. and I am driving an olive Soil Conservation Districts. With the green government sedan with decals on the organization on a better footing, Mrs. Cobb door saying USDA-SCS and displaying resigned in une 1948 and returned to Spartan burg. 1d Another person in technical and informa- tional work in the early history of the Soil Although most of the women in SCS during Conservation Service was Charlotte White- the 1930s and 1940s were in the secretarial ford, later Charlotte Colton. Whiteford was and clerical fields, there were some women elected to phi Beta Kappa and then earned in the sciences and technical specialties. At an M. S. degree in botany at Ohio State the urging of the Science Advisory Board, University before taking a job as a secre- the Soil Erosion Service set up a Climatic tary with the soil science staff at the SCS and Physiographic Division to do research office in Zanesville, Ohio in the mid 1930s. in climate, ecology, geomorphology, and Her scientific training served her well in erosion history. Within the division Lois working with the staff. J. Gordon Steele, a Olson headed the Erosion History Section, soil scientist who had been in a plant ecol- whose staff researched maps, documents, ogy class with her at Ohio. State, found his and records to determine the character of former classmate at the Zanesville office. In the natural landscape. This information the late 1930s Steele was involved in pub- could be used to establish datum points for lishing SCS reports entitled "Erosion and studies in climatic change, the extent and Related Land Use Condition," concerning rate o soil erosion, and changes in plant the various SCS project areas. He recruited cover.f3 Olson had B.S. and M. S.. degrees Whiteford to come to Washington as an in geography from the University of assistant soil technologist to work on the Chicago. She had studied at the London reports. The job required both knowledge School of Economics and had worked with in soil science and editing. Whiteford took the American Geographical Society before courses in editing and soil science in the takin the job with the Soil Erosion Ser- USDA graduate school. At least one of the vice.F4 In addition to supervising the work reports, Physical Land Conditions on the of the section, Olson published articles Leather wood Creek Demonstration Project, from the research work in Agricultural Lawrence County, Indiana, included her as History, Geographical Review, Nature, and an author. Charlotte Colton continued to Soil Conservation. work as an editor, especially on soil surveys, and eventually became head of the Due to the need for geographers to help publications staff. of the Soil C servation with the war effort during World War 11. Service. She retired in the 1980s. f'? Olson left SCS to work for the Office of Strategic Services; later she worked with the A few women worked as public Department of State and the Central Intelli- information specialists and editors during gence Agency. During the period September the early history of SCS; more joined in the 1942 through October 1943, SCS lost about 1960s through the 1980s. Phoebe Harrison 23 percent of its employees, many of whom regularly wrote and compiled the book went into military service or transferred to review section of the early issues of Soil other government agencies. During that Conservation. Later she worked on the year 32 femalg employees joined the mili- international aspects of soil and water con- tary services. In the civilian labor force servation before retirement. Ruth Nordin "Rosie the ~iveter"had come to symbolize headed the editing shop and from there women's contributions to the war effort by helped women such as Georgie Keller, working in jobs usually reserved for men. It Catherine Blakely, and Juanita Grasty move seems SCS did not use this method a great up from lower grades to be publications deal, although there were some exceptions. editors. Nordin also taught editing in the Mary C. Baltz, a graduate of Cornell USDA Graduate School and gave workshops University, joined SCS as a "Junior Soil on clear writing to SCS managers. Kay Surveyor" during the war labor shortage and Mergen worked in the area of co ervation continued with the agency as a soil sur- education in the 1960s and 1970s. # veyor u~#l the early 1960s when she resigned. The work of SCS in farm planning, soil the field, especially those interested in pro- surveys, and other activities has relied in gressing upward in the organization, knew part on expertise in cartography, use of of Miss Mohagen and the fact that they aerial photography, and remote sensing. needed to be mobile and to acquire the Some women found employment in the experience needed to advance. Mohagen cartographic center at the regional offices also pioneered in using the student trainee and later the technical centers, although program and in using trainee programs to often in the lower paid jobs of cartographic develop professionals in certain areas. SCS aid and cartographic technician. Probably developed an administrative trainee pro- the best known of the women who worked gram to develop administrative professional in the Soil Conservation Service in the late staff for SCS offices. 1940s up into the 1960s was Verna C. Mohagen, director of the Personnel Divi- Black women were limited in opportunities sion. A native of North Dakota, Mohagen not only by gender but also by race. Juanita went to work for the Veterans Bureau as a Grasty was one of the few black women, if clerk-stenographer in 1927. In 1929 she not the only one in fact, in the national moved to Washington, DC, to work for the office of SCS prior to the passage of the Bureau of Chemistry and Soils. Like many Civil Rights Act. Due to administration another young person who came to the policy, SCS had begun efforts to hire more capital to work for the federal government, minorities in the 1960s. This effort was she soon found the local colleges and uni- greatly stre%hened by the Civil Rights versities to be an opportunity to gain an Act of 1964. Ermine F. Bates became the education and to improve job prospects. By first black female hired in North Carolina attending George Washington University at when she joined the state office staff in night over eight years while working full- Raleigh in 1964. She remained until her time, she earned a B. A. degree (1934) and retirement in 1984. Martha Marbury joined an M. A. degree (1937) in economics. She SCS in 1967 and through her career became also took courses in public administration at the first black personnel officer and the American University. Miss Mohagen joined first black branch chief in the personnel the Soil Conservation Service in 1935 and division in the national headquarters. progressed until she was irector of the Maxine Barron joined SCS as the first GS- Personnel Division in 1946. 18 14 black female in SCS as a program analyst in 1980. Jackie Sutton moved from the Mohagen advanced the career development USDA administration to become associate concept in SCS. It was derived from the deputy for administration in 1983, and was notion that leaders in the. Soil Conservation the first female to occupy a Senior Execu- Service, especially the state conservationists tive Service job in SCS. and the national headquarters leaders, should have work experience in more than Legal changes in the 1960s and 1970s began one state and in a variety of programs. Pre- to open more opportunities for women. viously, most of the people who advanced Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to state conservationists had long experience prohibited sex discrimination in employ- in one state. The concept that state conser- ment in the federal government. Executive vationists should have experience in other orders 11246 (1966) and 11478 (1969) states was regarded as revolutionary. Also, required federal age2fies to develop affir - the Personnel section often identified young mative action plans. The Equal Employ- conservationists who should be given ment Act of 1972 (P. L. 92-261) required opportunities to get the experience needed agencies to write EEO plans with "provision to advance to national headquarters or to a for the establishment of training and edu- state conservationist's position. cation programs designed to provide maximum opportunity for employees to ad- Mohagen had the support of the Adminis- vance so s to perform at their highest trator, Donald A. Williams, in this area. potential."2' The Civil Service Reform Act Thus, the young people in SCS throughout of 1978 further stated that the policy of the federal government was to provide a federal Stevenson became the first woman district work force reflecting the nation's diversity. conservationist October 12, 1975 at Welton, Arizona? As of July 1991 there In 1973, about a year after the passage of were 185 female district conservationi t the Equal Employment Act, women occu- out of a total of 2,478 for the agency.37 pied approximately 11 percent of the per- Four women have been have been state manent full-time positions in the Soil Con- conservationists and the director of the servation Service. Eighty-nine percent of Pacific Basin area is a female. the women were in clerical fields, 5.3 percent in administrative and technical fields, Various professionals in staff positions sup- and a scant 0.2 percent in profeypnal port the field operations of SCS. The fields. The average grade was 4.86. At changes brought on by the Equal Employ- that time women comprised about 20 per- ment Act gave women who are interested in cent of USDA's work force and 40 percent agriculture and natural resources opportu- of the work force of the federal govern- nities to seek these positions. Among some ment. of the professional categories, the number of female employees as of February 1992 Agencies were required to develop Upward were 85 soil scientists, 59 civil engineers, Mobility Programs to give greater opportu- 30 range conservationists, 30 biologists, 21 nities for women to move into professional agricultural engineers, 12 cartographers, 11 ranks. SCS's I n had been approved by agronomists, eight geologists, 4 foresters, October 1974!' Between 1970 and 1975. two hydrolog&ts, one wildlife biologist, and three years after the passage of the Equal one botanist. Just to take one example of Employment Act, the agency had made the changes, prior to 1984 there were no some progress in improving employment in female professionals on the staff of the the middle grades. Those in grades GS-7 plant materials centers. There are now and above increased from 24 to 44. The rofessionals on the staffs nation- average grade for women moved from 4.72 seven24'wide. to 5.24. There were 123 women in2grofes- sional and student trainee positions. At the national headquarters several women have been national specialists in their disci- Currently about 24 percent of the perma- plines. Only one woman has been a division nent full-time and part-time employees of director, while three women have been SCS are women. Thus the percentage has associate deputy chiefs. more than doubled. Of greater significance is the fact that women have opportunities Listed below are the numbers and job cate- in a wider variety of jobs. The Upward gories for women in SCS. Only job series Mobility Program afforded some women the with over 50 people are included: possibility of using a mixture of formal and on-the- job training to more into profes- Number Job Classification sional positions. In November 1975 there were 64 upward mobility positions filled 595 soil conservationist and another 31 advertised. Greater emphasis 517 secretary on hiring allowed women to move into the 262 soil conservation technician technical specialties or to become soil con- 220 clerk servationists. SCS had nearly 3,000 field 145 student trainee offices working closely with soil and water 139 computer specialist conservation districts. Work in the field 137 clerk typist offices gave women an opportunity to work 85 soil scientist with the agency's primary clientele, the 77 personnel clerk rural landowners. This experience was 73 personnel management spec. traditionally the route of advancement in 67 public affairs specialist' SCS to management positions at the state 6 1 budget analyst offices and national level. Roberta 59 civil engineer 56 computer clerk Report of the Chief of the Soil Conserva- 53 contract specialist tion Service, 1935. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Women numbered 3,153 of the 12,825 permanent full - time and permanent pag-time Report of the Chief of the Soil Conserva- employees, or 24 percent, in 1992. The tion Service, 1943. U. S. Department of continuation and expansion of equal Agriculture, Washington, DC. opportunities for women constitute not only the just and legal path to take, but also the Rossiter, M. W. 1982. Women Scientists In one most beneficial to the agency. For a America: Struggle and Strategies to 1940. natural resources agency such as SCS to Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, continue with a well-trained, dedicated Maryland. work force, it will need to make even greater efforts to recruit the best of those Sampson, R. N. 1984. For Love of the available of whatever gender, race, or eth- Land: A History of the National Association nic group. of Conservation Districts. National Associa- tion of Conservation Districts, League City, Texas. References Wilcox, E. V. 1930. Tama Jim. Stratford, American Men of Science. 1968. 11th edi- Boston. tion. R. R. Bowker Company, New York. Wiser, V. 1987. 'Women Scientists in Baker, G. L. 1976. 'Women in the U. S. USDA." Typescript. History Office. Eco- Department of Agriculture." Agricultural nomic Research Service, U. S. Department History. 50: 190- 20 1. of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

Biographical Sketches, History Office, Soil Women in SCS. 1989. File. of information Conservation Service, Washington, DC. supplied by SCS state offices in response to memorandum of John W. Peterson to State Civil Rights. Files concerning USDA's Conservation, Subject: History of Women in implementation of equal employment laws SCS, January 26, 1989. History Office Soil may be found in the subject folder "Civil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. Rights," Record Group 16, Records of the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture, Washington National Records Center, Na- tional Archives and Records Administra- tion.

Employment data bases. 1992. Personnel Division, Soil Conservation Service, Wash- ington, DC.

Federal Personnel Manual System.

Geiger, R. L., Jr. 1955. A Chronological History of the Soil Conservation Service and Related Events. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC.

Keepers of the Land. 1972. South Carolina Association of Soil Conservation District Supervisors, Columbia, South Carolina. Endnotes lo Keepers of the Land (South Carolina James Wilson to W. J. Sewell, December Association of Soil Conservation District 15, 1897, Secretary's Outgoing Letters, Supervisors, 1972). pp. 39-43 Records of the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture, Record Group 16, National Quoted in R. Neil Sampsan, For Love Archives. Quoted in Gladys L. Baker, Of The Land: A History of the National 'Women in the U. S. Department of Association of Conservation Districts Agriculture," Agricultural History 50 (League City, Texas: National Association (January 1976): 190. of Conservation Districts, 1984), p. 51.

Quoted in Earley Vernon Wilcox, Tama l2 Sampson, For Love of the Land, pp. 49- Jim (Boston, Mass,: Stratford, 1930), p. 37. 71. ' Vivian Wiser, 'Women Scientists in l3 Report of the Chief of the Soil USDA," Typescript. History Office, Conservation Service, 1935 (Washington, Economic Research Service, USD A, DC: Government Printing Office, 1933, p. Washington, DC., 1987. 39.

Margaret W. Rossiter, Women Scientists l4 American Men of Science. 1 lth edition. In America: Struggle and Strategies to 19.10 (New York: R. R. Bowker Company, 1968). (Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins p. 1201. University Press, l982), pp. 223-235. l5 Report of the Chief of the Soil Baker, 'Women in the U. S. Department Conservation Service, 1943 (Washington, of Agriculture," 190-201. DC: U. S. Department of Agriculture, October 19431, pp. 14-15. Robert L. Geiger, Jr. (Compiler) A Chronological History of the Soil l6 Information compiled by Fred Gilbert of Conservation Service and Related Events the SCS state office in Syracuse, New York, (Washington, DC: Soil Conservation Service, March 22, 1989. File 'Women in SCS," June 30, 1955), p. 1. History Office, SCS, Washington, DC.

Information supplied by Fran l7 Gordon Steele to Douglas Helms, March Hershberger, Rivera Beach, Florida, 1989. 31, 1989, File 'Women in SCS," History Responses to memorandum of John W. Office, Washington, DC; telephone Peterson to State Conservationists, Subject: conversation with Charlotte Colton, History of Women in SCS, January 26, February 14, 1992. 1989, File 'Women in SCS," History Office, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. l8 Telephone conversation with Lee The letter requested information from Shields, February 5, 1992. offices in SCS about women significant in the history of the organization. l9 Biographical Sketches, History Office, Hereinafter, footnotes in this article will Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. cite the accumulated files of responses rather than individual ones. 20 For a description of the impact on SCS see Douglas Helms, "Eroding the Color Estella B. Williams to Eileen E. Gough, Line: The Soil Conservation Service and the February 4, 1989, File 'Women in SCS," Civil Rights Act of 1964," Agricultural History Office, Soil Conservation Service. History 65(2): 35-53.

File 'Women in SCS," History Office, 21 "Preliminary Guidance on the Federal SCS. Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program," enclosed with Joan S. Wallace to Dale E. Hathaway, August 23, 1979, "Civil Rights," Record Group 16, Records of the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture, Washington National Records Center, National Archives and Records Administration.

22 Federal Personnel Manual System, FPM Letter No. 713-27, June 28, 1974, Ibid.

23 S. B. Pranger to Robert W. Long, "Reports of Progress in Equal Employment Opportunity," May 15, 1973, Joseph R. Wright to Robert W. Long, "Progress in Equal Employment Opportunity, September 5, 1973, Ibid.

24 Joseph R. Wright, Jr. to Robert W. Long, October 18, 1974, "Civil Rights," Ibid.

25 R. M. Davis to Robert W. Long, November 26, 1975, "Civil Rights," Ibid.

26 R. M. Davis to Robert W. Long, November 26, 1975, Ibid.

27 Statistics from employment data bases, Personnel Division, SCS, Washington, DC.

28 Statistics from employment data bases, Personnel Division, SCS, Washington, DC.

29 Information supplied by Curtis Sharp, National Plant Materials Specialist.

30 Statistics from employment data bases, Personnel Division, SCS, Washington, DC. Small Watersheds and the USDA: Legacy of the Flood Control Act of 1936

Reprinted from Rosen, Howard, and Martin Reuss, eds. The Flood Control Challenge: Past, Present, and Future. Proceedings of a National Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana, September 26, 1986. Chicago: Public Works Historical Society, 1988. pp. 67-88. by Douglas Helms, National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

The Flood Control Act of 1936, followed involved in 22 percent of the projects, by the Flood Control Act of 1944 and the recreation in 19 percent, municipal and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention industrial water supply in 12 percent, fish Act of 1954, made the U.S. Department of and wildlife habitat enhancement in 7 per- Agriculture (USDA) one of the federal cent, and irrigation in 7 percent. Since the participants in flood control work. The act Flood Control Act of 1944, the department initiated the most thorough examination yet has been involved in 1,387 projects of agriculture's relationship to flooding. covering more than 87 million acres. The period of study and investigations of watersheds springing from the 1936 act The nature of these projects has been affected the structure of future water shaped to a certain extent by the results of resources programs in USDA. The experi- scientific research and technological devel- ences of the earlier period were incorpo- opments. To an equal or greater degree they rated in the provisions of the 1954 act, the have been influenced by attitudes--attitudes legislation under which most of USDA's about the interrelationships of land cover, flood control work has been carried out. soil erosion, and flooding; attitudes about the most desirable working relationship While this paper will not concentrate on between federal, state, and local entities; individual projects and field activities in attitudes about who should benefit from flood control, a general idea of the pro- and who should pay for flood control programs that resulted from the process begun jects; and attitudes about small watersheds in 1936 will help in understanding the in comprehensive river basin planning. Such events of the intervening years. The Agri- attitudes influenced the flood control legis- culture Department's small watershed pro- lation for upstream work. But the legisla- gram, as it has come to be called, is gener- tion left leeway for administrative deci - ally limited to upstream tributary water- sions. Thus, changes in attitudes on how the sheds of less than 250,000 acres. Many of program should be operated have been the projects have utilized combinations of important and likely will continue to floodwater-retarding structures, channel influence the program. modifications, and other engineering works to reduce flooding along streams. The Underlying the decision to have a flood department has generally provided financial control program in the headwaters, the assistance for these aspects of flood control upstream tributaries, or the little waters was projects. USDA also offers assistance, often the belief that humans, through their activ- a technically trained soil conservationist, to ities, affect the frequency and severity of help apply conservation practices on farm floods, especially by removing vegetation' and ranch lands in the watersheds above the and inducing soil erosion and rapid runoff. structures. Undoubtedly there are many ancient examples of this belief, but for an early In the parlance of USDA the former type American example the observations of the of assistance is called flbod prevention and colonial naturalist John Bartram should the latter, watershed protection. In addition suffice. He observed in New England that to flood prevention, most projects involved pasturing the woodland caused little hollows additional purposes. Drainage has been which "wear to ye sand & clay which it bears away with ye swift current down t brooks & rivers whose banks it overflows." P The Civilian Conservation Corps helped another new conservation agency, the Soil The question of the scientific relationship Erosion Service, later the Soil Conservation of forests and flooding entered the public Service (SCS), begin its work. The CCC policy arena in the late nineteenth and early camps, as well as the Works Progress twentieth centuries. Those who believed the Administration labor, allowed Hugh Ham- relationship to be close felt that good forest mond Bennett to test his theories about soil cover regulated streamflow by enhancing conservation. Bennett, a career soil scientist infiltration. Watershed protection for water in USDA, concerned himself mainly with supply was a primary intent of the 1892 the impact of soil erosion on loss of pro- legislation that allowed the president to ductive capacity, but he was not unmindful establish forest reserves from the public of the question of the relationship of soil lands, reserves which became the core of erosion to flooding. Where soil erosion was the national forest system. The Weeks Act prevalent, the floods covered fertile bot- of 1911 permitted the purchase of lands in tomlands with stones and infertile sand. the East to establish national forests. The Erosional debris reduced the capacity of rationale that satisfied constitutional objec- stream channels and reservoirs. Particularly tions was that forest cover influenced destructive floods could remove the fertile streamflow; therefore the government could alluvium, leaving only stones, a cond'tion purchase watersheds under the power to which he said required levees or dikes! But regulate commerce. Watershed protection he also believed that there could never be also played a part in Senator Francis G. "any far-reaching permanent flood control Newlands' plans to legislate for a compre- if erosion is not put under control over the hensive water resources development pro- watersheds feeding the streams of the gram- -plans that included, in part, forests nation." In addition to the troublesome and reservoirs as an alternative to levees for results of sedimentation, soil erosion flood control. The U.S. Army Corps of "speeded up runoff of surface water from Engineers particularly protested what they bared slopes to accentuate flood peaks and viewed as an overemphasis on forests and to augment the cutting power of stream flooding. Thus, hydrologic theories became flow." The soil profiles that Bennett so embroiled in the controversy over water loved to dig showed a difference in the development policy, and the debate nature of the alluvium deposited shce gradually moved from the professional European settlement. The variations journals to popular mag zines which could reflected, Bennett belie ed, a change in the influence public opinion.9 velocity of floodwaters. 5

The generation of young men then begin- Bennett's chief of research, Walter Low- ning their public service, who would head dermilk at the new Soil Erosion Service, government programs during the New Deal, had conducted some of the seminal studies seemed more swayed by the land-cover on the relationship of forest influences on advocates. President Franklin D. Roosevelt runoff. His travels in China brought him to looked upon forests as beneficial to flood the conclusion that the watersheds must b control. The Civilian Conservation Corps treated in the interest of flood control. % (CCC), a Roosevelt creation, would work Naturally Bennett and Lowdermilk were on "forestry, the prosecution of soil erosion, interested in the effect of their soil conser- flood control and similar projects." Con- vation program on runoff and sedimenta- cerned about public criticism of CCC work tion. The soil conservation program for on private land, he insisted that such work farmlands involved a myriad of interrelated be directed to solving flood control prob- and mutually supporting farming practices lems over broad areas rather than and mechanical and engineering measures. benefiting an individual parcel of land. Among the plans for America's farmlands Such an attitude revealed his fait4 in the could be found terraces, grassed waterways, value of forests in reducing floods. contour plowing, stripcropping, longer crop rotations, and improved pastures and reforestation is so good of itself that one woodlands with controlled grazing to main- must naturally wonder why it should be tain a healthy ground cover. Soil conserva- ruined on the rocks of overstatement, tionists came to call this package of overpromis or undervaluation of scientific measures land treatment. In addition to principles. ltf b maintaining productivity and farm income, soil conservationists believed that land The Upstream Conference, another of treatment on a watershed basis helped to Cooke's ideas, was held three months after reduce the height of floods in the small the passage of the Flood Control Act of tributaries. As they began setting up 1936 to discuss implementatio of one of watershed-based demonstrations, they also the act's significant provisions? ' The leg- began to make provisions to measure t islative journey of the Flood Control Act of influence of land treatment on streamflow.9 1936 began in response to the spring floods, but emerged as a national policy on flood Another influential New Deal figure who control. To expand the national policy pro- emphasized land treatment on farmlands as viding for "investigations and improvements a part of river basin development was of rivers and other waterways" to the entire Morris Cooke. He had more influence with hydrologic unit, an amendment on the floor President Franklin D. Roosevelt than other of the Senate added the phrase "including advocates of the same idea. As watersheds thereof." The amendment also administrator of the Rural Electrification assigned authority to the secretary of agri- Administration (REA), Cooke promoted the culture for "investigations of watersheds publication of Little Waters: A Study of and measures for run-off and water flow Headwater Streams and Other Waters, Their retardation d soil -erosion prevention on Use and Relations to the Land, which was watersheds." In submitting these amend- issued by REA, SCS, and the Resettlement ments to the White House, Senator Carl Administration. In his presidential message Hayden of Arizona had characterized them transmitting the report to Congress, as "showing how I think the flood control Roosevelt held that disastrous floods bill should be amended to conform with t "originate in a small way in a multitude of president's message on Little Waters."!I9 farms, ranches, and pastures!' National With the support of the White House, the plans should not neglect major rivers in amendments were included in the final bill. favor of the little waters, but the plans should "envisage the problem as it is pre- In addition to Joseph Arnold's excellent sented in every farm, every pasture, ever analysis (in The Flood Control Challenge: wood lot, every acre of public domain."5 Past, Present, and Future, edited by The Water Resources Committee of the Howard Rosen and Martin Reuss) of the National Resources Committee tried to complicated sequence of events leading to counter what they regarded as a very the passage of the act, one other factor unscientific view with their own publica- should be mentioned. Earlier Hayden and tion Low Dams A Manual of Design for other Arizona politicians had sought the Small Water Projects (1939). The slim assistance of SCS in controlling floods on volume received its due in hydrologic the Gila River. He went specifically to circles, but was no competition f r Cooke's Walter Lowdermilk, assistant chief of the adept promotion of Little Waters.8 Soil Conservation Service, whom he had known in Arizona. The plans for flood The question of land treatment and its control, to which the downstream irrigators value in flood control received a review objected, included twelve floodwater from all points of view at the Upstream detention dams along with land treatment Engineering Conference in 1936. Abel on the upper Gila. Hayden thought the Wolman spoke for the friends of soil scheme should be applied to all upstream conservation who believed that the concept areas. He and Lowdermilk worked on was being called upon to do too much. He national legislation and Hayden stood ready said, "The case for soil conservation and to promote the upstrea program in 1936 watersheds be funded under the flood con- T4 when the occasion arose. trol acts. Of the remaining seven that did not have sufficient flood control benefits, After Roosevelt signed the bill, Secretary of USDA suggested that six should be funded Agriculture Henry A. Wallace decided to under other authorities because the sug- neither assign responsibility to a single geste program would benefit the water- 8 bureau in the department nor establish a shed.B large flood control office. The various bureaus would do the technical works while Certainly Congress and the Department of a small group in the secretary's office, the Agriculture in 1936 envisioned some work Office of the Land Use Coordinator, under in the field, not just completion of reports, Milton Eisenhower, would coordinate the after more than five years. In the history of work. The chiefs of the Soil Conservation flood control work in USDA, the delay is Service, Forest Service, and the Bureau of important for our consideration. One must Agricultur Economics formed an advisory wonder whether the history of flood control committeeY5 The act left much to admin- activities would have been different had the istrative decision, but it was generally department managed to get surveys understood that the Department of Agri- approved and to undertake field operations culture would make a survey of flood and in a number of projects before the onset of sediment damages, devise a remedial plan, the war. and submit the plan to the president and then to Congress. The organizational structure of the flood control survey work probably was a major But the surveying and approval did not reason for the delay. The idea of coordina- proceed quickly. Not until May 1940 did tion had not worked. Arthur Ringland,' a Agriculture Department officials believe career Forest Service employee who had they would be ready for the action part of studied headwaters control in Europe, the program. Field survey work had been served as chairman of the Flood Control completed on eleven watersheds, and these Coordinating Committee of the Office of reports were undergoing technical review in the Land Use Coordinator. After several the department. After three or four surveys years of dealing with the problems, without had been coordinated with the plans of the much authority, he stated that "the flood Corps of Engineers, it was anticipated that control program is the victim of institu- the reports would be submitted to the tionalism at its worst." To correct the president for allocatipg of the $4 million "confusion and diffusion of responsibility," already appropriated. But it would be he said there should be a department-level more than a year, October 1941, before official with administrative authority. The USDA submitted a report on the Los Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service Angeles River to Congress. After World should have "straight line undivided War I1 interrupted the work, USDA reached responsibility and authority for all flood an agreement with the Bureau of the control project ork in the field of what- Budget to concentrate on surveys nearest to ever character. 1'1Y completion and to su end flood control work on July 30, 1943. f? The ill-advised organizational decisions accentuated the difficulties that naturally By September 1944 the department had came with a new function. The 1936 act completed 154 preliminary surveys covering stated that benefits should exceed costs. nearly 1.25 million square miles. Thirty Some work had been done on evaluating surveys revealed insufficient benefits in on- farm conservation measures, but the flood control and sediment reduction to department had a new task in ev uating warrant detailed surveys. Of the 124 calling the downstream or off-site benefits. fb for detailed surveys, 18 had been completed and submitted to Congress for authoriza- There was another need for information tion. USDA recommended eleven of the and analysis--the need for hydrologic information for the small watersheds. In protegs and retain the valuable bottom late May 1936, less than a month before the land. Since flood control surveys by a passage of the flood control act, the federal agency were a prerequisite to National Resources Committee published financial assistance, Oklahoma would have "Deficiencies in Basic Hydrologic Data," them--one each by the U.S. Army Corps of which called attention to the need for Engineers, the Bureau of Recla ation, and informati,on on rainfall and runoff to sup- the Department of Agriculture?4 As the port government programs. Ringland surveys proceeded, McBride was already lamented, then and later, that USDA prepared to speak for the Washita folks in delayed too long in enlisting the Weather saying that 'We are all agreed that we need Bureau's cooperation in acquiring informa- the dams on the tributaries of the river to tion on the intensity and duration of rain- ur fertile farm lands and our fall in small watersheds. When called upon ~~~~,".'t2pMeBride believed that he had to comment on the flood survey reports, the succeeded in getting the new water Weather Bureau repeatedly emphasized that resources agency, the Department of Agri- more data were nee d in order to evaluate culture, to accept the plan. But on a trip to the flood potentials. & Washington in 1940 he found that the "reservoir section ad been taken out of the Looming over and complicating the tech- Washita Report!t2k While some in USDA nical and organizational details were the and SCS would have accepted the role of various institutional and political opinions assisting Oklahoma, the Office of the Land and rivalries on what constituted an Use Coordinator, especially Arthur Ring- upstream program. The Bureau of the land, viewed reservoir building as outside Budget, which advised the president on the purview of the 2$,epartment's charge approval of flood control projects, believed under the 1936 act. Such starts and that flood control authorities should not be reversals did delay the approval of surveys used to fund conservation measures when as various attitudes about what an upstream the Department of Agriculture already had program should be were debated. authority under the Soil Conservation Act of 1935. The Bureau regarded such work as In the Flood Control Act of 1944, Congress an intensification of the regular soil conser- authorized eleven projects that USDA had vation program. The Bureau of the Budget submitted to Congress between 1941 and. prevailed, at least temporarily, in that 1944. Work would not begin until after the opinion when the Flood Control Act of war was over. These projects, most of August 18, 1941, restricted expenditures by which are still active, would be the only USDA to "works of improvement which the department projects authorized under the Department 's not otherwise authorized to procedures of the Flood control Act of undertake. t12d 1936. But experiences from the project planning and implementation would be the Other differing opinions were being fought model for future .USDA flood control out in the flood control survey approval activities. process. Not all of the participants were from the federal agencies. States, While there was.understandable disappoint- particularly those with water resources ment over the progress of completing and agencies, looked to the new legislation as a approving reports, the period of study had means to help finance their flood control profound influence on the future of flood plans. The Oklahoma Water Resources control work. The studies had added a new Board under the energetic leadership of understanding to the relationship of land Don McBride had already devised a plan treatment to floods. One of USDAts hydrol- for controlling floods on the Washita River. ogists on the flood control work, Howard Forsaking any dams on the main stem of Cook, believed that the effects of land the river, the plan called for twenty-five treatment on flooding involved some of the reservoirs on the tributaries. McBride most difficult problems in hydrology and believed that such a system would best that the surveys "did a great deal to dry up the source of this controversy by making storm yoff and reduce peak dis- possible hydrologic and economic styties of charges." By mid-1949 they had com- unprecedented scope and intensity." Field pleted some twenty-five of these structures. and plot studies often showed dramatic Completed sub-watershed plans included increases in infiltration on pasture and another 410 structures whic could store woodland compared to bared land. But the 227,385 acre-feet of waterj3 When this field- and plot-sized results could not be matter came to the attention of the solicitor extrapolated to an entire watershed. On thin in the Department of Agriculture, the ruling was that SCS did ot have authority soils, floodwater came from subsurface, as 38 well as surface, runoff. Thus, land treat- to build such structures. ment measures to enhance infiltration had limitations in preventing floods. It was true This development was related to the manner that ,watershed characteristics had an in which the reports were approved. The influence on flooding, but vegetation and approved congressional documents outlined land treatment were only part of the char- a general plan of remedial action, but were acteristics. The combined hydrologic and not written in legal language. Thus, the economic studies found that watershed reports were subjected to a great deal of treatment reduced flood and sediment interpretation as to what activities had damages by as much as 40 percent in some actually been approved for federal expen- cases, but as little as 5 percent in others. ditures. Within the Agriculture Department, Generally the benefits of conservation the solicitor held that the congressional practices to increased income exceeded documents did not approve floodwater- flood and sediment damage reduction ben- retarding structures. To correct this efits of the program. The flood control problem, USDA and SCS went before the benefits, according to the surveys, were not agriculture subcommittee of the House what many might h e ex ected when the Committee on Appropriations and requested 1936 act was passed. 98 an amendment. In their prepared statement, the Soil Conservation Service had to, if not However, another revelation of the surveys deny, at least deemphasises the value of augured well for an upstream flood control land treatment for controlling floods. SCS program. The analysis showed that the crop told the committee, "Our experience to date damages in the numerous tributaries from indicates that the works of improvement frequent flooding far exceeded the agricul- originally authorized to be installed by this tural damages in the wide alluvial plains of department in the eleven approved water- the rivers. The implication was that while sheds are inadequate to control the move- the control of floods in upstream tributaries ment of water from the watershed lands had limited influence on floods of major until it reaches the poin where the Corps rivers, a small watershed program of flood of Engineers take over!'y5 The subsequent preve3gon had considerable economic amendment to the appropriations bill value. allowed funds to be spent on "gully control, floodw er detention, and floodway struc- After the war the Department of Agricul- tures!"' In this manner, without debate in ture began receiving appropriations to Congress, and without comment by the U.S. resume flood surveys and to begin work on Army Corps of Engineers or the Bureau of the eleven authorized projects. Also, the the Budget, SCS secured authority for Soil Conservation Service began writing building floodwater-retarding structures. sub-watershed work plans. plans of pual work, for the approved watersheds. In Undoubtedly, the clarification of this issue these sub-watershed plans, especially those by including floodwater-retarding in the Washita, Trinity, and Middle structures in the upstream program was a Colorado in Oklahoma and Texas, SCS seminal point in the history of the planned to install what were categorized as Agriculture Department's water resources "small upstream floodwater retarding struc- program. Without the more structurally tures for temporary storage to regulate oriented program, the Soil Conservation Service would have had great difficulty in secretary's office had changed to one that differentiating land treatment under the was more receptive to flood control in rural flood control act from the agency's other areas as part $4 the Agriculture Depart- field work under the Soil Conservation Act ment's mission. of 1935. Conserving topsoil retained its primary place in the conservation mission, Now that the Soil Conservation Service had but there had been a trend, almost from the legislative authority to include flood control beginning, to include upstream structures in structures in the eleven authorized projects, the program. The Soil Conservation Ser- the proponents of this type of USDAISCS vice's work with CCC camps had involved program could look forward to a favorable some small reservoir construction. As reception for their inclusion in other pro- Lowdermilk's plans for the upper Gila jects to be authorized by Congress under indicated, some elements in the Conserva- the provisions of the 1936 act. This, how- tion Service were not averse to including ever, was not to be the future of the flood floodwater-retarding structures. Even control program in the Department of before the passage of the 1936 act, the Agriculture. After the war there continued research division of SCS had expanded its to be difficulties in completing surveys and runoff studies from plots to natural water- forwarding them to Congress. USDA sheds. seemed about ready to submit several plans to Congress in 1949, when the secretary's By the late 1930s there was sufficient office issued an amendment to the proce- sentiment in SCS in favor of combining the dures ca l'ng for revisions in the economic structures with land treatment to include analysis.66 them in the reports to Congress. But at the departmental level, in the Office of the There were other factors leading to delay Land Use Coordinator, such plans were and an impasse. Under Secretary Charles blocked, mainly due to the o ections of its Brannan, the Agriculture Department was head, Milton Eisenhower>' That the emphasizing comprehensive river basin Department of Agriculture did not include planning with the flood control surveys as a floodwater-retarding structures in the flood part of the process. The department made control surveys was more a matter of choice surveys in the Missouri and' Columbia than a lack of authority under the 1936 act. basins a priority. Another disagreement The bill simply made USDA responsible for within the department involved the flood "measures for run-off and water flow control structures, which SCS favored, retardation and soil-erosion prevention on while the Bureau of Agricultural Economics watersheds." Stymied at the departmental and the secretary's office wanted the sur- level, SCS tried for more direct authority. veys to include money for land treatment as An agency-initiated Senate bill 6. 1812) in part f a comprehensive watershed pro- 1944 would have authorized Agriculture ject:' The Bureau of the Budget continued Department flood control plans to include to object to the land treatment aspects of "structures for the catchment and detention the flood control projects that could be of flood waters or sediment which shall not carried out under USDA's regular conser- exceed a cost of $100,000 for any single vation program. In this attitude they were, structure." The bill would have circum- perhaps unwittingly, the allies of some in vented any coordinating groups by SCS who had wanted a gre er emphasis on providing that the secretary would structures to control floods.$5 "administer the provision of this title through the federal agenc known as the Finally, there were problems with Congress. Soil Conservation Service."Yj8 The bill did The Flood Control Committee, whose duties not pass, but after the war there was no passed to the Public Works Committee need for it. SCS no longer had to report under the Legislative Reorganization Act of through the Office of the Land Use Coor- 1946, had authorized the eleven survey re- dinator. Under Clinton Anderson and ports. Originally, funds for the surveys had Charles Brannan, the attitude of the gone through the War Department to USDA. After the war, the agriculture sub- dams on the function of the corps' larger committee of the committee on Appropria- dams. Could a system of small dams be tions began handling the funding requests. substituted for larger dams? Some of the The situation was almost bound to create upstream forces advocated a system of land confusion. Who would now authorize addi- treatment and small reservoirs as an alter- tional projects, the Agriculture or the Pub- native to large downstream flood control lic Works Committees USDA submitted sur- structures. People who would lose farmland vey reports to both committees (page 106). to the large reservoirlfound this a particu- Some members of the Public Works Com- larly appealing idea. While the Agricul- mittee frankly thought they detected "a ture Department did not publicly promote perversion of the intent of the flood-con- this flood prevention program as the answer trol acts" to carry out the regular USDA to downstream flooding, the Public Works conserva i n work "under the guise of flood Committee believed SCS was supplying the control." if upstream forces with information which was n&xwd and exaggerated in the However, it was not just the differing debate. opinions within government involved in the stalemate over the Department of Agricul- The Corps of Engineers began to voice ture's flood control surveys. Out in the objections that Soil Conservation Service countryside, what was known as the small structures in the eleven authorized upstream-downstream debate was at full projects had not been coordinated with force. The big dam-small dam controversy their work. But their primary objection was ,raged in the Arkansas-Red-White Basin and that such a program would call for another the Missouri Basin for some understandable engineering agency, and that Congress reasons related to climate and topography. should not create another agency. The The Washita River, one of the projects upstream territory, like the downstream, authorized in the 1944 act, for instance, would be theirs if there was really a presented a good case for the small dams. need. 46 Clouds, swept up from the Gulf of Mexico, provided moderate annual rainfall, but The result of all this controversy was an rainfall often was delivered in thunder- impasse in the authorization of additional storms. Geologic forces created an area of USDA flood control projects. According to moderate relief with wide flood plains, Arthur Maass, two events broke the impasse which, when protected from the very fre- and led to an entirely different method of quent floods, were much preferred for approving watershed flood control work. cropland over the adjacent, more droughty One event was the election of an adminis- slopes and crests. Advocates of small dams tration which was not wedded to the com- on the tributaries argued that a series of prehensive planning and implementation of small dams would protect the valuable land treatment and flood control work. The bottom, while large dams would inundate other event was a congressional election in too much of it. Partisans of the upstream Kansas that alerted the administration to program trekked to see the small structures the desire of people in th headwaters for a along the Washita. The concept represented small watershed program. $7 by the Washita was the model lauded in the major proselytizing treatise of the era, Big Farmers and other residents had been lob- ' Dam Foolishness (1954) by Elmer T. bying for an upstream program, with some Peterson, an Oklahoma journalist. communities, especially in Kansas, forming watershed associations. The proponents had The Washita-type program, of course, testified in 1951 before the subcommittee involved many hydrologic questions. The handling the Missouri Basin Agricultural point at issue was no longer simply the Plan that they should not have to wait for effect of land treatment on flooding. Now complete river basin development to it was a question of the value of a system implement a small watershed program. The of small dams, or the effects of the small chairman of the subcommittee introduced a ' small watershed bill, but that bill did not flood prevention grew to claim a partner- reach the floor because Public Works Com- ship role with the soil conservation opera- mittee members jppped it in the House tions. Rules Committee. Kansas, along with the rest of the Missouri River Basin, was, in The influence of the activities carried out the early 1950s. debating the virtues of a under the 1936 act in shaping the watershed proposed Missouri Valley Authority protection and flood prevention program modeled after the TVA, as opposed to the was obvious. Subjection of long-held Pick-Sloan plan, a combination of the U.S. assumptions to scientific inquiry created a Army Corps of Engineers plan and the coterie of believers in small floodwater- Bureau of Reclamation plan. Part of Pick- retarding structures and channel improve- Sloan included the Tuttle Creek Dam on the ment as a part of the upstream program, Big Blue River in Kansas to help protect and'they prevailed in having these included Topeka, Lawrence, and Kansas City from in the program. Land treatment to help flooding. infiltration and to protect reservoirs from sedimentation was included in the plans for When the Missouri Basin Commission. held the watershed. But traditionally, at least hearings in Kansas in the summer of 1952 until recently, USDA has not shared the to gauge public sentiment, Bureau of the cost of land treatment under the Watershed Budget observers found "a real and growing Protection and Flood Prevention Act. The resistance and resentment toward the Pick- Bureau of the Budget attitude prevailed. Sloan big dam approach as the solution of Currently, the Agriculture Department and all the problems of ~ansas."~' With the Congress are approving "land treatment cities still pressing for the Tuttle Creek watersheds," which are mostly long-term Dam, the nature of the opposition in the cost-sharing agreements for land treatment valley of the Big Blue River became without the floodwater-retarding structures. obvious when Howard S. Miller, a seventy- Economic analyses during the 1930s three-year-old farmer from Morrill, cap- revealed the costs of upstream flooding and tured the normally safe Republican co provided the economic rationale for an gressional seat in the 1952 elections. ?o expanded program. Under the 1936 act sur- Miller, who had campaigned almost exclu- vey parties designed a remedial project sively on the issue of the dam, failed to unique to the area. This procedure had a stop it and lost the next election. But his certain rational appeal; it left leeway for a election had alerted the new Republican greater number of objectives in project administration to the desires of rural people design. But project approval accelerated for a small watershed program. After a after the experience gained during the change in administrations, Congress in 1953 1930s and 1940s was digested a'nd used to authorized a $5 million ."pilot" program on write guidelines and criteria under which sixty-two watersheds. The following year small watersheds would be examined for Congress passed the Watershed Protection approval. and Flood Prevention Act. Amendments to the act have made it possible to construct The agricultural interests had pressed for works for drainage, irrigation, fish and the program, and most of the projects were wildlife development, and municipal water sent to the agriculture communities for supply. approval. Projects that would benefit agricultural land received a more sympathetic Within the Agriculture Department the hearing than those to reduce urban flood control work expanded rapidly after flooding. The new program had decreased the passage of the 1954 act. The Forest Ser- emphasis on total river basin planning. vice cooperated on the forestry aspects of After determining that a proposed project projects. Its work on private lands qualified under the laws and regulations, increased. Within SCS the new surveying, the willingness and ability of the local planning, engineering, and construction community and the state to pay was the supervision in watershed protection and crucial test. The map of the small watersheds projects reflected areas where the state and local community thought they had upstream flooding problems and were willing to pay their share to correct the problems.

Finally, there is the influence of the act on the Department of Agriculture and on the Soil Conservation Service in particular. The inclusion of a strong water resources program in SCS certainly broadened the base of disciplines. Hugh H. Bennett and Walter Lowdermilk viewed soil conservation as an interdisciplinary undertaking and included the many disciplines in the formative years. The water resources activity brought more hydrologists, engineers, geologists, and economists into the combined soil and water program than might have been expected. In response to the controversies arising from complying with the National Environmental Policy Act, more biologists were added. Furthermore, the method of planning and implementation under the flood control acts provides a basis, if not to ensure that each discipline participate in the joint soil and water conservation effort, at least to encourage such participation.

If there is a lesson for the future here, we should consider this aspect of the history. Currently, two of the important resource questions are ground-water quality and the off -site impacts of erosion and the contributions of agriculture to those problems. Both of these are highly complex scientific problems with complex solutions. The lesson from the experience under the Flood Control Act of 1936,was not to be too quick to extrapolate information from a field or experimental plot to an entire watershed, and that an interdisciplinary approach was needed to study the problems. That lesson should be borne in mind when confronted by other resources problems demanding understanding and calling for corrective measures. Watershed Reports Submitted to Congress After World War I1

(These reports were not authorized for works of improvement in flood control acts.)

Date Referred to House Watersheds Submitted H. Committee Doc. Num.

Missouri River Basin 9/29/49 Ag. 373, 8111 Green River, KY & TN 10/19/51 Pub. Works 261, 8211 Grand (Neosho) River, OK 2/27/52 Pub. Works 388, 8212 Brazos River, TX 31 lO/52 Pub. Works 396, 8212 Pee Dee River, VA, NC & SC 3110152 Pub. Works 395, 8212 Sny, IL 3110152 Pub. Works 398, 82/2 Queen Creek, AZ 3/l O/52 Pub. Works 397, 8212 Delaware River, NY, NJ, PA, etc. 3/19/52 Pub. Works 405, 8212 Sevier Lake, UT 31 19/52 Pub. Works 406, 8212 Scioto River, OH 3/19/52 Pub. Works 409, 8212 Pecos River, NM & TX 5120152 Pub. Works 475, 8212 *Salt -Wahoo Creeks, NE 7/03/52 Ag. 530, 8212 *Blue River, NE & KS 7/03/52 Age 530, 82/2 *Upper South Platte, co & WY 7/03/52 Age 530, 8212 *Osage River, KS & MO 7/03/52 Ag. 530, 8212 *Five Mile Creek, WY 7/03/52 Ag- 530, 8212

* Submitted as one document entitled "Supplemental Report, Missouri River Basin Agriculture Program!'

Source: Arthur Maass, "Protecting Nature's Reservoir." In Public Policy, vol. 5, edited by C.J. Friedrich and J.K. Galbraith (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 19541, 106. Endnotes 1951). 13-15. For references to some of Lowdermilk's writings about the influence Quoted in Hugh Hammond Bennett, Soil of forests on runoff, see the endnotes in J. Conservation (New York: McGraw - Hill Douglas Helms, 'Walter Lowdermilk's Book Company, 1939), 869. Journey: Forester to Land Conservationist," Environmental Review 8 (Summer 1984): Samuel P. Hays, Conservation and the 132-145. Gospel of Efficiency (New York: Atheneum, 1979; originally published by R.H. Davis to Bennett, November 3, Harvard University Press, 1959), 22-26, 1933, File 243, General Correspondence, 199-208; and Harold T. Pinkett, Gifford RG 114, Records of the Soil Conservation Pinchot: Private and Public Forester Service, NA. This file also includes (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1WO), correspondence with the U.S. Geological 96-101. Survey about establishing gauging stations so that the influence of soil conservation Douglas Helms. ''The Civilian Conserva- work on sedimentation and flooding could tion Corps: Demonstrating the Value of Soil be measured. Conservation," Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 40 (March - April 1985): 184- H.S. Person, Little Waters Their Use and 188; and G.M. Granger and J.C. Kirchner's Relations to the Land (Washington, D.C.: note about FDR's verbal instructions to Soil Conservation Service, Resettlement them on the flood control phase of CCC Administration, and Rural Electrification work may be found in Item 29, April 8, Administration, 1936), n.p. 1933, Reference File, Records of the Civilian Conservation Corps, Record Group Gilbert White. unpublished transcript of 35, National Archives and Records Admin- an interview by Martin Reuss, June 1985, istration, Washington, - D.C. (hereinafter Boulder, CO, 33- 37. Office of History, cited as RG for Record Group and NA for ~ead~uarters,U.S. Army Corps of Engi- National Archives). neers, Ft. Belvoir, Virginia.

Hugh Hammond Bennett, 'Soil Erosion lo Headwaters Control and Use, Papers and Flood Control," Lecture 111 (Paper presented at the Upstream Engineering delivered at the U.S. Department of Agri- Conference held in Washington, D.C., culture Graduate School, February 3, 1928), September 22 and 23, 1936 (Washington, mimeographed, copy at National Agricul- D.C.: Soil Conservation Service, Forest Ser- tural Library, Beltsville, MD. For other vice, and Rural Electrification Administra- early discussions by Bennett on this topic, tion, 1937), 178. see The Soils and Agriculture of the Southern States (New York: Macmillan l1 Jean Christie, Morris Llewellyn Cooke: Company, 1928); and Soil Conservation, Progressive Engineer (New York: Garland 596-616. Publishing, 1983), 191 - 192.

Hugh Hammond Bennett, 'The Relation U.S. Congress, Senate, Congressional of Soil Erosion to Flood Control" (Address Record, 74th Cong., 2nd sess., 1936, 80, pt. before National Rivers and Harbors 7: 7575. Congress, Mayflower Hotel, Washington, D.C., April 30, 1934), mimeographed copy l3 Carl Hayden to Marvin H. McIntyre, at National Agricultural Library, Beltsville, May 1, 1936, Official File 2450 (Little MD. Waters), Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park, NY. Walter C. Lowdermilk, ~onguesfof the Land Through 7,000 Years, Agricultural l4 waltbr C. Lowdermilk, Oral History Information Bulletin No. 99 (Washington, Interview, Bancroft Library, University of D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, California, 143- 147; C.H. Southworth to Major Burton P. Fleming, October 30, 21 Arthur C. Ringland. Oral History Inter- 1935, copy in History Office, Soil Conser- view, Bancroft Library, university of Cal- vation Service, Washington, D.C. For a ifornia, 197-205. discussion of the history of the passage of the Flood Control Act of 1936, see Joseph 22 U.S., Statutes at Large, vol. 55, p. 651; L. Arnold, "The Flood Control Act of 1936: and Sam R. Broadbent to the Director, A Study in Politics, Planning and Ideology," September 12, 1941, Trinity River, Flood in Rosen and Reuss, eds., The Flood Con- Control Surveys, Series 39.27, Records of trol Challenge: Past, Present, and Future, the Bureau of the Budget, RG 51, NA. and Arthur Maass, Muddy Waters: The Army Engineers and the Nation's Rivers 23 'Washita River and Drainage Basin," (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, mimeographed (Oklahoma City, OK: Divi- 1951), 81 -86. sion of Water Resources, 19381, 30-31. Copy at the Oklahoma Water Resources l5 Henry A. Wallace, Memorandum for Board, Oklahoma City. Chiefs of Bureaus and Offices, November 30, 1936, File 10-1 11, Office of the Land 24 Don McBride to W.J. Theissen. January Use Coordinator (OLUC), Records of the 25, 1940, 'Washita Valley Improvement Office of the Secretary of Agriculture, RG Association," 'Library, Oklahoma Water 16, NA. Resources Board, Oklahoma City. l6 Henry A. Wallace. Memorandum for 25 Ibid., McBride to Dick Longmire, Chiefs of Bureaus and Offices, May 13, February 12, 1940. 1940, File 10-12, OLUC, RG 16, NA. 26 Don McBride to Lula K. Pratt, October l7 Grover B. Hill to T.C. Burch, July 2, 23, 1940, reproduced in "Proceedings of the 1943, 'Water 2- 1," General Correspondence, Second Annual Convention of the Washita RG 16, NA. Valley Improvement Association," mimeographed, p. 3. Copy at the University of l8 Ibid., Charles F. Brannan to Speaker of Oklahoma Library, Norman. the House of Representatives, September 8, 1944; Hugh H. Wooten, "The Agricultural 27 Ringland Interview, 208-209. Flood Control Program: A Review of the Watershed Investigations and Reports," 28 Howard Cook, "Flood Abatement by Journal of Land & Public Utility Headwaters Measures," Civil Engineering 15 Economics 22 (February 1946): 35; and U.S. (March 1945): 127. Congress, House, Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, Department 29 Wooten, "The Agricultural Flood Control of Agriculture Appropriations Bill for 1 948, Program ," 4 1. Hearings, 80th Cong., 1st sess., 1947, 939. 30 R.L. Webster to Marion T. Bennett, l9 Arthur C. Ringland, Memorandum for November 25, 1943, 'Water 1 - 1," General F.A. Silcox, November 3, 1939, File 10-14, Correspondence. RG 16. NA. OLUC, RG 16, NA. 31 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Report 20 For a discussion of the problems of of the Chief of the Soil Conservation Ser- implementing the economic analysis of the vice, 1947, (Washington, D.C.: Government flood control survey, see Wooten, "The Printing Office, 1947), 40. Agricultural Flood Control Program," 35-47; and Bernard Frank and E.N. Munns, 32 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Report 'Watershed Flood Control: Performance and of the Chief of the Soil Conservation Ser- Possibilities," Journal of Forestry 43 (April vice, 1949 (Washington, D.C.: Government 1945): 236-251. Printing Office, 1949), 49. 33 Ibid.,. 49. see 'Supplement Information on Hydrologic Agreement and Coordination, Arkansas- 34 US. Congress, Senate, Congressional White-Red Basins," mimeographed Record, 81st Cong., 2nd sess., 1950, 96, pt. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 8: 10482- 10483. Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, September 1953), 45 pp. Copy in the 35 U.S. Congress, House. Department of Howard Cook Papers, Office of History, Agriculture Appropriations for 1951, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Hearings, 81st Cong., 2nd sess., 1950, 1152. Engineers, Ft. Belvoir, Virginia.

36 P.L. 81-759, September 6, 1950. 47 Maass, "Protecting Nature's Reservoir," 96-97. 37 Interview with Jefferson C. Dykes, former assistant chief of SCS, College Park, 48 Beatrice Hort Holmes, A History of MD, September 30, 1985. Federal Water Resources Programs, 1800- 1960, Miscellaneous Publication No. 1233 38 S. 1812, 78th Cong., Records of the U.S. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Senate, RG 46, NA; interview with Dykes, Agriculture, Economic Research Service, September 30, 1985. 1972), 28.

39 Interview with Dykes, September 30, 49 W.R. Vawter to John J. OtNeill, July 7, 1985. 1952, Series 52.1, P4-2, "Missouri River Basin," RG 51, NA. 40 US. Congress, Department of Agricul- ture Appropriations, 1951, 1146 - 1149. 50 Howhrd C. Miller to Paul Dodge, January 23, 1953, Series 52.1, P4-2, "Tuttle 41 Arthur Maass. "Protecting Nature's Creek Dam, Kansas," RG 51; Maass, Reservoir," Public Policy, vol. 5 "Protecting Nature's Reservoir," 96-97; and (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1954), 80. Elmer T. Peterson, Big Dam Foolishness: the Problems of Modern Flood Control and 42 S.R. Broadbent to Lee Dashner, January Water Storage (New York: Devin Adair 16, 1951, Series 39.4a7 'Water-Flood Con- Company, 1954), 62-64. trol," Records of the Bureau of the Budget, RG 51, NA.

43 US. Congress, House, Committee on Public Works, The Flood Control Program of the Department of Agriculture, 82nd Cong., 2nd sess., 1952, House Committee Print No. 22, 41.

44 For a discussion of the controversy, see Luna B. Leopold and Thomas Maddock, Jr., The Flood Control Controversy: Big Dams, Little Dams, and Land Management (New York: Ronald Press Company, 1954).

45 Flood Control Program of the Depart- ment of Agriculture, 12-22; and Leopold and Maddock, The Flood Control Contro- versy, 89 - 92.

46 For a discussion of some of the technical disagreements between SCS and the corps, Watershed Program: Unique and Flexible

Reprinted from Soil and Water Conservation News 12, no. 4 (November-December 1991):

by Douglas Helms, National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

The crusade for soil conservation was SCS, with a budget that was often more linked first and foremost to the idea of than one-third of SCS's total budget. The maintaining the productivity of land for pressure from the countryside to pass the agriculture. But, those concerned with soil act was in large part an effort to develop erosion on individual farms have long flood control on the upstream watersheds. known the need for dealing with cumulative effects of soil erosion on the wider Local groups sometimes promoted projects area- - the watershed. on these "small watersheds" as an alternative to larger, downstream structures that caused Before scientists began to measure such the inundation of farms and, in some things, observers speculated that the condi- places, whole towns. If the local people at tions that created soil erosion also resulted times overestimated the cumulative value of in more rapid runoff of rainfall to streams. many small structures for flood control The sediment in streambeds reduced downstream, the movement nevertheless capacity, leading to more frequent floods. included two important developments: The Sand deposited on small floodplains reduced small projects involved a high degrees of their value as cropland or natural areas. local interest and involvement in planning, Thus, the environmental conditions of the operation, and maintenance; and, the .pro- whole watershed began to deteriorate. jects linked the notion of flood control to soil conservation work on the watershed Most of the watershed activities of the Soil lands. Conservation Service are conducted under the authorization of the Watershed Protec- Historically, watershed projects have had a tion and Flood Prevention Act. of 1954, wide variety of objectives such as flood except for 11 projects authorized in the control, land treatment, drainage, irrigation, Flood Control Act of 1944. municipal and industrial water supply, rural areas development, recreation, fish and But even before this, farmers worked on wildlife enhancement, and water quality. watershed projects requiring group action under the provisions of their State soil The breadth of the watershed project conservation district laws. For example, authorities leaves wide discretion for during the 1930s, farmers in the Jones administrative decisions. Various adminis- Creek Watershed in western Iowa found trations have seized on this and tried to that dealing with some of the larger gullies shape the program to their own ends. The required group action. In addition to con- Kennedy and Johnson administrations of servation practices on the farmland, they the 1960s emphasized rural development needed earthen dams with concrete spill- and recreational objectives that would bring ways to control gullies. The enrollees at a additional income to rural residents, and Civilian Conservation Corps camps working working with communities and suburban under the direction of the SCS built nine areas. structures in the area to control large gullies. During the 1980s, SCS and the U.S. Department of Agriculture established After the passage of national legislation, the reducing soil erosion as their priority. watershed work became a major activity in Following that determination, SCS empha- adjust to the drought.' Also, McLaughlin federal level, Hopkins suggested requests saw the emergency employment programs for the snow survey work should come from the states through their regular proce- under the Public Works Administration 7 (PWA) and the Works Progress Administra- dure for requesting project approval. tion (WPA) as an opportunity to expand Meanwhile, in late 1934 McLaughlin con- snow surveys and provide a way for coor- tinued his campaigning in the West. The dinated forecasting. The Great Depression Association of Western State Engineers and and employment programs of the New Deal the National Reclamation Association elicited hundreds of proposals for a more adopted resolutions calling on the Secretary activist federal role in social and natural of Agriculture to undertake a coordinated, resources areas. Thus the economic condi - comprehensive snow survey in the West. tions provided the climate in which the McLaughlin and his allies blocked moves to federal government expanded its responsi- have the Weather Bureau and the Forest bilities in numerous areas. Service named as the agencies to lead the effort. They much preferred that the Sec- The Farm Bureau Federation endorsed retary of Agriculture delegate the authority. McLaughlin's proposal in 1934, and he In the interest of making sure that the submitted a request for PWA funds for Bureau of Agricultural Engineering was snow measuring stations, snow courses, given the authority, McLaughlin reminded shelters, equipment, and maintenance for McCrory to keep the Secretary advised. 'We the first year. Despite their inactivity to must, however, put the matter up to the date, McLaughlin believed the Department Secretary so he will be prepared for any of the Interior would make a similar move by Forestry or Weather Burea . request f USDA did not take the Forestry grabs at every thing all the time." 1 initiative! McLaughlin specified mostly research projects in his proposal. Legislation Having failed, at least temporarily, with the McCrory agreed that the drought and de- regular budgetary process and the emer- pression had indeed provided an excellent gency employment funds routes, the cam- opportunity, but McLaughlin was taking the paign now turned to the legislative process. wrong tactic. The emphasis must be placed Governor C. Ben Ross of Idaho wrote to on actually providing forecasts to farmers U.S. Senator James P. Po e of Idaho to and ot er water users, rather than on re- introduce him to McCrory! McCrory kept search> McCrory knew how to spot the Secretary informed of these meetings opportunities. His agency was one of the and activities to promote snow sur- smallest in USDA, and he had won a repu- veys. tation for aggressively competing with larger agencies for funding. BAE had The western Congressional delegation was neither the manpower nor the large con- easily convinced of the need for snow sur- stituencies of agencies such as the Weather veys and requested funding in 1935. The Bureau or the Forest ~ervice.~In addition Senate appropriations committee discussed to the $36,000 requested from the Bureau the item, but did not include it in the bill of the Budget for research, McCrory submitted to the full Senate. They wanted requested $40,000 of the emergency to resolve the matter of who was going to drought funds from US A for making be in charge of the snow surveys. Senator snow surveys and forecasts.P Frederick A. Steiwer of Oregon contacted Assistant Forester Earle H. Clapp and The Bur au of the Budget rejected both others in USDA, who told him that author- requests.' Having become a convert to the ity should be assigned to the Bureau of idea, McCrory pushed the issue. In Agricultural Engineering. The amendment November 1934 Secretary Wallace met with to the appropriations bill in the Senate gave Harry Hopkins, head of the federal relief BAE authorities and funding for "snow sur- effort, to discuss money for snow surveys. veys lfd forecasts of irrigation water sup- Rather than having a large project at the plies." term ;~nd continued the tour at Marr's Desinninn the Program behest. Before the appropriations bill was signed on May 17, 1935, McLaughlin had already Church was a willing cooperator. If he asked James C. Marr, a Division of Irriga- resented the fact that Clyde had a greater tion engineer at Boise, Idaho, to familiarize hand in designing the coordinated system, himself with s ow surveys in the north- he did not betray it in writing to western states.' McLaughlin travelled to McLaughlin or Marr. Furthermore there Logan, Utah, to discuss snow surveys with was much in the operations of the new George D. Clyde, a professor of engineer- group to enhance his reputation. Church ing at Utah State University and head of felt that the Weather Bureau had rebuffed Utah's snow survey effort. McLaughlin his earlier efforts to prod them into devel- considered Clyde "the best informed man in oping a national system. Worse, some of the the country on this subject." In addition to Weather Bureau people preferred snow his expertise, Clyde already had "very stakes for measurement, rather than pleasant contacts with other agencies," Church's snow courses and tube sampling. which would be crucial to the s ccess of a (McLaughlin's group would use Church's cooperative snow survey effort. I$ methods.) Finally, Church held that streamflow forecasting required engineer- McLaughlin thought Clyde would be the ing, rather than meteorological analysis. only additional employee BAE would need Accordingly, most of the recent conferences for their new role in snow surveying. He have been he1 with engineers rather than would be a collaborator for two or three meteorologists.?5 months each year. Marr would have general supervision of the snow survey work. Clyde Earlv Decisions on Standardization and Marr worked on the general plan of The survey was obviously going to rely on action in early May, preparatory to visiting a great deal of cooperation. But existing snow surveying operations and McLaughlin believed some of the methods prospective cooperators. Clyde and Marr and equipment must be standardized. His would locate the snow courses in the states group decided to spend their scant funds, selected for work the first summer. $15,000, on equipment. A standard type would be selected and purchased in volume Despite McLaughlin's original intentions, he so as to reduce costs. His group well also signed on James Edward Church to understood that experience in the field help get the cooperative snow survey pro- wodd lead to improvements and correction gram started in the summer of 1935. of defects. Nonetheless they intended to Church's interest in snow led him from his start out with established standards for the fairly obscure position as a classics profes- equipment and methods. They would use sor at the University of Nevada in Reno to Church's method for snow cover measure- being the most renowned figure on snow ments rather than the stake method. The surveying in the United States. Undoubt- former involved taking a core sample of the edly, it was a wise move to solicit Church's snow so as to measure volume and water advice and to add his reputation to the content. The stake method simply measured cause. Unlike Clyde, who immersed himself snow depth without regard to density or in developing the structure of the program water content. Another Church contribu- and laying out snow courses, Church con- tion, "the Mount Rose tube in its original ferred with officials in the various states form r as modified in Utah," would be and explored the areas where cooperation used.lg The scale to measure the weight of could be had. He talked to the hydroelectric the snow sample would also be power interests in Los Angles, the irrigators standardized. As two of the innovators of in the Imperial Valley, and the Forest Ser- snow surveying equipment, Church and vice and National Park Service, people in Clyde both had a personal interest in the Arizona. One of the cooperators referred to writing of standards. During the first year Church's "goodwill tour,'' Church liked the the Bureau of Agricultural Engineering purchased 150 sets of snow sampling Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, equipment with half going to Marr a the Nevada, and California. As Clyde and Marr other half to Clyde for distribution.' But travelled about, locating snow surveys, they when they received the equipment, Clyde were "to interest local and state agencies and Church both had some objections. and stimulate an interest in local agencies Church found a deficiency in the weighing for snqy surveys so they will demand the mechanism; Clyde found fault with the work." sampling tube from Nevada. McLaughlin wryly noted that snow surveyors from Col- McLaughlin's group hoped, and suggested, orado had no difficulty in using the equip- that the cooperators in Nevada, California. ment, and attributed "some of the comments Utah, and Oregon who already had exten- of Clyde and Church to a little prejudice. sive networks of snow courses would estab- This is only natural, sinc we all have our lish additional ones as well as surveying and weakness in this regard.'j8 In addition to mapping existing courses. BAE was to sup- the snow sampling tubes and the weighing ply the additional snow surveying equip- mechanism, the group also lypplied skis ment needed. During the summer of 1935, and snow shoes in some cases. Marr concentrated on the Snake River and Clyde on the Colorado in establishing new Organization- snow co ses in Wyoming, Idaho, and The absence of long-term data plus the Colorado!' in selecting the new snow need to emphasize the cooperative nature of courses, the two considered serviceability, the work influenced McLaughlin's organi- accessibility, and the key areas in a zational decisions. There would be regional statewide plan, as well as he most urgent offices, rather than a national one. Without requests from cooperators. 24 historical data, personal knowledge of the rivers and streams would be required if the During the first ten days of August, 1935, snow survey group expected to make Marr covered 2,300 miles over little trav- worthwhile forecasts in the first few years. elled roads and trails as he established snow They needed, and wanted, to make their courses in Wyoming and Yellowstone presence known. They definitely planned to National Park. To avoid the cost of make forecasts from the new snow course installing a course, he selected areas where data the first year. After some years' accu- little construction work would be needed. mulation of data, McLaughlin believed it Where work was needed he managed to get would be possible to have a national office. the cooperation of the Civilian Conservation But there was another reason for regional Corps. Thanks to the cooperation of structure. McLaughlin wanted to have the agencies, the only cost to B would be state agencies involved not only in the sur- the snow sampling equipment. @ veying, but also in the forecasting. The matter of organization illustrated the sensi- Marr's enthusiasm for the work even tivity required in federal-state cooperation brought a reaction from McCrory in Wash- on the project and how such cooperation ington. He advised McLaughlin to "put on could best be achieved. McLaughlin thought the brakes on a little in his case. He is his bureau should insist on being involved working so hard that I am afraid he faces a in all local forecasting. He wrote to nervous br down if he does not ease off McCrory, "Otherwise the work would soon somewhat!"' At the end of 1935, Marr drift out of our hands and we would find thought the snow surveying group had ourselves in a position of supplying funds about a fourth of th 1,000 courses they and s(/pe state agency making the fore- would eventually need.56 casts." Cooperation with Other Federal Agencies Establishing Snow Courses McLaughlin believed the Forest Service, as The first year McLaughlin planned to part of their cooperation, would clear and expand existing networks in the key mark courses, build and equip snow shelters drainages and the most accessible areas of at their own expense and with CCC labor. He hoped that some of the cooperating state district representatives of the Division of agencies such as the state engineers would Irrigation made arrangements for the snow be able to use CCC labor and successfully cover surveys, provided the equipment, and apply for Federal Emergency Relief Act stocked the cabins. Essentially they handled funds for similar work. McLaughlin all of the operations in their state. They planned to use all of the scant $15,000 reported the snow survey data to the appropriation for equipment. To establish Berkeley office and the Boise office. Clyde the whole network in the West would handled the work in Utah while Church eventual1 require about $100,000 to handled Nevada. Marr, at Boise, and Louie 37 $300,000. T. Jessup at Yakima, Washington, did Idaho and part of the Columbia drainage. Ralph The Division of Irrigation group never Parshall at Ft. Collins was responsible for quite secured the large allocation of emer- Wyoming and Colorado; and temporarily gency funding with which to rapidly responsible for New Mexico and Arizona. expand the network by clearing snow Arch Work surveyed Oregon and northern courses, building snow cabins, and doing California from his office at Medford, other construction work. Thus they tended Oregon. The state engineer of California to work through the states or with the fed- did the rest of that state. The district engi- eral land management agencies. Marr neer of the U. S. Geological Survey at helped Idaho prepare applic ons for funds Helena, Montana, did the Missouri River. to work on snow courses!' The federal The Berkeley and Boise offices jointly land management agencies eventually did publicized the information. 32 much of the construction on the lands in their charge. Seeing that BAE had only By the second season they had perfected $15,000 to get the work started, the other the publicity arrangements. They made agencies knew well that success depended measurements monthly from January 1 to upon their cooperation. Evan w. Kelly, the May 1. Water supply forecasts were made U. S. Forest Service's regional forester in following the February measurement and Missoula, Montana, wrote to his forest the April or May measurement, depending supervisors: "The Bureau of Agricultural on the state. Broadcasts of information went Engineering is pitifully short of the neces- out on the Farm and Home Hour and sary appropriation from which to finance various state stations. The cooperating this important activity; ...the various agen- agencies, usually the state engineer or the cies of the Government directly or inci- state agricultural college, put out dentally interested, mus cooperate to the mimeographed releases. The Weather fullest practical e~tent."'~The Bureau of Bureau also published the data for the fed- Agricultural Engineering had reason to be eral government. As part of the original pleased with the degree of cooperation the agreement with the Weather Bureau, BAE first year. They wrote not only to supplied information to them for flood pre- cooperators, but also to their supervisors dictions. Sampling for flood predictions thanking them. Success the first year required additional visits to the snow accelerated the degree of cooperation. The courses. The snow survey work was actually Corps of Engineers had been doing some a part-time duty for the BAE people, snow surveying work on 'the watershed of except Marr, who would ork full-time on the Missouri River. In 1936 they con- it until no longer needed. 3y tributed $3,000 so that BAE could courses on the Columbia River basin. fft Winter Svorts Radio Broadcasts By the second year of forecasts, the snow Exvansion of Work survey group began receiving requests for Following the forecasting work in the information from winter sports enthusiasts. spring of 1936, BAE expanded the program McLaughlin wanted to get immediately in the summer. In all the states there was involved since it was a public service and cooperation with the state engineer and the was another ost worthwhile public con- land-grant agricultural college. Each of the tact for us...!" Initially McCrory resisted. believing that BAE had to strictly limit cooperation of the land management itself to the authority in thg@islation for agencies, but he also viewed them as forecasting irrigation water. Never easily potential competitors for the snow survey discouraged. McLaughlin managed a prize. In his opinion the Weather Bureau meeting with Paul Appleby, Assistant to the had to be watched at every turn. Offers of Secretary of Agriculture, and got his cooperation must be analyzed closely for endorsement. Following the meeting with ulterior motives.38 For all these reasons Appleby, McLaughlin worked out an McLaughlin and his people in the Division agreement with the National Broadcasting of Irrigation zealously set out to make the Company to devote five minutes each program a success. Friday on the Farm and Home Hour to reports from each state. Also, many of the Summary state weather bureaus and state highway More than fifty years after federal coordi- departments agreed to issue the forecasts. nation of snow~surveyswas begun, its value As far a McLaughlin was concerned the is recognized more than ever. The competi- ser~ice~,~~as"an excellent contact with the tion for water in the West due to the public. explosion in population, industry, and agriculture created a demand to know as Different Visions precisely as possible the amount of water The issue of the winter sports forecasts available from snowmelt. The various illustrated some of the diffe;ences in out- enterprises whose operations cut across look, or zeal, between McCrory and his political boundaries demand the basinwide people in the West. McCrory saw the value information that a coordinated system pro- for irrigated agriculture and strongly sup- duces. ported the work, but he saw it as only one aspect of BAE's work. When he thought he In retrospect, many of the decisions made detected Marr and others working exclu- by McLaughlin and his colleagues were sively on the snow survey project, yet wise beyond their time. One thing they charging a large part of their salaries to wanted, but did not get, was a large appro- other accounts, he chided them. He warned priation or allotment from the emergency McLaughlin to stay within the appropria- employment funds to rapidly clear snow tion for snow surveys and vowed courses, build snow cabins, and do other siphon funds from other work for it.3Yt ;; types of construction associated with snow wanted to adhere strictly to the authoriza- surveys. Would this have changed the tion for predicting irrigation water supplies. course of the history of snow survey? It is As far as he was concerned, the agreement difficult to know. As it developed, the with the Weather Bureau was well under- enforced reliance on the state and other stood by both parties, and each group federal agencies to do much of the work would cleave honorably to the agreement. probably was beneficial to the strength of the program. Although the snow survey is In practically all these matters, McLaughlin operated under the Soil Conservation Ser- had a different view. Success in the snow vice, it is responsible to, and draws strength survey required a quick success the first from, all the cooperating agencies. In a year and thus demanded almost undivided sense it has a separate existence. The users attention. Though an irrigation engineer by and gatherers of the snow survey informa- training, he understood the other uses and tion seem likely to continue to demand potential for the snow survey and moved some coordination at the federal level for aggressively into those areas. Given the the foreseeable future. sparse BAE staff in the West, compared to other Federal agencies, McLaughlin cherished the. publicity value and resulting Endnotes clout that came from activities such as the winter sports radio broadcasts. Walter Wesley McLaughlin to Samuel McLaughlin's operation depended upon the Henry McCrory, July 25, 1934, File 3-234, General Correspondence, 1931 - 1939, l7 McLaughlin to George R. Boyd, Acting Records of Bureau of Agricultural Chief, Bureau of Agricultural Engineering, Engineering, Record Group 8, National August 3, 1935. Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C. All of the correspondence l8 McLaughlin to McCrory. January 23, cited in this article is from the same file. 1936.

McLaughlin to McCrory, August 6, 1934. l9 Mc McLaughlin to McCrory, October 19, 1935. McCrory to McLaughlin, August 23, 1934. 20 McLaughlin to McCrory, December 30, 1935. Wayne Rasmussen, former historian of USDA, knew McCrory and provided this 21 McLaughlin, Memo- -Snow Surveys, July characterization. Conversation with Ras- 5, 1935. mussen, March 25, 1991. 22 Marr to H. P. Boardman, August 12, McCrory, Memorandum for the Secretary, 1935. September 4, 1934. 23 McLaughlin to McCrory, December 30. McCrory to McLaughlin, November 18, 1935. 1934. 24 Marr to McLaughlin, August 12, 1935. McCrory to McLaughlin, November 27, 1934. 25 McCrory to McLaughlin, August 12, 1935. McLaughlin to McCrory, December 8, 1934. 26 McLaughlin to McCrory, December 30, 1935. C. Ben Ross to James P. Pope, December 27, 1934. 27 McLaughlin to McCrory, May 6, 1935. lo McCrory, Memorandum for the Secre- 28 Marr to H. P. Boardman, August 12, tary, January 31, 1935. 1935.

U. S. Congress, Senate, Congressional 29 Evan W. Kelly to Forest Supervisors, Record, 74th Cong. 1st. sess., 1935, 79, pt. July 24, 1936. 5: 4699.; Public Law No. 62, 74th Congress. 30 McLaughlin to McCrory, August 12, l2 James C. Marr to M. R. Lewis, April 26, 1936. 1935. 31 McLaughlin to McCrory, August 10, 13'~c~aughlinto McCrory, May 6, 1935. 1936. l4 James Edward Church to McLaughlin, 32 McLaughlin to McCrory, January 23, July 23, 1935. 1937. l5 Quotes of a letter from Church to 33 McLaughlin to McCrory, January 23, McLaughlin found in McLaughlin to 1937. McCrory, August 9, 1935. 34 McLaughlin to McCrory, February 3, l6 McLaughlin to Church. August 3, 1935. 1937. 35 McCrory to McLaughlin, February 6, 1937.

36 McLaughlin to McCrory, July 13, 1937.

37 McCrory to McLaughlin, January 6, 1937 and January 18, 1937; McLaughlin to McCrory, January 12, 1937.

38 McLaughlin to McCrory. December 21, 1936, McLaughlin to George R. Boyd, Acting Chief, Bureau of Agricultural Engi- neering, August 16. 1937. Snow Surveying Comes of Age in the West by Douglas Helms National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

Presented at the Western Snow Conference, Jackson, Wyoming. The author thanks David Balentine (volunteer), Anne Henderson, J. D. Ross, and on G. Werner of the Soil Conservation Service for their assistance.

Snow surveying and water supply under SNOTEL .... But in forecasting entered a new era when the U. those early days, we believed S. Department of Agriculture abolished the it was more practical and Bureau of Agricultural Engineering and more profitable, in terms of transferred the Division of Irrigation to the public relations, to decen- Soil Conservation Service (SCS) on July 1, tralize. I think it was a 1939. The Division of Irrigation was head- profitable position to take quartered at Berkeley, California, with because they weren't Walter W. McLaughlin as chief. The irriga- restricted by regulations tion engineers in fieId offices in the superimposed upon them by western states had been in charge of the someone who didn't know federal coordination of snow surveys since very much about the busi- the U. S. Congress appropriated money for ness (Work interview, 1989). the work in 1935. Previously existing networks, such as those in Nevada, Utah, and The group created enough interest that the California continued under the agricultural requests for additional snow courses even- experiment station or a state agency as was tually exceeded the meager appropriation the case in California (Helms, 1991). The and manpower available (Work interview, individuals who eventually came to be 1989; Marr correspondence). called snow survey supervisors were James C. Marr in Boise, Idaho, R. A. "Arch" Work The move to the Soil Conservation Service at Medford, Oregon, Ralph Parshall in Fort increased the area covered by snow courses Collins, Colorado, and Lou T. Jessup at as well as the application of forecasts Yakima, Washington. They generally oper- (Work, 1989). The Soil Conservation Service ated independently, though Marr was the had begun in 1937 to encourage the acknowledged leader. Since the beginning creation of conservation districts under state of snow surveys, Marr had devoted all of law. The districts had locally elected super- his working hours to building up the snow visors and directors. After a district signed surveying activities and had dropped his a cooperative agreement with USDA, the irrigation work (Marr correspondence). Soil Conservation Service would assign staff to work with the district. The move added The early years had been a time of rapid a large number of SCS employees as poten- expansion - -laying out snow courses, tial snow surveyors. Also, snow survey working out agreements with cooperators offices were opened at Reno, Nevada and and users, compiling data, making forecasts, Logan, Utah (Work, 1948). and reproducing the forecasts for distribution. Arch Work recalled that the group had In terms of applications the Soil Conserva- decided working independently was the tion Service had become the primary most efficient operation. agency of USDA advising farmers on technical matters concerning the storage, We were pretty movement, and use of water on the farm. decentralized. I understand SCS assumed responsibility for advising perfectly the need to farmers on irrigation and drainage along centralize snow survey work with water supply forecasting. Working through the field staffs and the conserva- stocking shelters, winter travel, and other tion districts, there was great potential for topics (Marr. 1939; Marr, 1940). Prior to using snow surveys in irrigation. the use of aircraft, expansion of snow surveys depended in part on making cabins Arch Work believed that the snow survey- available. Snow surveyors needed cabins in ing generally received strong support from order to make a trip of several days to the leadership of SCS, especially Chiefs remote snow courses. In the 1939 Transac- Hugh Hammond Bennett and Don Williams, tions, American Geophysical Union, Arch as well as the important staffs in adminis- Work and Ralph Parshall published a guide tration, engineering, and public information for the construction of snow survey cabins (Work, 1989). The public information group (Work and Parshall, 1939). especially appreciated the romance of "snow surveys" as a means of' publicizing the Snow Survev Network agency. When most research functions of The snow survey work expanded through- the Soil Conservation Service were trans- out the late 1930s. By the spring of 1940 ferred to the Agricultural Research approximately 753 snow surveyors made Administration effective November 15, readings at 14,295 sampling points on 1,000 1952, the water supply forecasting remained snow courses. The brunt of the snow sur- in SCS. veying work fell on the rangers of the U. S. Forest Service and the National Park Ser- Snow Survevin~Publication vice. Snow surveyors had available some The Division of Irrigation group realized 339 shelters. Only a portion of those had that future expansion of the snow courses been built specifically for snow survey and water supply forecasting would be work. Others belonged to mining compa- greatly enhanced by a snow survey manual. nies, power companies, and lumber inter- When the Division of Irrigation got ests. As the groups worked to add new involved in the work, the division's field cabins they tried to locate them about 16 people learned from experienced snow sur- miles apart, the average day's journey. veyors George D. Clyde and James E. Altogether the Division of Irrigation had Church (Helms, 1991). Also, literature on about 50 cooperating federal, state, and the subject was accumulating since the local agencies and companies (McLaughlin, Western Interstate Snow-Survey Conference, 1940; Work, 1989). begun in 1933, published articles on methods and procedures in its proceedings. The network of snow courses developed But new snow surveyors and forecasters rapidly. By 1943 there were 829 snow needed a manual, a compendium of the courses being surveyed. There had' been existing knowledge on snow surveys. James about 1,000 courses, but the group elimi- C. Marr, who had general supervision of nated some of these as unnecessary. There the snow surveying work from his Boise, were 177 active cooperators. The surveyors Idaho office, called upon the experts in the had about 266 shelter cabins available to field for help in writing a manual on prin- them, 77 of which were owned by the fed- ciples, purposes, and procedures of snow eral government. The network stocked 115 surveying. Snow Surveying (USD A Miscel- of these with food. In addition to the laneous Publication No. 380) appeared in mimeographed releases there were some 153 1940. In addition to his own experiences radio broadcasts made during 1943 Marr solicited information from the other (McLaughlin, 1943). snow survey supervisors (Parshall, Jessup, and Work) as well as George D. Clyde, J. E. Publicitv Church, 0. W. Munson, and Harold Winter sports enthusiasts recognized the Conkling, the deputy state engineer of Cal- value of the snow surveys for skiing and ifornia. The manual described the care and other activities. In the summer of 1937, the use of equipment, snow sampling proce- Division of Irrigation was asked to provide dures, field office work, uses of water sup- information on conditions for winter sports. ply forecasts, maintenance of snow courses, The snow supervisors took to the airwaves on the National Broadcasting Company. The included Work, writer Andrew H. Brown, offices at Berkeley, Medford, Boise, Fort National Geographic photographer Jack Collins, and Logan collected information on Fletcher, SCS photographer Robert F. 64 winter sports areas and had the infor- Branstead, Jasper Tucker, Harvey Woods, mation ready for a Friday broadcast at 9:00 and Gaeton Sturdevant. The trip com- pm. The National Broadcasting Company menced in mid-March presumably after the carried "Snowcasts" on the San Francisco heaviest snows. But snow fell all but two station as well as two stations in Idaho, two days during the trip. It snowed about ten in Washington, four or five in Utah, and feet along the journey. While publicity was one in Colorado (Work, 1989; Work, n.d.; an unannounced motivation, there was an McLaughlin, 1940). operational objective. During the snow surveying season, surveyors ascended to Actually some of the broadcasts contained various points near the crest of the Cascade more than just the information on snow. range from the valley floor. The snow sur- For instance James Marr in Boise received vey group had conjectured that one trip information from the U. S. Forest Service along the spine of the range in 'Sno-Cats" and the Sun Valley Lodge. Listeners to might be a more efficient method of sur- Winter Sports Broadcast on December 31, veying. The trip convinced the group to 1937 over KID0 in Boise would have heard stick with the earlier method (Work, n. d.; that a new ski lift and two new ski hills Brown, 1949). would open at the Payette Lakes winter sports area. At Sun Valley the University of Accuracy of Forecasts and Improvement of Washington and Dartmouth College com- Methods peted in a ski meet. Marr encouraged Some of the long-time users of snow sur- McLaughlin to include the Sun Valley veys in the West were dedicated believers in forecast in the broadcast from San Fran- their value. After the beginning of federal cisco since the lodge drew many of its coordination in 1935, the snow survey patrons from the West Coast, and in fact supervisors added new cooperators and preferred them to local clientele. He wrote users rapidly. Credibility with these new to McLaughlin, "In fact, the presence there users rested on the reliability of forecasts. of local people is looked upon as an obliga- The group chose to use the percentage tion rather than an asset. That is, they are method developed by James E. Church, taken care of but their coming is not overly which assumed that normal snow cover encouraged" (Marr correspondence). produced normal runoff. Snow course measurements were correlated with stream- The snow survey scored a major publicity flow data collected by the U. S. Geological triumph in 1942 with the appearance of Survey and used in succeeding years to "Engineers Survey Snow" in the April 1942 predict streamflow from the snow course issue of Life magazine. Readers saw measurements. The method assumed that photographs of Arch Work and Jack Frost the most important factor was precipitation surveying near Oregon's Crater Lake. and that losses could be grouped together National Geographic featured snow surveys and given a fixed value depending upon the in their November 1949 issue. Arch Work particular watershed. The accumulation of assistgd one of the magazine's writers, Leo several years or decades of records would Borah, in 1946 when he transported Borah supply values pertinent to the watershed. to Crater Lake in a 'Sno-Cat." Work sug- (Clyde, 1939). Snow surveyors believed they gested to Borah that a trip from the Cali- needed at least 10 years of data for fornia-Oregon border along the crest of the reasonably reliable forecasts (Work, 1989). Cascade range to the Columbia River would provide National Geographic with a However, where there was no historical splendid article. The Tucker Sno-Cat Com- record, and there was none for many of the pany furnished the transportation and a courses, the methods sometimes did not mechanic-driver (the son of the owner) for work well in the seasons of subnormal or the 23-day trip. The party of seven above-normal snowfall. In these cases when the forecast was off it could be off 30 to While the snow survey supervisors disagreed 60 percent; in a few cases it was off by 100 with this attitude, they did come to percent (McLaughlin, 1943). Also the relia- acknowledge the value of snow courses bility of forecasts varied from one region to below the permanent snow pack. another, as the forecasters quickly realized when they moved into the southwest. The Low flows, peak flows, and distribution of variability of spring' and summer rainfall flows concerned users for a variety of rea- meant that forecasts for New Mexico gen- sons and involved many interrelated and erally had a 55.7 error rate (Beaumont, complicated factors. On rivers without large 1957). storage reservoirs, the concern of irrigation farmers was not merely the total supply but Early snow survey supervisors realized there the daily distribution of flow. Using his- were many factors which could influence torical records for the Logan, Ogden, total runoff as well as distribution, but Weber, and Provo Rivers in Utah, George were not taken into account in the per- D. Clyde developed a daily hydrograph and centage method. The proceedings of the was then able to relate it to forecast curves Western Interstate Snow-Survey Conference, (Clyde, 1939). One result of this concern later the Western Snow Conference, was that the groups began forecasting for included numerous articles on attempts to the date of the low flow in addition to the accommodate these various factors in fore- streamflow forecasts for April through casting. September (Work, 1989).

First of all, not everyone agreed that snow Operators of multiple-purpose reservoirs surveys were the best indicators of stream- particularly needed information about total flow. The Weather Bureau maintained that flow and peak flow so as to make the precipitation, even if it came from the val- maximum use of reservoirs for flood con- leys rather than the mountain, was just as trol, irrigation water storage, and hydro- good an indication. In commenting on a electric power production. Fred Paget of paper by George D. Clyde and Arch Work California's Division of Water Resources at a Western Interstate Snow Conference in believed temperatures at low elevation sta- 1943, Merrill Bernard of the Weather tions could be indexed to mountain tem- Bureau's Washington office made the case peratures and be used to assist in operation for relying on precipitation: of reservoirs for flood control on the Kings River (Paget, 1943). Quite a number of the It is not in accord with Soil Conservation Service group, such as known facts to discredit the Arch Work and Moreley Nelson, and others "Valley Stationtt as a signifi- in university and state agencies published cant index to precipitation at various articles pointing out the influence higher levels. Precipitation- of soil moisture, groundwater levels, rain- event (storm periods) have fall and temperature on streamflow. Work within themselves a unity summarized many of the considerations in which expresses itself in a his Stream -Flow Forecasting From Snow high degree of dependency Surveys (Work, 1953). Collectively the early of precipitation measured at group of snow surveyors knew many of the points of different elevation factors that influenced runoff. Essentially, (including those below and they knew the right questions to ask. within significant distance of Relying on monthly snow surveys, however, the average snow-line), even did not give them timely information on though the character of the soil moisture, temperature, and precipita- precipitation (rain or snow) tion. The current SNOTEL system can pro- is different at the points vide not only the information on snow pack compared (Clyde and Work, but also information on precipitation, tem- 1943, Discussion by perature, soil moisture, and other factors on Bernard). a timely basis to be used in forecasting. More powerful computers allow forecaster Even the most ardent believers in snow today to assess the relative importance of surveys could not predict all the uses. They various factors in streamflow. received inquiries, especially in times of water shortage, from financial institutions, Uses of Snow Surveys mercantile companies, eastern wholesale Although water supply forecasters perceived houses, power-companies, mines, munici - a need to refine and improve forecasting palities, navigational interests, and agricul- methods, the percentage method was suffi- ture (McLaughlin, 1943). In agriculture of cient to make dramatic demonstrations of course the main interest was in being able the value of snow surveys. The forecasters to adjust the timing as well as the amount gradually( accumulated examples of the of acreage planted. The sugar beet value of snow surveys. George D. Clyde of companies soon learned to await the water the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station supply forecasts before signing contacts and had made the most dramatic demonstration adjusting the acreage contracts to the fore- of the value of snow surveys. Clyde's April casts (McLaughlin, 1943.) In 1946 snow 1934 forecast predicted most watersheds in surveys in early spring indicated that the Utah would receive only 25 to 50 percent water supply for Deschutes and Cook of their normal streamflows. The governor counties, Oregon, greatly exceeded normal. immediately made Clyde his special repre- Farmers were able to plant an additional sentative to contact all the water users to 6,500 acres of land. The value of the pro- assist them in developing plans to use the duce was about $500,000 (Work, 1953). The limited amount of water that would be information was particularly valuable in available (Clyde, 1934). Evidently Clyde operating multiple-purpose reservoirs which performed admirably in getting farmers to stored irrigation water as well as producing adjust their planting schedules and acreage some hydroelectric power. With good planted. This demonstration was one of the information the reservoir manager could reasons Congress provided for federal coor - maintain the maximum irrigation water and dination of snow surveys. In the late 1940s use the surplus to produce power for sale. Clyde, a longtime professor of engineering at Utah State University, became the head Flooding of the Division of Irrigation and Water Although the water supply forecasting Conservation in the Soil Conservation Ser- group was not to be involved in flood vice. He moved the office from Berkeley to forecasting, the value of the forecast for Logan, Utah. determining volume and as well as peak flows was recognized. In fact the early The snow survey supervisors gradually reports mentioned specifically the flood added to these examples and used these in hazard. The value of snow surveys for their publicity. Agencies doing construction assisting in flood prediction was made dra- and rehabilitation work on rivers needed matically evident in the Columbia River streamflow information in order to deter- flood of 1948. The May 1, 1948. forecast mine the type measures needed to protect by James C. Marr from Boise, Idaho read: the construction. When the area below Elephant Butte Reservoir was going to be Retarded snow melt and worked on in 1942, New Mexico wanted to above normal precipitation know the total runoff from the Upper Rio during April will increase Grande into the Elephant Butte Reservoir. the amount and rate of The prediction was 1,941,000 acre-feet and runoff throughout the the actual total was 1,938,000 acre-feet. northern and western parts Another forecast of the flow of the of Columbia River Basin. Columbia River allowed the Corps of Engi- The outlook a month ago in neers to avoid unnecessary protection work these areas for greater than for their construction near The Dalles normal runoff with possible (McLaughlin, 1943). flood hazard has changed to certainty of runoff of flood proportions with attendant damage in vulnerable areas.... Another case of using snow surveys to Also extra high water may lessen flood damages occurred in 1954 on be expected on all of these the Kootenai River in Idaho. The April 9 streams during the latter part forecast mentioned a potential flood and the of May and June. This same May 10 survey predicted a 35.5 foot river situation may also extend to crest. The town was evacuated and the lower Columbia River. dikes reinforced with the assistance of federal troops. The river crested at 35.55 The 1948 Columbia flood resulted in more feet. (Work, 1955). than 50 deaths and property damage of 100 million dollars. (Clyde and Houston, 1951 ). The Bonneville Power Administration, in the early 1970s, estimated an annual value The weather in 1948 provided the exact of $385,000 for extra power generated in combination for flooding. The snow cover three reservoirs studied. The U. S. Bureau was above normal in water equivalent. of Reclamation in 1968 estimated they had There was cold weather during the early avoided $495,000 in flood damages from part of the melting period, and above nor- Bull Lake, Pilot Butte, and Boysen Reser- mal temperatures in the latter part of the voirs in Wyoming. Similarly the Salt River melting period followed by above normal Project believed it had prevented $600,000 precipitation during the melting period. The in flood damages in 1960. The snow survey Columbia River flood of 1948 had all of was used to operate the reservoirs in the the above conditions. Arch Work used this Columbia River Basin. The average annual and other conditions in writing Stream- savings between 1956- 1962 was $9.8 million Flow Forecasting From Snow Surveys (Soil Conservation Service, 1973). (Work, 1953). Maturation of Program The snow courses provided information By the late 1940s the program had reached from the higher elevations, above the line a high degree of maturation. In 1948 the where melting usually occurred in the Division of Irrigation and the cooperating winter, while most of the Weather Bureau's agencies made forecasts at approximately precipitation data stations were located in 176 gaging stations. About 1,000 snow sur- the lower elevations. Regardless of the veyors made 2,400 different surveys at 950 agreement on flood forecasting, the impor- courses. There was equipment to be tant fact was that the operators of reser- repaired, cabins to be built, maintained and voirs, namely the Corps of Engineers and stocked with food. As soon as surveys were the Bureau of Reclamation, used the infor- made the information had to be tabulated, mation in storing and releasing water. forecasts made, and meetings held with According to the Corps of Engineers and forecast committees and local groups of the Bureau of Reclamation, warnings in water users. 1950 allowed the operation of reservoirs so that $5,600,000 in flood damages could be Snow survey supervisors made forecasts for avoided (Clyde and Houston, 1951). The the Columbia River Basin (51, Rio Grande 1950 estimates had been for heavy snow River basin (4). Oregon (4), Utah (I), pack. During 1956 the Corps of Engineers Nevada (21, California (4) by the California believed they had saved $37 million in Division of Water Resources, Colorado flood damages by taking protective River Basin (41, Missouri & Arkansas River measures due to the water supply forecast Basin (4), Montana (3), Arizona (3), and (Beaumont, 1967). SCS believed that water British Columbia (4) by the British supply forecasts had been used to avert $70 Columbia Government. million in flood damages along the Columbia during the period 1956-1962 by Snow survey supervisors sent out 5,000 use of reservoir control (Work and Shannon, mimeographed copies of forecasts. Just as 1964). one example of publicity within a state, 56 Oregon newspapers and 13 radio stations Brown, Andrew H. 'Sno-Cats Mechanize publicized the results. At least three maga- Oregon Snow Survey," National Geographic zines published reports covering the entire Magazine 96 (November 1949): 69 1-710. West, Reclamation Era, Western Construc - tion News, and Electrical West (Work, Clyde, George D. May 1934. Report of 1948). Water Conservation Program and Drought Situation In Utah. Typescript copy in At the end of the first two decades the George D. Clyde Papers, Department of snow survey supervisors were generally Special Collection and Archives, Utah State pleased with the operations. They wanted to University, Logan. expand the system of forecast committees but believed that additional information and ------. 1939. "Forecastinn Stream Flow snow survey personnel would be needed. from Snow Surveys," civil- ~ngineerin~9: One goal of the group in Arch Work's 237- 239. words was to "provide dependable streamflow forecasts for the benefit of farm Clyde, George D. and Houston, Clyde E. operators on the smallest tributaries and on 1951. "Benefits of Snow Surveying," Pre- downstream industrial developments on pared for the Western Snow conference. major streams" (Work, 1948). The accumu- Copy in Papers of George D. Clyde, lation of data for over ten years made some Department of Special Collection and of this possible, but the group was beset by Archives, Utah State University, Logan. ,the time-consuming calculations necessary to deal with the mass of data. Clyde, George. D. and Work, R. A. 1943. "Precipitation-Runoff Relationships As A The snow survey supervisors continued to Basis For Water Supply Forecasting," test and promote different modes of Transactions, American Geophysical Union mechanizing the snow surveys. They tested Vol, 24, Part 3: 43-55. over-snow machines produced by private as well as government agencies. They made "Engineers Survey Snow," April 20, 1942. more use of airplanes to reach high altitude Life 12 (16): 49-52. snow markers. In time the water supply forecast group helped develop some of the Helms, J. Douglas. 1991. "Bringing Federal technology to gather information more Coordination to Snow Surveys," Proceedings rapidly and easily. of the Western Snow Conference, pp. 1 19 - 125. Current technology, rather than diminishing our appreciation of snow survey achieve- Marr correspondence. Division of Irrigation. ments in the decades from 1930 to 1950 Bureau of Agricultural Engineering, helps enhance it. Working with a meager Records of the Bureau of Agricultural budget, but much cooperation, the snow Engineering, Record Group 8, National survey group along with California's Divi- Archives and Records Administration, sion of Water Resources proved the feasi- Washington, D.C. bility of regionwide snow surveys and set the stage for public support of mechaniza- Marr, James C. 1939. 'Status of Proposed tion of the operations. Bulletin On Principles and Practice Of Snow Surveying," Transactions, American Geophysical Union Vol. 20, Part 1: 53-55. References ------. 1940. Snow Surveying. U. S. Beaumont, R. T. 1957. "Cooperative Snow Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Surveys and Water Supply Forecasting," Publication No. 380. Washington, DC. 45 Journal of Xoil and Water Conservation 12: pages. 115-119. McLaughlin, Walter. W. 1940. "Problems Of The Division Of Irrigation In Forecasting Water Supplies," Transactions, American Geophysical Union Vol. 21, Part 1: 131 - 134. ------. 1943. "Some Accomplishments in Snow-surveying," Transactions, American Geophysical Union Vol. 24: 38-42.

Paget, Fred. 1943. "The Use Of Snow Sur- veys As An Aid In Flood-Control Opera- tion Of Reservoirs," Transactions, American Geophysical Union Vol. 24, Part 3: 28-36.

Soil Conservation Service, April 1973. The Soil Conservation Service Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecast Program. Portland, Oregon.

Work, R. A. n. d. Recollections of R. A. ("Arch") Work Concerning Snow Surveys In Western States."

------. 1948. Stream Flow Forecasting. Typescript. 18 pp. Merrill G. Burlingame Special Collections, Montana State Univer- sity Libraries, Bozeman. ------. 1953. Stream -Flow Forecasting From Snow Survey. Circular No. 914 U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. ------. 1955. "Measuring Snow To Fore- cast Water Supplies," Yearbook of Agricul- ture U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC ------. 1989. Interview conducted by Douglas Helms for the Soil Conservation Service. Ashland, Oregon, May 12, 1989.

Work, R. A. and Parshall, R. L. 1939. "Construction Of Snow-Survey Shelter- Cabins, Transactions, American Geophysical Union Vol. 20, Part 1: 125- 134.

Work, R. A. and Shannon, W. G. 1964. Snow Survey Reports Help West In Years of Floods or Drought," Soil Conservation 29: 213-215. Conserving the Plains: The Soil Conservation Service in the Great Plains

Reprinted from Agricultural History 64, no. 2 (Spring 1990): 58-73.

by Douglas Helms National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

Hugh Hammond Bennett, in early April of Depression to get the work started, but the . 1935, found himself on the verge of situation in the Great Plains provided the achieving an ambition that had dominated final impetus for legislation. The Depres- his professional life for years, the estab- sion awoke the nation to the interrelated lishment of a permanent agency dedicated problems of poverty and poor land use. The to soil conservation. True, his temporary public glimpsed some of this suffering in Soil Erosion Service in the Department of the South in the photographs of the Farm the Interior had received some of the Security Administration and those in Walker money Congress appropriated to put people Evans and James Agees, Let Us Now Praise back to work during the Depression pro- Famous Men, that told a tale of poor land, viding him an opportunity to put some of poor people, complicated by tenancy and his ideas about soil conservation to work in racism. But it was the Great Plains that demonstration projects across the country. captured the national attention. Newspaper But this had never been the ultimate objec- accounts of dust storms, the government- tive; he had from the beginning yearned for sponsored documentary classic, The Plow something that would survive the Depres- That Broke the Plains, and John Steinbeck's sion and attack soil erosion unt'l it was novel, Grapes of Wrath, evoked powerful eliminated as a national problem.' Friends images. For Americans, the Dust Bowl set of the soil conservation movement had the image of the human condition compli- introduced bills into Congress to create a cated by the problem of soil erosion. It specific agency for that purpose. Now, as remains a powerful historical touchstone for Bennett sat before the Senate Public Lands the public's ideas about soil erosion. We Committee, he needed to make a may collect data, analyze, and argue, as we convincing case. The sky darkened as dust do about the relative seriousness of soil from the plains arrived. The dust cloud's erosion in our most productive agricultural arrival was propitious, but not totally regions like the Corn Belt or the wheat unexpected--at least not to the main region in the Palouse. Occasionally stories witness. The Senators suspended the hearing appear in newspapers on salinity on irri- for a moment and moved to the windows of gated land. But none of these situations the Senate Office Building. Better than compares with the inevitable question that words or statistics or photographs, the accompanies each prolonged drought in the waning daylight demonstrated Bennett's Great Plains: Is the "Dust Bowl'' returning? assertion that soil conservation was a public responsibility worthy of support and The Dust Bowl also proved to be the most continuing commitment to solve one of popular area in the United States for histo- rural America's persistent problems. Bennett rians studying soil erosion. Within the past recalled t at, "Everything went nicely decade historians have produced three thereafter." 3 books on the Dust Bowl--that section of the plains encompassing western Kansas, In the beginning, as so often would be the southeastern Colorado, northeastern New case in the future, the Great Plains seemed Mexico, and the panhandles of Oklahoma to be at the center of developments in soil and Texas. If the wheat and grass some- conservation policies. Probably the soil times wither in the plains, historical inter- conservation bill would have passed in any pretation seems to flourish where the fates event. Bennett's crusading zeal converged of man and land are so intertwined and with the opportunity offered by the subjected to the vagaries of climate. To summarize the themes briefly, Donald problems. Thus on the demonstration pro- Worster in Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains jects, it . drew together the engineers, in the 1930s found the Dust Bowl to be the agronomists, and range management spe- result of a social system and an economic cialists. They were to work together on order, capitalism, that disrupts the envi- common problems rather than concentrating ronment and will co inue to do so until solely on their own discipline. Second, the the system is changed? For Paul Bonnifield Soil Conservation Service provided a means in The Dust Bowl: Men, Dirt, and Depres- to work on what we now call technology sion, plains farmers struggled successfully transfer from both ends of the spectrum. not only against drought and depression, This seemed particularly appropriate in the but also against too much government plains where farmers had struggled with idealism, whose most threatening manifes- wind erosion and devised a number of tation was the soil conservation district with methods to combat it. State agricultural its potential to make plainsmen "tenant experiment stations and later USDA stations farmers f r an obscure and distant absentee specializing in soil erosion provided landlord."' R. Douglas Hurt in The Dust answers. When SCS began operations, there Bowl: An Agricultural and Social History were already some ideas on answers. To believed that farmers in general learned provide vegetative cover SCS advocated from the Dust Bowl and adjusted their water conservation through detention, farming practices, so that when drought diversion and water spreading structures returned in the 1950s so did win erosion, and by contour cultivation of fields and but not the black blizzards!' These contour furrows on rangeland. The vegeta- volumes detailed many of the specific tive strips in stripcropping and borders of farming practices that the Soil Conservation grass, crops, shrubs, or trees served as wind Service advocated in the Great Plains. In barriers. The young soil conservationists - this article, I will concentrate on some of also encouraged the adaptation of crops and the later developments since the Dust Bowl. cultural practices to fit the varying topo- Finally, on pain of being labeled a geographic, soil, moisture, and seasonal condi- graphical determinist, I want to make a few tions. Organic residues should be used to points as to how the Great Plaihs increase organic content and they should influenced national soil conservation pro- also be kept on the surface, as in the case grams and policies. of stubble-mulching, to prevent wind erosion. Critically erodible land should be The establishment of the Soil Conservation returned to permanent vegetative cover. Service created a locus for pulling together Rangelands could be improved by good all the information on the best methods of range management through distribution, farming, but farming safely within the rotation, and deferment of grazing. capabilities of the land. The Soil Conserva- Probably the most far-reaching recommen- tion Service at first worked through dation was that farmers shift from exten- demonstration projects and the Civilian sive cash crop farming, wheat in particular, Conservation Corps camps. President to a balanced livestock and farming opera- Franklin Roosevelt in 1937 encouraged the tion, or that they shift to a livestock opera- states to pass a standard soil conservation tion rdthe growing of livestock feeds districts act. Afterward, the US. Depart- only. While technology has changed ment of Agriculture could sign a coopera- through the years, these essential elements tive agreement with the district. Much of still guide the soil conservation program. the SCS's contribution to the districts has been providing personnel to the district. In In retrospect, progress in using rangeland this manner an agency concentrating on more within its capabilities seems one of conservation established a presence in the the more obvious achievements since the countryside working directly with farmers 1930s. By most measures, the condition of and ranchers in a relationship that had two rangeland in the Great Plains and elsewhere fortunate results. First, it made all the has improved since the 1930s. Henry disciplines work together on common Wallace's preface to the Western Range report in 1936 predicted it would take fifty field technicians and ranchers aIike. That years to restore the range to a condition necessity took what had generally been that would support 17.3 million livestock regarded as a research activity into the units. That goal was reached in the mid- farm and ranch setting. The key for 1970s. Other assessments by the Soil Con- ranchers in wisely using rangeland was to servation Service over the last twenty years know the condition of the range, so as to reveab improvements in rangeland condi - know when and how much it might be tions. grazed without further deterioration. Thus, SCS needed to develop a system of range It would be difficult to attribute responsi- condition classification, based on scientific bility for .this to particular agencies, be principles, that field staff of SCS and they federal or state. Even today, SCS ranchers could understand and use. works with approximately half of the ranchers in the Great Plains, though many Early range management pioneers recog- of those not participating are part-time nized that the composition of the range farmer-ranchers, with other sources of changed with heavy grazing as cattle income. What is clear is a growing selected the taller, more palatable grasses appreciation for the principles of range leaving the shorter, less palatable ones. ld management in livestock raising. That is a Following thirteen years of research on definite shift from the attitude of the National Forest rangelands in the West, early-twentieth century when the concept Arthur W. Sampson elaborated on this con- that rangeland could be grazed too inten- cept and observed that the surest way to sively was anathema to many cattlemen. detect overgrazing was by observing suc- The controversy about grazing intensity was cession, or the "replacement of one type of such that Secretary of Agriculture James plant by another." Furthermore, the grazing Wilson in 1901 wrote on the manuscript of value of rangelands was highest where "the a USDA bulletin on the subject: "all too cover represents a stage in close proximity true, gut not best for us to take a position to the herbaceous climax and lowest in t now." Shortly after the dust storms in type most remote from the climax." ~r 1935, SCS Associate Chief Walter C. Sampson's research prefaced the application Lowdermilk was addressing a group of of Frederic Clement's ideas about plant plains cattlemen only to have them termi- communities to practical range problems. A nate the meeting when h~ mentioned the pioneer in prairie ecology, Clement theo- baleful term "overgrazing " rized that grasslands were a community of plants in various stages of plant succession It has been quite a journey from that atti- progressing toward a climax stage. tude to general acceptance of range management as being in the interest of the land Range management experts in the Soil and the rancher. Several elements seemed Conservation Service needed a classification crucial to the development. SCS people system that could be used in the field in working with local soil conservation dis- working with ranchers. Most range tricts and ranchers had to convince them management systems in the 1930s and 1940s that range management was in their best recognized the validity of ecological con - interests. The field people work for the cepts for range management. The distinc- most part with owner-operators and conse- tiveness of the SCS system was that it quently in a less adversarial climate than would be a quantitative system that applied the Forest Service and Department of the ecological concepts to range classification Interior range specialists, who had to try to and management. Other systems were improve range conditions by imposition of judged to be too qualitative for practical stocking rates and grazing fees on federal application in the field. The idea was to lands. Also, knowing that an educational develop floristic guides of plant population job lay ahead, the range specialists had to for the various range condition classes. For develop a system to promote range man- instance, as rangeland is grazed by animals agement that was understandable to the SCS certain plants will show an increase in the percentage of cover under heavy grazing; for range classification at numerous sites in others will decrease, and in other cases the Great Plains. Isolated researchers have heavy grazing leads to an invasion of plants no such means for testing theory and clas- onto the site. Thus, SCS field staff learned sification in practice. The other point to inventory rangeland for particular involves the emphasis on soil in range clas- "decreasers, increasers, and invaders" in sification. Certainly the early ecologists determining whether the range condition emphasized soil as a part of the biotic fell into one of four categories- -poor, fair, environment. Nonetheless, it is quite likely good, or excellent. that having both soil scientists and range managers in the same agency led to greater So as not to make too general a recommen- recognition of the importance 'of soil in site dation that would be of limited value, SCS identification than might have been the added the concept of "range site" to the case otherwise. Range management was but study of range management and improved one of the cases in which the so-called range management practices. Foresters had action agencies such as SCS had to translate originally developed the concept of site as the scientific into the practical. In so doing an ecological or mana ment entity based it removed the prejudice often held toward on plant communities!' Soil type, land- what was considered strictly research or scape position, and climate factors would be theoretical musings. The ecological emphasis involved in determining the climax vegeta- and the recognition of the other values of tion and should be taken into account when rangeland for wildlife and water, not just making recommendations for using range- the forage produced, seem to have land following general instructions the local increased the popularity of range manage- SCS soil conservationists had to delineate ment with ranchers. range sites in their soil conservation district. Field staff could then work with ranchers Cultural practices, especially tillage to develop a conservation plan that included methods, that reduced wind erosion found advice on how best to use the land for favor with farmers. Subsurface tillage, or grazing and at the same time maintain or stubble-mulch farming, eliminated weeds improve range condition. In working with that depleted moisture during the summer farmers SCS tried to ensure that ranchers fallow period while at the same time understood the key plants and their leaving wheat stubble on the surface to response to light or heavy grazing and de- control wind erosion. Farmers employed the ferment. Overall the system was not sup- rotary rod weeder, or the large V-shaped posed to focus solely on those plants that Noble blade, or smaller sweeps in this benefited cattle most. In concept it adhered work. Developments in planting and tillage to the suggestion of Clement that "There equipment and in herbicides have added a can be no doubt that the community is a whole array of planting and cultural more reliable 'ndicator than any single methods that leave crop residues on the species of it."" Advice to farmers might surface as well as increasing the organic also include information on fencing, devel- content of the topsoil. These practices, such opment of water supplies, and rotation as no-till, ridge-till, strip-till, mulch-till, grazing as range management theories and reduced tillage fall under the general changed over the years. But the reliance on rubric "conservation tillage." The Conserva- range site and condition as the foundation tion Technology Information Center, which has persisted to the present. promotes conservation tillage, estimated in 1988 that 23 percent of the acreage in the The range management experience illus- southern plains and 32 percent of acreage trated two important points about the in the northern pl i s was planted with desirability of an interdisciplinary approach conservation tillage.?' Larger farm equip - to problems and the need to link scientific ment can have some adverse effects on theory to practical application. Because of conservation, but the powerful tractors its large field staff, SCS was able to test its make for timely emergency tillage ideas about using ecological quantification 132

operations to bring moist soil to the surface landscape and thus prevent dust storms to control wind erosion. from gathering force hninterrupted. Chief among them seem to be leaving crop SCS's work in the Great Plains always residues on the surface, higher organic emphasized retiring the most erodible soils content of the soil, wind stripcropping, to grass. Thus they worked on introducing field windbreaks, and interspersed grass- grass and devising planting methods for the lands. The Conservation Reserve Program, range. The land utilization projects pro- authorized in the 1985 farm bill, that pays vided a means to test some of these farmers to keep highly erodible land in methods. But some plains farmers and grass has proven most popular in the Great absentee owners have continued to use Plains. This is not surprising, because the erodible soils for cropland that would be plains influenced it as they did so many better suited to rangeland or pasture. other conservation programs. 18 Nonetheless, as farmers have learned about their land through the hazards of erosion or The drought that struck the Great Plains in poor crop production potential, or perhaps the 1950s led once again to emergency through the teachings of the Soil Conserva- drought measures, but also eventually to tion Service, there have been some adjust- new soil conservation programs and ments from the homesteading days or the policies, The Colorado legislature made World War I era of wheat expansion. The $1,000,000 available to plains farmers in system of land capability classification March 1954. The U. S. Department of developed by the Soil Conservation Service Agriculture spent $13.3 million on in the late 1930s and recent surveys of land emergency tillage in 1954, and another use provided some clues to this shift. In $9,275,000 in 1955. The Agricultural making recommendations to farmers, SCS Conservation Program spent $70,011,000 on learned to classify land. In class I are soils drought emergency conservation measures with few limitations that restrict use, class in twenty-one states during 19%- 1956. I1 soils require moderate conservation prac- Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, tices, class I11 soils require 'special conser- and Texas used $37,848,000 of the funds. vation practices, and class IV soils have Additional fun@ went to other drought very severe limitations that require very relief measures. careful management. Soils in class V and VI are not suited to common cultivated crops. As it turned out, the 1950s drought pro- The system takes into account several vided an opportunity for SCS to promote a limitations on use. Where the major limita- new program for dealing with conservation tion is susceptibility to erosion, the subclass and drought in the Great Plains. They sug- designation "e" is used. Generally less than gested to USDA's drought committee that 20 percent of the land in the worst classes, any financial assistance be used to assist VIIIe and VIe is currently used for crop- farmers to convert cropland back to grassland, and less than alf of the IVe land is land by paying 50 percent of the cost with used for cropland.'' So there have been the proviso hat it remain in grass at least some adjustments. five years.26 The full committee's report seized on the idea of long-term contracts Wind erosion is still a problem on the for restoring grass. It went even further in plains. While dust storms are not common saying that to discourage a subsequent generally, several years of drought, such as plow-up it might be necessary to use occurred recently can still set the stage for "restrictive covenants and surrender of dust storms such as the one t a occurred in eligibility ,Jfr allotments, loans and crop Kansas on March 14, 1989?' The 1988- insurance." Meanwhile, USDA represen- 1989 wind erosion season was the worst tatives met with members of the rejuve- since 19 4-1955 when SCS started keeping nated Great Plains Agriculture Council to records.'' Nonetheless, one can perceive work on a program. It called for measures the cumulative effects of conservation it was hoped would prove more lasting than practices that break up the flat, pulverized the cyclical assistance in emergency tillage and emergency feed and seed programs. conservation while at the same time The report called for "installing and estab- assisting in the development of economi- lishing those practices which are most cally stable farm and ranch units. Though enduring and most needed but which are he did not work on the Great Plains pro- not now part of heir normal farm and gram, H. H. Finnell, former head of SCS's ranch operations!I2' President Eisenhower regional office at Amarillo, wrote in Soil introduced the bill that was to become the Conservation, the official magazine of the Great Plains Conservation Program into Soil Conservation Service: Congress on June 19, 1956. Under the bill, the Secretary of Agriculture could enter A more logical and perma- into contracts, not to exceed ten years, with nent remedy would be the producers. No contract could be signed development of an interme- after December 31, 1971. The Secretary was diate type of agriculture to to designate the counties in the ten Great use marginal land. This land Plains states that had serious wind erosion is just as capable of being problems. The contracts were to stipulate efficiently operated as any the "schedule of proposed changes in crop- other lands, provided the ping systems and land use and of conserva- demands made upon it are tion measures!' The House Committee kept within its natural reported favorably on the bill with a few moisture and fertility capa- reservations. Only one ,major farm group bilities. Ranching is not showed up to testify in favor of the bill. intensive enough to resist John A. Baker of the National Farmers economic pressures; while Union favored the bill, but even he grain farming is too inten- reported that plains' farmers and ranchers sive for the physical limita- had "some qualms and sqTe apprehensions tions of the land. A special about these master plans." type of agriculture for marginal land is needed. It After the President signed the bill on must use the land more August 7, 1956, (Public Law 84-102) intensively than ranching Assistant Secretary Ervin L. Peterson desig- and at the same time more nated the Soil Conser tion Service to safely than grain farming. implement the program!' Cyril Luker, a Men of stable character and native Texan who had worked in AmariIlo more patience than those in charge of erosion control practices, who ride on waves of spec- chaired an inter-agency group that would ulation will $ needed to write the basic guidelines and program work this out. structure. Jefferson C. Dykes, Assistant Administrator and a student of the history The contracts with farmers certainly did of the Great Plains, chaired the work group not dictate what was to be done; there on farm and ranch planning. Donald would be mutual agreement. But it would Williams, Administrator of the Soil Conser- nonetheless be a contract, and the contract vation Ser-vice, ordered the state conserva- would promote the idea of soil conservation tionist of the ten Great Plains states to and stability. The idea of risk reduction make proposals to the inter-agency through diversification was certainly not group.25 The government officials also held new in the plains, or to other agricultural meetings with cattle- and fteep-raising areas of the United States. Diversification groups as well as farm groups. helped farmer- ranchers withstand fluctuations in weather and prices. Surveys In working with the inter-agency commit- during the 1930s showed that failure in the tee, SCS wrapped nearly two decades of plains came primarily among two groups, experience into the program guidelines. strict dry farmers who had no cattle, and Essentially, they wanted the individual cattlemen who grew no feed. Those who contracts with farmers to bring about soil combined ranching and farming most often succeeded?* SCS people such as Luker and the need for cash crops, pasture, forage, Dykes recognized that stability was good and other needs into account. Of course, for soil conservation. The Great Plains farmers could start using this plan at the Conservation Program was to aim for both. rate they preferred. But the Great Plains The debate in the work group about farm program would involve a contract that pro- and ranch planning over sharing the cost of vided for rather generous cost-sharing. irrigation illustrated the emphasis on the Thus, it was required that the farmers and stability of operating units. Many members ranchers have a plan for the whole farm of the work group believed irrigation and that they install all the conservation should be ineligible for cost-sharing, since measures, though the government might not it could not be considered a soil conserving be sharing the cost of all of them. practice. Dykes, however, argued that irrigation would be needed on some of the The three- to ten-year contracts called for small ranches to achieve the goal of eco- a number of conservation practices--field nomiqg stability by providing supplemental and wind stripcropping, windbreak.s, wa- feed. terways, terraces, diversions, erosion control dams and grade stabilization structures, Irrigation was of course only one of the waterspreading systems, reorganizing irri - farming and ranching practices that con- gation systems, wells and water storage tracts with the Great Plains Conservation facilities, fences to distribute grazing, and Program would include. USDA would share control of shrubs. But by far the greatest the cost of some of these practices with the emphasis was on converting cropland on the farmer. Assistant Secretary Patterson also erodible sandy and thin soils back to grass- decided that SCS should be responsible for land and improving rangeland and pastures making the cost-sharing payments for soil to further iversified farming-ranching in conservation practices to farmers and the plains?a A recent program appraisal ranchers. It was a decision to which SCS revealed that 53 percent of the GPCP con- attached the utmost importance. USDA tracts had been with combination livestock- began paying part of the cost of soil con- crop farms, 30 percent with principally servation practices under the Agricultural livestock farms or ranches, and just over 10 Conservation Program which was provided percent with crop and cash grain farms. for in the Soil Conservation and Domestic About 85 percent of the units were under Allotment Act of 1936. USDA seized on the the samfl management when the contracts soil conservation rationale to reenact expired. production controls after the Supreme Court invalidated portions of the Agricultural The Great Plains, and more especially the Adjustment Act of 1933. Farming practices Great Plains Conservation Program, influ- that were eligible for conservation payments enced national soil conservation policies and became a point of contention between SCS programs as the long-term contracts to and the agencies responsible for adminis- maintain cost-shared conservation practices tering the Agricultural Conservation Pro- became the standard procedure in other gram. Currently it is the Agricultural Stabi- conservation programs. Soil conservation lization and Conservation Service. SCS district people and SCS looked on the con- regarded some practices, such as liming, as cept of a special program designed for a annual production practices. SCS preferred special conservation problem area as a sharing the cost of "enduring" soil conser- model that could be used in other sections. vation practices, such as terracing, that Congress never approved any of the pro- brought long-term benefits. Another long- posed programs for other sections of the held preference SCS people brought to their country. The Agriculture and Food Act of task was the matter of the whole farm 1981 included a section on Special Areas conservation plan. Since the 1930s they Conservation Program based in part on the taught that farmers should regard all their GPCP experience. USDA did not request needs and concerns in planning for soil funds for the special areas, but did target conservation while at the same time taking some problem areas for extra funds. Oklahoma, promoted small dam as an 52 The Great Plains, its climate, geography, alternative in Big Dam Foolishness. and history, influenced another national program, the small watershed program as it That this debate should emanate from is generally called. The Watershed Protec- Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska was in tion and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 part related to the climate and geography of made USDA one of the federal participants the plains where farmers could raise corn in in flood control work. SCS took the lead- the moist bottomland to supplement the ership in working in upstream tributary hilly grasslands that were too dry to support watersheds of less than 250,000 acres. The crops. A small watershed program would flood control side of the project provided provide flood protection to land already federal funding for floodwater retarding used for agriculture, while large dams structures, channel modifications, and other would inundate the best agricultural land engineering works to reduce flooding along and leave the land suited to grazing or streams. Watershed protection involved soil wheat. Because of soil type and moisture conservation practices on farms and ranches the flood plains of the .Missouri River trib- in the watershed to reduce the sediment utaries were prized by farmers. Consider moving to the streams and reservoirs. For the case of N. A. Brubaker, who had 283 much of its history, SCS has generally acres of land on the Vermillion River in added soil conservationists to these water- Kansas. The 83 acres of bottom land that shed project areas to assist farmers with the supplied feed for his livestock were about soil conservation practices. USDA has been to be lost to the Tuttle Creek Dam. His 200 involved in 1,387 projects covering more acres of hill land was nontillable. He posed than 87 million acres. this dilemma to Senator Arthur Capper. "Now if my bottom land will be effected by The Flood Control Act of 1936 gave USDA the water from the Dam, and taken away authority to work on flood control in the from me, what use would I have for the upstream areas. Some SCS people certainly 200-acre pasture, as I would not have any favored retarding structures as part of the land to raise feed for the live stock, and as program to be submitted to Congress for there would be so much pasture land left in approval, but they were stymied at the the same way, the~el13yjouldnot be much department level. The Flood Control Act of chance of leasing it. A chemistry prb- 1944 authorized eleven projects for work fessor at nearby Kansas State College by the Department of Agriculture. SCS did believed similarly, that the bottomland was build a few retarding structures, but the the only productive cropland in the Blue USDA General Counsel ruled against River watershed. "The Flint Hills upland building any additional ones. In the late provides grazing for cattle but is useless for 1940s and early 1950s SCS was having dif- cropping. There farmers must raise corn on ficulty getting additional programs bottomland to finish their cattle. This com- approved. There the matter rested until bination of bottom land for corn and truck floods hit the Missouri River in the early farming, and upland for grazing has made 1950s. Kansas City, Topeka, and Omaha the Blue Valley a productive, prosperous demanded completion of the Pick-Sloan region. Without bottom land the entire plans for flood control on the tributaries of region ill be impoverished and depopu- the Missouri. Farmers and residents who lated!13dVThe Tuttle Creek Dam and others would lose their farms and homes stridently of the Pick-Sloan plan were built, but the resisted. They offered soil conservation and small watershed forces persisted. They met small dams in the headwaters as an alterna- with President Eisenhower and secured his tive. The most vocal were the residents of blessing. The small watershed program. the Big Blue Valley, north of Manhattan, authorized in the Watershed Protection and Kansas. They were joined by residents of Flood Prevention Act of 1954, spread to the Lincoln, Nebraska, who had formed a Salt- rest of the country. In addition to flood Wahoo group to promote a small watershed control on agricultural land, it has been program. Elmer Peterson, a journalist from used for protection of rural communities, small towns, recreation, water supply, irri- sources Conservation Act of 1977 mandated gation, and drainage. studies of the soil and water conservation programs and the development of new The Great Plains also influenced the con- policies to attack the problem. The lobbying servation provisions in the recent Food and studies resulted in some changes in Security Act of' 1985. The plains have been policies, but the drastic changes came with central to questions of landowners' respon- the 1985 farm bill. Events in the plains sibilities to neighbors in not letting erosion played a key role in the new conservation impact on their farms. This, of course, can authorities that would appear in the bill. happen with water erosion, with one farmer Between 1977 and 1982 wheat farmers in the upper part of the watershed influ- planted large tracts of grassland in Montana encing the runoff and sedimentation taking (1.8 million acres), South Dakota (750,000 place on a farm in the lower part of the acres), and Colorado (572,000 acres). In watershed. But the most dramatic examples some places the resulting wind erosion are usually wind erosion from cropland proved a nuisance to neighbors. Some vocal affecting a neighbor's fields. Generally the and effective local landowners such as cases cited have laid the blame on outside Edith Steiger Phillips of Keota, Colorado, investors looking for a quick profit in wanted action. The Coloradans persuaded wheat. Whether this is an accurate portrayal Senator Williams Armstrong in 1981 to in all cases, the breaking of rangeland for introduce a bill that would deprive those cropland did in part speed passage of some who plowed fragile lands of price support drastic changes in soil conservation laws payments. Such payments have long been and policies. It was undoubtedly one of the seen as inducing speculation and reducing factors influencing the conservation provi- normal caution in planting very erodible sions of the Food Security Act of 1985. land to wheat. Mainline groups like the Colorado Cattlemen's Association and the Probably the opening wedge in events that American Farm Bureau Federation sup- would change the conservation programs ported the legislative effort. Several coun- took place with the rise in grain prices fol- ties in Colorado, including Weld County lowing the large Soviet grain deals in the where Edith Phillips lived, and Petroleum early 1970s. Grain exports for 1973 were County in Montana passed ordinances to try double those of 1972, and e price to prevent plowing on grasslands. quadrupled from 1970 to 1974.j' At the time Secretary of Agriculture Earl L. Butz The Armstrong bill, finally dubbed the released production controls, including the "sodbuster bill" did not become law. USDA annual set-aside acres. He declared, "For wanted to wait for the next reauthorization the first time in many years the American of the general farm bill to consider any farm r is free to produce as much as he new provisions, but the pressure from the can!Is6 Farmers in many sections of the Great Plains gave some grass roots support country responded, but the plains received for changes in the conservation provisions. the most publicity, mostly for the removal The Food Security Act linked soil conser- of wide winfjreaks for center pivot irriga- vation to eligibility for other USDA pro- tion system. A Soil Conservation Service grams. The act included sodbuster as well survey later found that new, narrower as other conservation provisions. The windbreak planti s between 1970 and 1975 framers of this act especially wanted to offset the losses. 4'F eliminate the possibility that commodity price support programs encouraged poor As stories of increased soil erosion spread, soil conservation practices. Under the con- groups that had played a large role in the servation compliance section farmers have environmental movement increasingly until 1990 to begin applying a conservation turned attention to soil erosion. They-- plan on highly erodible land, and until 1995 along with allies in Congress- -questioned to fully implement the conservation plan in the effectiveness of existing soil conserva- order to stay eligible for other USDA tion programs. The Soil and Water Re- programs. Archives, I located some telegrams which The sodbuster provision applies to any indicated that Bennett was usually informed highly erodible field that was neither about the location of dust storms. Then I planted to an annual crop nor used as set- found that Bennett had told fellow North aside or diverted acres under a USDA Carolinian and author Jonathan Daniels commodity program for at least one year about the episode. Another variation of the between December 31, 1980 and December story, which I have not confirmed, is that 23, 1985. If farmers wish to bring such land Bennett had the Senate hearing delayed into production, they would lose eligibility until the dust storm's anticipated arrival. for USDA programs unless they applied an Jonathan Daniels, Tar Heels: A Portrait of approved conservation system to control North Carolina (New York: Dodd, Mead & erosion on the fields. The swampbuster or Company, 1941), 188. Wayne Rasmussen wetland conservation stipulated that farmers also investigated this question and con- would lose eligibility for USDA programs if cluded from Senate hearings that the story they drained wetlands after December 23, was probably true. Wayne D. Rasmussen, 1985, the date of the passage of the act. A "History of Soil Conservation, Institutions conservation coalition that lobbied for this and Incentives," in Harold G. Halcrow, et provision included old-line soil conservation al., eds., Soil Conservation Policies, Instit u - organizations like the Soil and Water Con- tions, and Incentives (Ankeny, Iowa: Soil servation Society of America and the Conservation Society of America, l982), 7. National Association of Conservation Dis- tricts as well as environmental groups. Donald Worster, Dust Bowl: The Southern Prominent officials in USDA such as John Plains in the 1930s (New York, N.Y.: Block and Peter Myers favored many of the Oxford University Press, 1979), 5. provisions. But the grass roots examples of support from the plains influenced Congress Paul Bonnifield, The Dust Bowl: Men, even more. This is a prime example but not Dirt, and Depression (A1buquerque: Uni - the only one of the way commodity pro- versity of New Mexico Press, 1979), 130. grams instigated the use of land for cropland that would be better suited to range- R. Douglas Hurt, The Dust Sowk An land. Emotionally, the conversion of range- Agricultural and Social History (Chicago, land to cropland has an appeal that catches Illinois: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1981), 156. the public attention more than erosion from cropland in the humid east. The 1985 pro- ti Hugh Hammond Bennett, Soil Conserva- visions are some of the most far-reaching tion (New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Book we have seen in agriculture. They are Company, 1939), 739. premised on the idea that some USDA programs induced the use of erodible land that Donald T. Pendleton, "Home, Home on would not have occurred otherwise. The the 'Range," Journal of NAL Associates 7 Great Plains, as they so often did, served as ( 1982): 78 - 93. the prime exampl for changes in soil conservation policies. 59 Russell Lord, To Hold This Soil, USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 321 Endnotes (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1938). 67. Hugh H. Bennett, The Hugh Bennett Lectures (Raleigh, North Carolina: The Lord, To Hold This Soil, p. 67. Agricultural Foundation, Inc., North Car- olina State College, 1959), 23. lo Donald T. Pendleton, "Range Conditions and Secondary Succession as Used in the This episode is agency folklore around Soil Conservation Service," in press, 4. the Soil Conservation Service. I was skep- tical of its veracity. In the records of the l1 E. J. Dyksterhuis, "Condition and Man- Soil Conservation Service in National agement of Range Land Based on Quantitative Ecology," Journal of Range 21 Preliminary Report of the U.S. Depart- Management 2 (July 1949): 104. ment of Agriculture on Possible Solutions for Agricultural Problems of the Great l2 Thomas N. Shiflet, "Range Sites and Plains, May 1955, Historical SCS Reports, Soils in the United States." in Arid Shrub- Great Plains Conservation Program Files, lands Proceedings of the Their Workshop SCS, Washington, D.C. of the United States- A ustralian Rangelands Panel (Tucson, Arizona, 1973), 26- 33. 22 Program for the Great Plains, U.S. Congress, House Document No. 289, 84th l3 Dyksterhuis, *Condition and Manage- Cong. 2d. sess., 1956, p. 4. ment of Range Land," 11 1. Great Plains Conservation Program, U .S. National Survey, Conservation Tillage Congress, House, Hearings before the Practices, 1988 (West Lafayette, Indiana: Committee on Agriculture, 84th Cong., 2d. National Association of Conservation Dis- sess., 1956, pp. 1-36. tricts, 1988), 6. 24 Interview with Ervin L. Peterson, l5 Data Base, National Resources Inven- September 9, 1981, History Office, Soil tory, 1982. Soil Conservation Service, Conservation Service. Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. 25 Minutes. Great Plains Inter-agency l6 Sslina (Kansas) Journal, March 15, 1989, Group, December 17, 1956, Great Plains 1. Conservation Program Files, Soil Conserva- tion Service, Washington, D.C. l7 Wind Erosion Worst in Over 30 Years,.' USDA News Release 789-89. June 19, 1989. 26 Minutes, Great Plains lnter-agency Group, December 17, 1956 arid February l8 For a view that questions the presump- 17, 1957, Great Plains Conservation Pro- tions of the early soil conservationists gram Files, Soil Conservation Service, working in the Great Plains see especially Washington, D.C. James Malin's "Men, the State of Nature, and Climate," and other essays in Robert P. 27 H. H. Finnell, ''Pity the Poor Land," Soil Swierenga, James C. Malin, History and Conservation 12 (September 1946): 31 -32. Ecology: Studies of Grassland (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984), 1-374. 28 John T. Schlebecker, Cattle Raising on the Plains, 1900-1962 (Lincoln: University l9 R. Douglas Hurt, "Return of the Dust of Nebraska Press, 1963), 149. Bowl: The Filthy Fifties," Journal of West 28 (1979): 89-90; "Federal Cost-Sharing for 29 J. C. Dykes and I. B. Slack. A minority Drought Emergency Conservation Measures, report from the Farm and Ranch Planning 1954- 1956, Agricultural Conservation Pro- Task Force, February 19, 1957, Great gram," Drought File, General Correspon- Plains Inter -agency Group, Great Plains dence, Records of the Office of the Secre- Conservation Program Files, Soil Conserva- tary of Agriculture, Record Group 16, tion Service, Washington, D.C. National Archives and Records Administra- tion, Washington, DC. 30 Douglas Helms, Great Plains Conserva- tion Program (Washington, D.C.: Soil 20 Recommendations of the Soil Conserva- Conservation Service, 1981), 1-22. tion Service to the Departmental Committee on Land Use Problems in the Great Plains, Great Plains Conservation Program May 12, 1955, Historical SCS Reports File, Evaluation: Part It Background and Sum- Great Plains Conservation Program Files, mary Statistics (Prepared mainly by James Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. A. Lewis) (Washington, D.C.: Soil Conser- vation Service, 1987), 19-20. 32 Douglas Helms. 5mall Watersheds and the USDA: Legacy of the Flood Control Act of 1936," in The Flood Control Challenge: Past, Present, and Future (Chicago, Illinois: Public Works Historical Society, 1988), 67-88; Homer E. Socolofsky, "The Great Flood of 1951 and The Tuttle Creek Controversy," in John D. Bright, ed., Kansas The First Century, Vol. 11. (New York, N.Y.: Lewis Publishing Company, Inc., 1956), 494-502.

33 N. A. Brubaker, Bigelow, Kansas, to Arthur Capper, January 24, 1946, Albert Cole Collection, Kansas State Historical Society. Topeka, Kansas.

34 J. L. Hall, Department of Chemistry, Manhattan, Kansas to Clifford R. Hope, May 7, 1953. Clifford R. Hope Collection, Kansas State Historical Society, Topeka, Kansas.

35 Sandra A. Batie, Crisis in America's Cropland (Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation, 1983), 5.

36 Earl L. Butz, "Produce and Protect," Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 28 (1 973): 250-251.

37 Kenneth E. Grant, "Erosion in 1973- 1974: The Record and the Challenge," Jour- nal of Soil and Water Conservation 30 (1975) : 29-32.

38 Field Windbreak Removals in Five Great Plains States, 1970 to 1975 (Washington, D.C.: Soil Conservation Service, 1980), 1 - 15.

39 Douglas Helms, "New Authorities and New Roles: SCS and the 1985 Farm Bill," in press. In an issue titled Implementing the Conservation Provisions of the Food Secu - rity Act of 1985 (Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society). The Great Plains Conservation Program, 1956-1981: A Short Administrative and Legislative History

Reprinted from Great PIains Conservation Program: 25 Years of Accomplishment. SCS National Bulletin Number 300-2-7. November 24. 1981.

By Douglas Helms National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

Enthusiastic supporters of the Great Plains promoters tried to dislodge the notion that Conservation Program recently gathered to the region was not fit for agricultural set- celebrate the 25th anniversary of the tlement. The few who had pushed out onto authorizing legislation, signed August 7, the plains in the mid-1870s had to with- 1956. The program was the latest of the stand both drought and grasshoppers. 2 nearly three-quarters of a century of local, state, and federal efforts to deal with With the return of favorable weather in the drought, dust storms, and the resulting 1870s, movement into western Kansas and agricultural instability on the Great Plains. Nebraska intensified. In Ellis County, The novel feature of the program was that Kansas, it was observed that "incessant it provided for the government's sharing breaking f r wheat can be seen in all the cost of conservation measures with directions!" The boom in settlement peaked farmers and ranchers under a contract. in the mid-1880s. There were 3.547 homestead entries in Kansas in 1884. New entries Settlement and Early Droughts in 1885 and 1886 numbered 9,954 and The proponents of this new concept had 20,688, respectively. As the boom receded reason to believe that something new was in Kansas it continued in Colorado. There needed to adjust manls agricultural had been only 1,808 homestead entries in endeavors to the climatic and geographic 1886; the number increased to 5,081 in realities of the plains. Most had witnessed 1887 and peaked at 6,411 the following the drought of the 1930s and had heard year. During the latter two years, 4,217,045 tales of the ones in 1887-97 and 1910-13. acres, predominantly in the plains, were The emphasis in the new program on filed under the Homestead Act and the developing enduring conservation practices Timber Culture Act. The lack of capital rested on an understanding that drought and insufficient knowledge about farming would return to the Great Plains. A review in semiarid conditions took its toll when the of earlier periods of climatic stress is drought resumed in the late 1880s. That important because the understanding of many settlers had departed and that many recurring drought shaped the thinking of never took up residence on their claims was the people who devised and administered evident in the 1890 census. There were only the Great Plains Conservation Program. 3,535 farms reported in fifteen eastern Col- orado counties. Quite a number of these Reports from 19th century military expedi - farms were along the Arkansas and Platte tions led Americans to regard the area rivers. 4 between the 100th meridian and the Rocky Mountains as the "Great American Desert." The western movement was turned back Major Stephen H. Long, after crossing the with the drought that began in the late area, declared it "almost wholly unfit for 1880s and lasted ten years with a few good cultivation, and of course uninhabitable by years interspersed. Population statistics a people depending upon agriculture for revealed the impact but not the suffering their subsistence." Soldiers returning from involved. Western Nebraska had a decline the Civil War had plenty f the fertile tall of 15,284 residents during the decade of the grass prairie left to settle.' Eventually set- 1890s. During the same period the western tlement pushed westward to the plains as Kansas population dropped from 68,328 to 50,118, and a considerable number had lef before the census was taken in 1890.5 The hardy qualities of the "Turkey Red" According to one estimate, half the popula- wheat brought to the plains by Russian- tion of western Kansas departed between German immigrants around 1873 became 1888 and 1892. Twenty vacant towns stood obvious during the dry years. Mark Car- witness to the effects of drought on the leton and others now set out o discover 15 entire economy. 6 other crops suitable to the area.

Farther south in Texas, farming had not Farmers began to adapt their cultural prac- supplanted ranching to any great extent. tices to the climate. Hardy Webster Camp- Generally, the farms were larger than those bell became the chief promoter of dry of the other plains states which had been farming, although some of the measures limited in size by the homestead laws. predated his involvement in the campaign. Having larger farms, Texans were bette Campbell's Soil Culture Manual (1902) rec- able to persevere through the drought. 3 ommend deep fall plowing, thorough culti- Drought also struck the northern plains, and vation before and after seeding, light population declined in some areas. As seeding, alternating summer fallow, tillage would be the case in the future, drought during fallow and crop years, su -surface P3 was not as devastating as it had been in packing, and inter-row cultivation. Nebraska, Kansas, and ~olorado.~Emer- gency relief measures did not begin with With the return of favorable weather in the federal assistance in the 1930s. Already in first decade of the 20th century, dry the 19th century state governments were farming spread across the plains. Cattle being called upon for assistance. A Men- raising was also prospering. Both ventures dota, Kansas, housewife wrote to Governor received a shock with the return of drought Lewelling in 1894, "I take my pen in hand in 1910. The dry farming method had some to let you know that we are starving to sound elements, but it was no panacea for death. It is pretty hard to do without any- withstanding drought The dry farming thing to eat here in this God forsaken movement was practically destroyed in country .... My husband went away to find South Dakota, leading one critic of its more work and came home last night and told me exaggerated claims to surmise that it was that he would have to starve.... If I was in time to "to cut out the chef1 talk about dry Iowa I would be all right." With such con- farming and talk cows.'' Actually the ditions widespread, several state and private cows were not fairing all that well either. organizations undertook relief measures. Selling during the drought, 1910-11, and The Nebraska legislature appropriated losses during the winter of 191 1- 12 reduced $200,250 in 1891, mainly for food and Great Plains herds seventy percent. The grain. Colorado provided $21,250 to supply reduction drove many ranchers out of the farmers in eight cou ties with seed for the business. The turnover of ownership bene- 1891 planting season! Kansas spent $60,000 fited the land. Newcomers had a better idea for the same purpose in 1891. In response of the value of good range management, to the 1886 drought in Texas, the state gave both to their pocketbo s and to the con- $100,000 in aid to 28,000 individuals.1° servation of the range. 1'P

The drought dislodged the belief among The 1910-13 drought in the southern Great farmers as well as the scientific community Plains brought another problem. A small that rain followed the plow; that growing "dust bowl" developed in Thomas County, crops app plowed fields induced greater Kansas. Although dust storms were not rainfall. With that faith destroyed, confined to Thomas County, the storms that farmers and agriculturalists were ready to swept over 65,000 acres from 1912- 14 were make concessions to the climate and turned probably as severe as any since. Responding their attention to adjustments in farm to the need to reduce dust storms, Kansas management, cultivation methods, and State College issued its fir t bulletin on drought resistant crops. wind erosion control in 1912.f6 The return of rain in 1914, high prices, and The Soil Conservation Service and its pre- government exhortations to produce for the decessor, the Soil Erosion Service, had war effort led to an expansion of wheat increasingly turned their attention to the growing in the Great Plains. The wheat area. By the end of 1936, SCS had estab- acreage in the plains areas of Montana, lished fifty-five demonstration projects in North Dakota, and South Dakota increased the Great Plains with a heavy concentration from 2,563,000 acres in 1909 to 4,903,000 in the worst wind erosion areas. When the acres in 1919. Nationwide profits on wheat projects began in 1934, only 10,454 acres in rose from $56,713,000 in 1913 to the project areas were being farmed using $642,837,000 in 1917. Between 1909 and soil and water conservation measures. With 1924 plains farmers increased the wheat its large force of Work Projects Adminis- acreage by 17,000,000 acres. Even the tration and Civilian Conservation Corps drought in 1917-1921 did not measurably labor, plus the work of farmers, the Service slow the change. Many settlers gave up in made progress. The results at the conclusion the northern plains but acreage figures for of 1936 were impressive- -conservation wheat held steady. Nor did the drop in measures in place on 600,000 acres-- wheat prices in the early 1920s have much including 155,000 stripcropped acres, effect. Farmers responded to declining 200,000 contour tilled acres, contour fur- prices by planting more to recoup rows on 85,000 acres of grasslands, and dwindling profits. Another 15,000,000 acres 3,600 miles of terraces on 65,000 acres. went from grass to wheat between 1924 and Additionally, 200,000 acres of grassland 1929. Much of the expansion in the late were under management to prevent over- 1920s took place in the southern plains grazing. The acreage of erosion retarding where wheat acreage increased 200 percent crops had been increased twenty-eight between 1925 and 1931. With only a few percent. With the adoption of conservation interruptions the years 19 4-1931 had been district laws by the states, beginning in good in terms of weather. 17 1937, the Service extended its technical assistance to areas outside the demonstration The Dust Bowl projects. The Service assisted in contour The 1930s ushered in another prolonged listing (an emergency wind erosion control drought. Scant use of structural, cultural, practice) 2,500,000 acres in 1936.~' The and vegetative water conservation measures federal government spent $793,000 for further complicated the problem. The lack emergency wind control measures under its of rainfall prevented good stands of wheat Agriculture Conservation Program in 1938. and left the ground barren for wind ero- The total drought emergency expenditures sion. By August 10, 1933 there had been for cattle and sheep purchases, feed and thirty dust storms in the vicinity of Good- forage, seed, loans, and erosion were well, Oklahoma. Another year of drought in $212,916,000 in 1936, $2,735,000 in 1936, 1934 left 97,000,000 acres in eastern $515,!#0 in 1937, and $1,000,000 in Colorado, western Kansas, eastern New 1938. Mexico, and the panhandles of Texas and Oklahoma susceptible to wind erosion. Other government programs involved Newspaper reports brought the storms na- planting windbreaks in the shelterbelt pro- tional attention. A reporter for the Wash- ject supervised by the Forest Service. The ington (D.C.) Evening Star supplied th Farm Security Administration and the term "dust bowl" to describe the area. 1Q Bureau of Agricultural Economics pur- The dust bowl, or the worst of the general chased what were termed "submarginal blow area, was in Baca County, Colorado; lands" under the land utilization program. the six most southwestern counties in After revegetating the land, the government Kansas; Cimarron and Texas counties, proposed to lease it for grazing. SCS even- Oklahoma; Dallam and Sherman counties, tually assumed leadership of both programs. Texas; and 7 portion of Union County, New Mexico. 9 The Plains in the 1940s Again the rain and war seemed to arrive at development of an interme- about the same time. Weather in the Great diate type of agriculture to Plains improved in 1940. The government use marginal land. This land called on farmers to produce food for the is just as capable of being military forces and the allies when World efficiently operated as any War I1 began. As SCS employees entered the other lands, provided the armed forces, the reduced staff was demands made upon it are instructed that "Emphasis should be given kept within its natural to the widespread application of conserva- moisture and fertility capa- tion practices that contribute the most to bilities. Ranching is not maintaining or increasing yields and that intensive enough to resist can be (I) applied with little or no addi- temporary economic pres- tional use of farm labor, equipment, power sures; while grain farming is and production supplies and (2) furthered too intensive for the physical with the minimum of technical assistance." limitations of the land. A Nationwide, World War I1 had varying special type of agriculture effects on soil conservation. The situation for marginal land is needed. in the Southeast and Mississippi Delta It must use the land more improved in 1943-44 when compared to intensively than ranching 1935-39, due partially to the reduction of and at the same time more row crops. The Corn Belt had significant safely than grain farming. losses compared to 1935-39. The Great Men of stable character and Plains showed little change after the more patience than those recovery from the dust bowl but t re was who ride on waves of spec- cause for concern about the future. 25 ulation will $ needed to work this out. H. H. Finnell, regional conservationist at SCS's Amarillo (Texas) office and an The trend continued as prices held up after authority on wind erosion control, was the war because of demand from countries concerned. He conceded that the World War where war had disrupted the agricultural I1 plow-up had not been as extensive as economy. Between 1941 and 1950 farmers that of World War I. Nonetheless, he saw broke out about 5,000,000 acres. The esti- future problems. Farmers had planted pinto mate was that 3,000,000 acres of this land beans on loose, sandy soils in New Mexico, was not suitable for cultivation. In fact, cotton on sandy land in Texas, and wheat some of it had not previously been in on thin soils in Colorado. Finnell particu- crops. 24 larly directed his ire at absentee land speculators in Colorado, who had tried to get Drou~htof the 1950s Colorado's soil conservation law nullified in An extended drought and dust storms the state supreme court and who were lob- returned in the 1950s. Western Nebraska bying to have the lands reclaimed under the ranchers travelling to their annual conven- land utilization program put up for sale. tion on June 8, 1950 had hazardous driving conditions and saw roadside ditches filled Not only was the use of submarginal land with soil. Most of the 100,000 windswept for crops detrimental to the soil, according acres in Scottsbluff. Box Butte. Morrill, and to Finnell, but also it could not be justified Sioux counties were summer fallow fields economically. The profits from wheat for a with no conservation practices or ilqgated few years would not compensate for rev- sandy land for beets and beans. The enue lost on grazing while the range was worst blowing of the 1950s was yet to being re-established. Finnell called for a come. SCS surveyed the plains and located special type of agriculture for the area: the most susceptible areas. The survey cited the bean growing area of Colorado- -Pueblo, A more logical and perma- Crowley, El Paso, and Lincoln counties. nent remedy would be the The wheat had died over large parts of the Oklahoma panhandle. Chase and Perkins physically transf med into counties, Nebraska, were listed as critical, Class VI and VII. 25 as was central Kansas. There were problems in the cotton growing areas of Lamesa- Newspapers treated the nation to stories Lubbock, Texas. Eastward across the plains, that depicted little difference between the the western cross timbers of Oklahoma and drought of the 1950s and that of the 1930s, Texas planted in cotton, wheat, peanuts, except for the absence of outmigration. The and wa rmelons had also experienced Washington (D.C.) Daily News proclaimed blowing. 6% that the "new dust bowl" was "in roughly the %ye place on the map as the old The Department of Agriculture set up a one." Actually there had been some sig- Great Plains Committee in April 1950 to nificant changes. The area subject to wind study the problem and make recommenda- erosion was larger and encompassed all of tions. The drought continued, leaving acre the area of the 1930s. More significantly after acre without any vegetation to protect the centers of the worst areas had shifted it from erosion. The dust storm that sig- and expanded. The area in New Mexico nalled the national awakening to the "filthy stretched from Quay down to Lea County. fifties" occurred on February 19, 1954. H. Adjoining it in Texas, the blow area was H. Finnell observed the storm from Good- bounded by Palmer County on the north well, Oklahoma. He wrote to Tom Dale of and Ector County in the south. The Col- SCS: orado blow area extended from the eastern border to El Paso and Pueblo counties. The ... conditions in the marginal points of the triangular area in Kansas were zone are worse than in the Wallace, Finney and Morton counties. With 1930s because poorer lands the exception of Baca County, Colorado, under more arid conditions and Morton County, Kansas, most of the have been exposed to wind earlier dust bowl was not included. The erosion in a wider territory conservation measures of the 1930s had than in the 1930s..... it will be obviously helped. After another three years more difficult to subdue of drought, some of the older dust bowl than the wild lands of the had been included, but the problems were 1930s. Catastrophe to the not as persistent as those of the newer areas land has already exceeded that F' nell had pointed to in his 1946 that of the 1930s, but due to article. $3 the absence of financial straits and hysteria which The Colorado legislature made' $1,000,000 existed in the 1930s, farm available to dust bowl farmers in March abandonment has been much 1954. The US. Department of Agriculture slower to gain headway .... I spent $13.3 million on emergency tillage in had hoped the lessons of the 1954 and another $9,275,000 in 1955. The 1930s would be more widely Agriculture Conservation Program funds grasped and acted upon than spent on drought emergency conservation they have been. I don't know measures in twenty-one states, 1954-56, how many times this thing totaled $70,011,000. Colorado, Kansas, will have to happen to the Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas used Southern High Plains before $37,848,000 of the funds. Additional the idea of safe land use went to other drought relief measures. Sdmds soaks in. The agricultural potential of the area was USDA and the Great Plains Agricultural measurably lessened by the Council experience of the 1930s and While the relief measures were being will be again. Too much extended to the plains states, 'the USDA Class IV land is being continued working through its committee on land use problems in the Great Plains to develop a program to reduce the need to Administrator of the Soil Conservation Ser- respond periodically with emergency mea- vice, wrote to Assistant Secretary of Agri- sures. The Soil Conservation Service sug- culture Ervin L. Peterson that the soil con- gested to the committee that the govern- servation districts would be a perfect device ment use "financial assistance to encourage for implementing whatever plan Congress farmers to convert cropland to grass with adopted. Williams made it clear that the the federal government paying at least 50 districts could incorporate these new activi- percent of the cost and making an agree- ties into their existing programs so as "to ment to continue th program over a 5-year insure a permanent, sound coordinated land or longer period!'h The full committee use and management program in the Great elaborated on the proposal. The report rec- Plains area." To emphasize SCS's interest in ognized that "diverting the 6 to 8 million the new program Williams made it clear acres of cropland that are unsuited for cul- that he was "prepared to ask SCS personnel tivation to grassland is largely a problem of to aggressively work with the district gov- voluntary action or land use regulation, erning bodies $9 the fullest extent possible hence it must be handled mainly by State in this effort." and local governments and individual owners." But "cost-sharing payments ....might Public Law 84-1021 be increased and spread over a period of 3 Congressman Clifford Hope of Kansas to 5 years while grass is being established." introduced a bill (H.R. 11833) on June 19, To discourage a subsequent plow-up it 1956, that was to become the Great Plains might be necessary to use "restrictive Conservation Program. The bill provided covenants and surrender of eligibili that the Secretary of Agriculture could allotments, loans and crop insurance." II for enter into contracts, not to exceed ten years, with producers. No contract was to Meanwhile, the Great Plains Agricultural be signed after December 31, 1971. The Council, born during the drought of the Secretary was to designate the counties in 1930s, had begun to develop a long-range the ten Great Plains states that had serious program. Representatives of the USDA met wind erosion problems. The contracts would with council members on May 31 -June 2, outline the "schedule of proposed changes 1955, to develop a program. A later in cropping systems and land use and of meeting, July 25-27, refined the proposals. conservation measures" to be carried out. President . Dwight D. Eisenhower The bill further stipulated the obligations of transmitted the council's "Program for the the grower and made the provision that any Great Plains" to Congress on January 11, acreage diverted to grass would not affect , 1956. The program did not specify that commodity acreage allotments for the time cost-sharing for conservation practices of the contract. Not more than $25,000,000 would be offered through contracts with was to be spent in any year, and the total farmers and ranchers. It did, however, call could not exceed $1 50,000,000. Assistant for sharing the cost of "installing and Secretary Peterson testified before the establishing those practices which are most House Committee on Agriculture on June enduring and most needed but which are 28, 1956. Peterson responded mainly to not now a part of their normal farm and questions concerning how the program ranch operations. The ACP cost-sharing differed from the new Soil Bank. program on those practices that are Representatives from beef producing states intended to bring about those land use expressed concern over the effects of adjustments required for a long-range putting more land to grazing purposes when program will be accelerated d rates of cattle prices were already depressed. payments made more flexible." 33' Karl C. King, a Pennsylvania congressman, The Department of Agriculture was already but a native of Reno County, Kansas, considering the specifics of how the pro- thought that buying the land would be gram might be implemented, including cheaper than applying conservation long-term contracting. Donald A. Williams, measures. Congressman Hope interceded- to explain what the program planned to Great Plains states to assist them in making accomplish in terms of farm management. orderly changes in their cropping systems One of the problems of the plains had been and land uses which will conserve soil and the pattern of outmigration during drought water resources and preserve and eljgance followed by a wave of new settlers when the agricultural stability of that area." the weather improved. Each new group had to learn the tough lessons that came with SCS Selected to Administer Program- the drought. The proposed program, as It then fell to the Department of Agricul- Hope explained it, would assist farmers and ture to develop a plan for administering the ranchers through the drought, improve program. Actually, the agencies within the farming and ranching techniques, and Department were at work on plans before lessen the impact of future droughts. the President signed the legislation. Donald Williams of SCS and Paul Koger of the The hearings concluded after John A. Baker Agricultural Conservation Program Service of the National Farmers Union testified in had discussed implementation. They agreed favor of the legislation. Baker, who would on a number of points but could not agree later oversee the Great Plains Conservation on which agency should administer the pro- Program as Assistant Secretary of Agricul- gram. Both wrote to Assistant Secretary ture, had some reservations. He wanted it Peterson in early August. Williams pre- known explicitly that the new program sented a detailed proposal for administering would be a "partial supplement, not a sub- the program with SCS as the lead agency. stitute for existing programs." The possi bil- Koger pointed out that ACPS had tradi- ity that the Farmers Home Administration tionally dealt with the cost-sharing aspects could deny credit to farmers who did not of conservation programs. Both agencies follow a conservation plan was also of continued to work on plans and awaited the concern. Baker stated that plains farmers decision. The Commodity Stabilization Ser- and ranchers had "some qualms and some vice supported the ACPS. The Great Plains apprehensions about these master plans." Agricultural Council suggested that the Non heless, the Union supported the county Agricultural Stabilization and Con- bill. % servation committees hand the cost-sharing aspects of the services. 4s In reporting out the bill on July 7, the committee emphasized that the program was Peterson resolved the issue in Secretary's voluntary and that participation would not Memorandum No. 1408 on December 10, be a necessary condition for making acreage when he assigned responsibility to SCS. He allotments, FHA loans, agricultural credit, also announced the creation of the Great or eligibility for other Department of Plains Inter-agency Group, composed of all Agriculture programs. One proposal to the cooperating USDA agencies, to develop speed up the conversion of land not suited the policies and procedures. The same day for cropping back to rangeland had been to Williams appointed Cyril Luker to chair the make crops on that land ineligible for fed- group and called a meeting of the state eral crop insurance. Although the commit- conservationists of the ten Great Plai tee did not specifically mention the insur- states to work on the new program. $4 ance program, the report gave their Assistant Secretary Peterson attended the possible linkage of USDA programs. first meeting of the Inter-agency Group on December 17 and reiterated what he The House of Representatives passed the expected from it. He emphasized that "short bill on July 23, and the Senate concurred term activities must be consistent with the without changing the bill on July 26. Presi- long-range objectives." Whatever the group dent Eisenhower signed Public Law 84- developed had to have the understanding 1021 on August 7, 1956, with the statement and support 16 the Great Plains Agricul- that the act authorized the "Secretary of tural Council. Agriculture to enter into long-term contracts with farmers and ranchers in the Luker appointed task forces on information, Home Administration and Jefferson C. cost-sharing and contracts, farm and ranch Dykes of the SCS disagreed. They pointed. planning, and meshing the legislative out that irrigation was needed on some authorities of tKe various agencies. The small ranches to achieve the goal of eco- group sought and received advice from nomic stability by providing supplemental outside. Federal, state, and. local officials feed. It would help bring about the desired and representatives from cattle and sheep land use change on the rest of the farm. raising groups and farm organizations held The fear that it could encourage carrying a January meeting in Denver to draw up more animals than the ranch could support suggestions. During the next weeks the task would be corrected in the, contract. The forces met and reported back to the full minority 1,w prevailed. and irrigation was group with their majority and minority included. findings. Again Peterson met with the group and stated that the matters on which The matter of establishing the exterior there was no unanimity had left the group boundaries for the program did not occa- on "dead center.'' The differing views sion much controversy. The criteria devel- should be documented and presented to him oped by the group included physical and for resolution. Peterson resolved several climatic conditions that made crops unde- issues at the meeting. The scheduling of pendable, erosive and deteriorated soils, and practices was a technical matter and should the need for land use change and conserva- be included in the farm plan, because the tion measures. The group solicited the single practice concept conflicted with the states' suggestions on counties to be long-range good of the program. included under the criteria. Under this cri- Certification of installment of me ures teria, the boundary generally corresponded would be the responsibility of SCSJf As with the one proposed in the Great Plains the work of the group progressed the Agricultural Council's program for the Assistant Secretary was called on for plains. As to which counties would initially additional decisions, the main one being be designated, the group added the element whether SCS would serve as the contracting of local interest and initiative. It would be agency because it had responsibility for better to get the program off to a good start helping the owner develop the farm and in counties where farmers were' asking for ranch plan for the entire unit. Therefore, assistance and then expand to the rest of SCS should have responsibility for insuring the area. 44 that the practices were installed as scheduled and that they be maintained through- With many of the details worked out, those out the life of the contract. who worked on the program anxiously awaited the appropriations hearings. The SCS people participating in drawing up Peterson and Williams testified before the the list of cost-share practices could draw House Committee on Appropriations and upon over two decades of experience of requested $20 million per year. Again they working with farmers and ranchers. Also, were called upon to expIain how the new managing the lands acquired under the land program differed from the Agricultural utilization program gave SCS technicians an Conservation Program. Peterson emphasized opportunity to test various conservation the hope that the money spent on GPCP measures. The conservation practices in would reduce the amount needed for emer- GPCP acc dingly reflected this field gency drought programs. The committee experience. $3 appropriated $10 million for the year.

Great Plains Inter-agencv Group In the months following the hearing, the Not surprisingly, the question of cost- group firmed up the policies and proce- sharing for irrigation came up for discus- dures, refined the list of practices, estab- sion. The majority of the Farm and Ranch lished the percentage of cost-shares for Planning Task Force wanted to exclude each practice, developed a handbook, and irrigation, but J. B. Slack of the Farmers trained the SCS staff in drawing up contracts. The work unit conservationist benefits neighbors derived from signing up. was well acquainted with developing con- It was not long before the applications servation farm plans, but the element of exceeded the amount of money available--a contracting was new. condition that has continued throughout the history of GPCP. By September 1959, Beginning of GPCP twenty months after the first contract was Berthold Sackman of Stutsman County, signed, there were 3,142 contracts covering North Dakota, signed the first contract on 8,597,385 acres with a federal obligation of December 19, 1957. The same day, Walter $16,794,041. There were 2,579 applications L. Wood and Robert H. Hunt o Gaines for assistance in SC offices throughout the County, Texas, signed contracts& These Great Plains states. 4% three and the subsequent contracts were to provide from 50 percent up to 80 percent Limitation on Irrigation and Contract Size of the average cost of conservation mea- Despite the impressive start, Williams and sures and included a schedule for the coor- Luker found reason to reevaluate some dinated implementation of measures. The aspects of the guidelines. Some of the early plans called for an assortment of compli- contracts had been larger than anticipated, mentary conservation measures to stabilize with a substantial part of the funds going the farm or ranch in accordance with the to irrigation. Actually, accelerated land owners' objectives. treatment could be carried forward more rapidly under large contracts, but the trend There were cost -sharing items for estab- held some dangers for the continuation of lishing vegetation on lands previously the program. With limited funds going into cropped and for reseeding range. Irrigation the large contracts, many applications for pasture and forage, fencing, and devel- would go unserviced. Eventually, there opment of water supplies supported the would be criticism that GPCP was only for shift to rangeland and were designed to large farmers and ranchers. Expensive irri- prevent overgrazing. Conservation measures gation construction could easily absorb most for cropland included contour stripcrop- the money provided in individual contracts. ping, terracing, grassed waterways, land There was a fear that the package of inter- levelling, reorganizing irrigation systems, related conservation measures for the whole and windbreaks. The terms "permanent" and land unit would be neglected and that "enduring" were used to describe the con- critics would regard GPCP as a production, servation measures. GPCP architects hoped not a conservation program. that farmers and ranchers would maintain the measures after the expiration of the Williams and Luker proposed to the state contract. The fact that they were willing to conservationists in the Great Plains states pay part of the cost of installation boded that the amount spent on irrigation in indi- well for long-range retention. vidual contracts be limited to one-fourth of the contract with a $2,500 maximum. They Such reluctance as there was on the part of developed a set of priorities to be used in owners centered on the contractual aspects selecting contracts to fund. Units having of the program. Farmers had over twenty- difficulty converting from cropland to per- five years of experience in dealing with manent vegetation; units having wind and government supervised acreage allotments water erosion problems on rangeland or and commodity price support programs. cropland suited to continuous cropping; and The notion of entering into a contract with units having erosion problems requiring obligations on both sides was a novelty. The cooperative action by several owners would work unit conservationists, as they were have priority. They further advised that the called in the 1950s, explained the new size of the farm or ranch should not deter- approach and pointed out the benefits. mine the priority of assistance 'but that "a sufficient number of medium and small Any reluctance to enter into a contract soon farms and ranches should be scheduled to withered as farmers and ranchers saw the provide a rep sentative balance in the use D. H. and Charlene Dean of Claunch, New of resources."47 Mexico, made a total conversion from cropland to ranching. To convert 2,000 State conservationists Lyness Lloyd of acres to grazing land, the Deans installed North Dakota and H. N. "Red" Smith of three ponds and three miles of water lines Texas objected to the percentage limitation for livestock, six miles'of cross fences, and on irrigation practices. Lloyd stated that the controlled brush on 845 acres. change would hinder the stabilization of ranches while the conversion to ranching Rancher-farmers had more of a mixture of was being made. Irrigation was needed to conservation measures for cropland' and provide cattle feed and pasture while range. Walter Markel of Gray County, former cropland was being returned to Kansas, had an 804 acre farm. He added range.48 Smith said the alteration in the 1,800 feet of diversions, installed 21,000 program would reduce support for GPCP feet of terraces, and contour farmed and and eliminate a large part of the state from stubble mulched 231 acres. Thirty -nine participation. He wrote, 'The principal acres were furrow seeded. For better leadership in the Great Plains portion of grazing distribution he added 330 rods of this state have a strong interest in irrigation fences. Markel had belonged to the local farming.... The proposed fund limitation for soil conservation district since 1949. He was irrigation practices would particularly in some ways typical of many who used eliminate irrigated opland in this state GPCP to make progress on a farm conser- from participation!14y Objections notwith- vation plan that they had envisioned for standing the limitation of cost-sharing on years. irrigation practices went into effect. A year later on May 29, 1959, SCS pl ced a GPCP contracts were used near Dumas, $25,000 limit on individual contracts.'50 Texas, to solve flooding in the town. Ten farmers constructed 22,120 feet of water- Protecting the Crodand Historv ways. In the process. 2.560 acres of irri- The supporters of GPCP managed in 1960 gated cropland were also protected. to correct an aspect of the legislation which was viewed as an impediment. Some In addition to individuals, it was also farmers who were willing to convert crop- possible for groups to sign contracts. A land to grass or to crops better suited to the dozen FmHA-financed grazing districts in land nonetheless wanted to retain the option Montana held GPCP contracts in 1968. The of keeping the crop allotments and any contracts called for over 10,000 acres to be payments due them. Public Law 1021 had seeded and reseeded and for putting up protected the cropland history of the farm 39,000 rods of fences. The reseeded range for the period of the contract. President provided twenty - five percent more forage Eisenhower signed Public Law 86-793 on by 1968, with other acres r yning to be September 14, 1960, to protect the cropland reseeded under the contracts. history for twice the length of the contract. The use of a GPCP contract on the Dee Diversitv of GPCP Contracts Hankins farm in Wichita County, Texas, While the Washington office and state staffs demonstrated the rehabilitation, both wrestled with administrative and legislative physically and economically, of worn-out details, significant progress in implementing land. The 815 acres (665 cropland, 140 conservation measures was taking place. acres rangeland 10 acres farmstead) had GPCP contracts reflected the geographical been sold six times in four years. Much of diversity within the plains, the various the farm was waterlogged and denuded types and sizes of agricultural units, and because of salt deposits. The plan called for the objectives of individual farmers and 65 irrigated acres, 267 dryland crop acres, ranchers. 161 acres of irrigated pasture and 312 acres of rangeland. Concrete irrigation ditches were used for water conservation on the irrigated part. Two hundred acres of Richard C. White of Texas and Thomas waterlogged, and salt denuded land was Kleppe and Mark Andrews of North seeded to sideoats grama and native grasses. Dakota testified for the extension. Several The acres planted in coastal Bermuda grass other congressmen inserted statements into were hayed, grazed and provided strips of the record. Norman A. Berg, Associate sod to sprig other farms. The farm became Administrator of SCS, testified for the economically viable and remained so until Department of Agriculture. Hankig sold it for suburban development. Berg could point to 56,601,700 acres covered by 31,122 contracts. Thirty-seven State Trends in GPCP Contracts percent of the funds had been spent to Although there was much diversity of con- establish vegetation or for reseeding. The servation practices established on individual average contract had been about $3,500, farms and ranches, there were some state covering 1,822 acres. Earlier Congressman and regional trends in the 1960s. Based on Richard Crawford had inserted even more the percentage of total expenditures for impressive information from "Red" Smith of each practice (1957-1972), North Dakota, Texas concerning the long-range objective South Dakota, Montana, and Nebraska led of the program. A survey of the 4,050 in establishing permanent vegetation on expired contracts in Texas determined that former cropland. Oklahoma and Texas were 93.3 percent of the conservation measures by far the leaders in reseeding rangeland. had been maintained. Many of the 271 Only in North Dakota was stripcropping owners who had not maintained conserva- significant. That state also led in tion practices did so in order to participate establishing windbreaks, followed by South in commodity allotment and diversion pro- Dakota. Leading in percentage expenditures grams. on terracing were Kansas (30%), Nebraska (20%), and Texas (17.5%). New Mexico and Along with requesting the extension, Berg Wyoming had the most activity in dam supported changes that would confirm the construction for erosion control, and contribution the soil and water conservation Montana easily spent the most on water- districts had been making to GPCP. Farm spreading. Land leveling was most prevalent conservation plans, developed with district in Colorado and Kansas. Only Montana assistance, had been used as the basis for spent over 10 percent of its money on contracts. The change in legislation fences. Controlling invading mesquite and acknowledged this arrangement. Another other undesirable shrubs was provision would allow contracts on non- understandably highest in the two s - agricultural land that had erosion. Enhance- western states, New Mexico and Texas.Wh ment of fish, wildlife, and recreation in plains would be eligible for cost-sharing. & Congress Extends GPCP The program had become so popular that At the 1956 hearings, only the National each year's allocations to states were usually Farmers Union had supported the GPCP. obligated early in the year for contracts Now the Farm Bureau and National Grange that had already been written. As the added their support to that of the Union. expiration date of P.L. 1021 approached, The National Association of Conservation farmers, ranchers, conservation district Districts enthusiastically supported the supervisors, and state officials hoped and extension. Lyle Bauer, Area Vice President, worked for the extension of the program. spoke for the extension and the provision to All groups had some idea how the program define the role of soil and water conserva- might-be-improved, but the main objective tion districts. The House reported out the was to have it extended. Most senators and bill. After a conference to work out some representatives from the Great Plains states changes suggested by the Senate committee, cosponsored the legislation. At the hearing the legislation was signed on November 18, before the House Committee on Agricul- 1969. Public Law 91-118 extended the pro- ture, Congressmen George H. Mahon and gram ten years with a ceiling of $300 million and an annual budget not to exceed remained there until Public Law 92-263, $25 million. signed on June 6, 1980, extended GPCP for another ten years. Another 49 counties then Boundary Extended ente d the program, bringing the total to The House of Representatives hearings in 518. 5% 1969 created a new "legislative history" that allowed expansion of the exterior boundary. Contract Size Increased Most of the counties within the original The matter of the limitations on contract boundary had finally been included. In size and irrigation costs have continually fact, SCS had already added five outside been discussed throughout the life of the boundary. Within a month of the GPCP. On one side have been state and signing of the first contracts; SCS local people who favored an increase. But recommended adding an additional 22 the administrators of the program have had counties. Donald Williams explained the to be attentive to criticism during the 1960s situation to Assistant Secretary Peterson. of large payments to individual farmers. "The interest of local people had not The differences in the conservation pro- developed sufficiently to include this list of gram and its long-term goal and in com- counties at the time the initial list was modity programs has not always been submitted for consideration July 3, 1957." obvious to those unfamiliar with the By the end of 1958, the cretary had specifics of the programs. The fact that approved another 78 counties3 Thereafter, plains farms and ranches were, of necessity, there was steady growth until there were larger than those in humid areas has also 417 designated counties on January 1, 1968. led to misunderstanding. A group of state State conservationist "Red" Smith proposed officials and other GPCP leaders suggested in 1963 that the boundary be extended to in 1975 that the contract limitation 'be include the western cross timbers where raised to $40,000 and irrigation practices to there had been wind erosion in the 1950s. $7,500. There was little consensus among He made a good case for the needs of the the state conservationists responding to the area. Williams responded that the legislative proposal. Some wanted the increase; some history would not permit such an extension did not. Some said that the change would and that, before any extension, the whole neither hinder nor help GPCP. Interest- boundary should be studied. Furthermore ingly, the attitude in Texas had changed. there was already a backlog of applications, Edward Thomas, state conservationist, and the lower than authorized appropria- wrote that "some restraint is needed to keep tions created a "need to concentrate the the use of irrigation practices compatible program in the 422 counti within the with t&e legislative intent of the pro- original approved boundary!'" F. A. Mark gram." The limitation remained in effect summed up the feeling of the state conser- until Norman Berg, Chief of SCS, raised vationists. Unless additional funds could be the limits to $35,000 total and $10.000 for had, any extension would "play havoc wi irrigation in November 1980. By then, needs in the existing authorized area." b inflation had more than negated any effect The National Association of Conservation the change would have had on the unique- Districts favored extending the principles of ness of the program. GPCP but favored keeping the original boundary. The Great Plains News informed S~ecialPractices district members that the original boundary Some of the toughest administrative deci- should probably have been drawn farther sions have concerned approving "special west in the northern plains and farther east practices." These are designed to allow in the southern plains. They asked rhetori- flexibility for state and regional problems cally, "once the boundary i changed where for which the standard GPCP cost-share can the stopping point be.$8 With the new measures are not adequate. Usually the authority provided in the GPCP extension, requests are for sound conservation initia- the number expanded from 424 in January tives, but, nonetheless, are recurring, 1970 to 469 counties in 1972. The number annual practices which do not meet the criteria of being "enduring." Requests to to demonstrate the necessity of linking cost-share for stubble mulching and cost-sharing, technical assistance, and good planned grazing systems have been denied. farm and ranch management to attack a Approval has been given to the construction special problem in a special area. of stock trails for livestock distribution, initial planting of tall wheatgrass for wind Various cost-sharing and loan programs erosion control, and drip irrigation to get administered by different agencies need not windbreaks established. Recently Norman overlap or create rivalries to the detriment Berg, Chief of SCS, approve conservation of the conservation effort. During the tillage as a special practice6 Considering GPCP Inter-agency Group meetings, the the durability of farm machinery and the Farmers Home Administration offered to initial investment required, it would seem adjust its loan procedures to fit GPCP. This to fit into the "enduring" category. adjustment made it possible to advance FmHA loans in consecutive years to owners Suecial Areas and, thereby to assist in carrying out the The success and popularity of GPCP have conservation plan under GPCP. The eligi- been such that it inspired suggestions that bility of GPCP participants for conservation other sections of the United States could reserve payments under the now expired benefit from similar programs. Programs soil bank, the long-term agreements, and for other specifically designated areas have ACP payments administered by the Agri- not succeeded in Congress. The problem of cultural Stabilization and Conservation Ser- wind erosion may actually have been a vice has varied through the past twenty- benefit in getting legislation enacted for the five years. Cost-sharing funds under ACP Great Plains. The dust storms that blew could contribute to achieving conservation over cities in the 1930s and 1950s awakened farming and ranching. However, the Agri- urban residents to the problem in the plains cultural Stabilization and Conservation Ser- and created a feeling of empathy. The vice (ASCS) ruled that after January 1, deterioration of resources in other areas has 1979, participants in GPCP would not be not been as visible to persons outside the eligibg3 for the ACP cost-sharing pro- immediate area. Thus, these problems have gram. Prior to that time the ability and not received similar national attention. But willingness of the SCS district conserva- there has been one significant development. tionist and the FmHA and ASCS represen- The Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, as tatives to develop a working relationship reported out by the committees, included a has been crucial to coordinating programs special areas conservation program to for the best effect. "identify and correct erosion-related or irrigation water management" problems. If the The matter of meshing acreage allotments law is enacted, the Secretary of Agriculture and the commodity price supports that go can provide technical assistance and share with them has been of greater concern to the cost of conservation measures. Under those who framed or directed GPCP. Gen- this program, the areas would not be desig- erally, these programs were regarded as nated in the legislation. The Secretary being incompatible with the objectives of would have th discretion of selecting areas GPCP because these programs encouraged to It need hardly be noted farmers to plant land to crops that were that the record of GPCP convinced senators better suited by capability to grassland or and congressmen of the value of a similar less erosion inducing crops. program. for their states. In assessing the impact of acreage allot- Other USDA Programs ments, one must consider the total effect of Throughout the life of GPCP, there have farm prices on conservation. The experience been suggestions and attempts to merge of the late 1920s and early 1930s is illustra- GPCP with other cost-sharing. programs. tive. When farmers who have mortgage The argument that has spared GPCP from payments to meet are faced with' declining merger or elimination has been SCS's ability commodity prices or prices that do not keep pace with inflation, the tendency is to ranch management techniques, but also the expand production to reap an ever dimin- expertise of the conservationist increased. ishing profit on each acre- -regardless of Improved stewardship of land has resulted. the capability of the land. Without endorsing a particular commodity price The contract between the individual and system, it should be recognized that a the government has been the aspect of healthy and stable agricultural economy is GPCP that made it unique. SCS technicians conducive, even necessary, to good conser- annually reviewed contracts to insure that vation farming and ranching. cost-sharing monies were spent and practices maintained as specified in the con- The Part of GPCP in SCS History tract. Although breaches of contracts were The Great Plains Conservation Program has the exception, SCS in some cases cancelled been significant in the development of SCS contracts and collected payments made to and can be regarded as a third era in its violators. Such vigilance, combined with a history. The agency began operations willingness to make changes in contracts through demonstration projects and pro- when justified, early established the repu- vided WPA and CCC labor, seed, plants, tation of GPCP as a unique conservation equipment, and other supplies. The Service program. 64 then shifted to working through conservation districts. The labor, equipment, and A Uniaue Conservation Pronram supplies ceased being available with the The burden of keeping GPCP attuned to its onset of World War 11. The conservation objective also fell on the administrators in effort then rested on the ability of conser- the Washington office. During the last vation district supervisors and SCS conser- twenty-five years, national agricultural vationists to convince land owners of the policy has fluctuated between using various benefits of conservation. The Small Water- programs to promote production of com- shed Act (1954) and GPCP provided SCS modities and de-emphasizing production with the inducement of cost-sharing to programs to reduce surplus commodities. It accelerate the conservation work with local is usually expected that all agricultural pro- governing. bodies and individuals. The grams be adjusted to the goal. GPCP has lessons learned on contracting and cost- had to operate in the varying climate of sharing in GPCP have been the model used national agricultural policy and yet retain for land treatment in Small Watershed Pro- its objective. As SCS and the National jects, the Resource, Conservation and Association of Conservation Districts were Development Program, the Rural Aban- preparing in 1968 to ask for an extension of doned Mine Program, and the Rural Clean the program, William Vaught, supervisor of Water Program. GPCP operations, spoke to the Great Plains conservation district leaders about retaining GPCP also changed the role of the the uniqueness of GPCP. individual SCS conservationist to a limited extent. The GPCP contract was much like a Don Williams, in maintaining good conservation . farm plan, only more a personal interest in the detailed. Under the contractual arrange- program, has held steadfast ment, he had to certify that both parties, over the years in his efforts government and individual, met their obli- to keep faith with Congress. gations. Insuring compliance with some And I might add that it has aspects of a contract, such as preventing not been an easy thing to do. newly seeded range from being grazed too He has been under constant soon, was a new task for the conservation- pressure to relax some of the ist. These new management roles brought a restrictions ....as we move closer workihg relationship between the into the process of conservationist and the farmer that attempting once again to eventually benefited the land. Not only did solicit the support of

. , farmers and ranchers learn better farm and Congress... we can be thankful for his However, if the drought is so prolonged on determination. I think we some sandy land that spring germination is -have kept the faith with impossible, it will make little difference Congress and its intent to whether the seeds are of drought resistant provide a unique program-- varieties or not. regional in nature- -to help us solve those t gh wind Other questions surround the success of erosion problems. # GPCP. Did irrigation for pastures and for forage make cattle raising possible for The succeeding administrators, Kenneth ranchers who did not own enough land for Grant and R. M. Davis, kept the program dryland ranching? Have we seen the last of on course. The present Chief, Norman the wild fluctuations in the number of cat- Berg, "grew up with the program" and tle on the range during droughts and good knows the elements that have to be retained years? Has the program halted the cycles of to keep it unique. The administrators and migration out of the plains during droughts chief have relied on specialists to advise and land speculation in the good years that and carry out the daily operations of GPCP. resulted in each succeeding generation Cyril Luker started the program as head of repeating the mistakes of the past? Were the Inter-agency Group and was followed farmers and ranchers better able to with- by Norman A. Berg, William L. Vaught, stand droughts? Studies in North Dakota John W. Arnn, Julius H. Mai, John J. and South Dakota indicated that this was Eckes, and Guy D. McClaskey. the case. In short, did GPCP bring about the agricultural and resource stability Im~actof GPCP promised in 1956? A study of these ques- Of necessity, the success of the program tions and others would be of interest on the must be judged in terms of the land and its county, state, and regional level. All of condition, compared to the 1950s. What them may not be answerable by quantifica- happened to the land? SCS estimated in tion, or by the numbers. Many who partici- 1956 that between 11 and 14 million acres pated in GPCP as farmers, ranchers, district were in cultivation in the plains that should conservationists, or conservation district be in grass. SCS had to estimate the figure supervisors believe that the judgment is in because soil surveys and land capability the affirmative, or partially so, on many studies had not been completed. Before the questions. enactment of P.L. 1021, the Service increased the hiring of soil scientists for sur- Donald Williams recently summed up his veying the plains states. Furthermore, the dual feelings of success and frustration over state conservation district associations con - the conservation movement in general. "It curred in plans to shift experienced soil seemed like we would get to 'a certain point scientists from the prairie and mountain and then something would happen. The war sections t the plains to accelerate the soil would break out. The price of wheat would surveys. By September 30, 1980, go up, and the farmers would go out and 2,869,062 acres of former cropland had plow up the land again. So there you are; been converted to grassland. An undeter- you had to back up and start over again in mined percentage of this has reverted to a way. But we never went clear back to crops since the expiration of contracts. where we were before. We had a better Developments in conservation tillage and startin%point so that we were able to get drought resistant crops have reduced the ahead." No doubt many regard GPCP as a hazards of cropping marginal lands. With significant development in the . push to "get the need to spread the use of conservation ahead" with conservation work. tillage, it is desirable not to present it as the new "panacea' that makes complemen- tary conservation measures unnecessary. Drought resistant crops have been of great benefit in controlling wind erosion. Endnotes l7 John T. Schlebecker, Whereby We Thrive: A History of American Farming, Gilbert C. Fite, The Farmers' Frontier: 1607-1971 (Ames: Iowa State University 1865-1900 (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Press, 1975), 209-210; R. Douglas Hurt, Winston, 1966), 3. "Agricultural Technology in The Dust Bowl. 1932-40,'' in The Great Plains Environment Fite, 14 and 115; 'Mary W. Hargreaves, and Culture, Brian W. Blouet and Frederick Dry Farming in the Northern Great Plains, C. Luebke, eds., (Lincoln: University of 1900-1925 (Cambridge: Harvard University Nebraska Press, 1980), 139; Hargreaves, Press, 1957), 33-36. Dry Farming, 545 - 546.

Fite, Farmers' Frontier, 113. l8 Hurt, "Agricultural Technology," 140- 141. Fite, 120-124. l9 Wind Erosion Reports, History Office, Fite, 131. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

Fred A. Shannon, The Farmer's Last 20 The Future of the Great Plains Report Frontier: Agriculture, 1860-1897 (New of the Great Plains Committee (Washington: York: Farrar & Rinehart, Inc., 1945), 308. Government Printing Office, 19361, 134- 135. Fite, Farmers Frontier, 199-200. 21 Joseph C. Wheeler to Jefferson C. Hargreaves, Dry Farming, 61 -63. Dykes, December 27, 1954, "Drought Com- mittees," GPCP Files, SCS. Fite. Farmers' Frontier, 129. 22 Walter W. Wilcox, The Farmer in the lo Fite. p. 200. Second World War (Ames: Iowa State Col- lege Press, 1947), 105- 106. Fite, 131: Hargreaves. Dry Farming, 52- 54. 23 H. H. Finnell, "Pity the Poor Land," Soil Conservation 12 (1946). n.p. l2 John T. Schlebecker. 'Tillage and Crops on Prairies and Plains America, 1830-1960." 24 R. Douglas Hurt, "Return of the Dust Journal dlAgriculture Tradionnelle et de Bowl: The Filthy Fifties," Journal of the Botanique Appliquee 24 (1 977): 179- 180. West 28 (1979). 85. l3 Hargreaves, Dry Farming, 87: Wayne D. 25 Arthur E. Emerson to Frank Harper, Rasmussen, ed., Readings in the History of June 9, 1980, "Great Plains Committees," American Agriculture (Urbana: University GPCP Files, SCS. of Illinois Press, 1960), 167- 172. 26 E. A. Norton to N. L. Munster. April l4 Hargreaves. Dry Farming, 200. 1950, and attachment "1950 Spring Soil Blowing in the Great Plains," "Great Plains l5 John T. Schlebecker, Cattle Raising on Committee," GPCP Files, SCS. the Plains, 1900-1961 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1963). 44-56. 27 H. H. Finnell to Tom Dale, March 23, 1954, Wind Erosion Reports, History l6 Anonymous, 'Wind Erosion and Dust Office, SCS. Storms on the Great Plains," Great Plains Conservation Program Files, Soil Conserva- 28 Washington (D.C.) Daily News, March tion Service, Washington, D.C. 10, 1954. 29 Ray Walker, "Reports of Wind Erosion 39 Donald A. Williams to State Conserva- Conditions in the Great Plains," Historical tionists, December 10, 1956, "Legislation," SCS Reports, GPCP Files; Maps in 'Wind GPCP Files, SCS. Erosion Reports," History Office, SCS. 40 Minutes, Great Plains Inter-agency 30 Hurt, "Return of the Dust Bowl," 89-90; Group, December 17, 1956, GPCP Files, Federal Cost-Sharing for Drought SCS. . Emergency Conservation Measures, 1954- 1956, ACP, "Drought," General Correspon- 41 Minutes, February 17, 1957. dence, Records of the Office of the Secre- tary of Agri,culture, Record Group 16, 42 James D. Abbott to the author. Septem- National Archives, Washington, D.C. ber 22, 1981. (Hereinafter the abbreviations RG 16 and NA will be used). 43 J. C. Dykes and J. B. Slack, A minority report from the Farm and Ranch Planning 31 Recommendations of the Soil Conserva- Task -Force, February 19, 1 957, "Great tion Service to the Departmental Committee Plains Inter-agency Group," GPCP Files, on Land Use Problems in the Great Plains, SCS. May 12, 1955, "Historical SCS Reports," GPCP Files. 44 Ervin L. Peterson to Donald A. Williams, March 13, 1957, "Farm Program 2," RG 16, 32 Preliminary Report of the U.S. Depart- N A. ment of Agriculture on Possible Solutions for Agricultural Problems of the Great 45 T. A. Neubauer, "Early History of the Plains, May 1955, "Historical SCS Reports," Great Plains Conservation Program," (1 959), GPCP Files. 6.

33 Program for the Great Plains, U.S. 46 Cyril Luker, "Report on Development in Congress, House Document No. 289, 84th 1959 on the Great Plains Conservation Pro- cong., 2d sess., 1956, 4. gram," (October 8, 1959). 8-11. "Legislation," GPCP Files, SCS. 34 Donald A. Williams to Ervin L. Peterson, May 1, 1956, "Drought," RG 16, NA. 47 Williams, Advisory Notice W-74, April 24, 1958, "Advisories," GPCP Files, SCS. 35 Great Plains Conservation Program, U.S. Congress, House, Hearings before the 48 Lyness Lloyd to Williams. May 9, 1958, Committee on Agriculture, 84th Cong., 2d "Advisories," GPCP Files, SCS. sess., 1956, 1-36. 49 H. N. Smith to Williams, May 8, 1958, 36 Great Plains Conservation Program, U.S. "Advisories," GPCP Files, SCS. Congress, House Report No. 2640, 84th Cong., 2d sess., 1956, 2-3. 50 Williams to all SCS offices in the Great Plains Area, May 26, 1958; Great Plains 37 Press Release, White House, August 7, Conservation Program Memorandum SCS-6 1956, GPCP Files, SCS. (Rev.), May 26, 1959, "Irrigation," GPCP Files. SCS. 38 Donald A. Williams to Ervin L. Peterson, August 3, 1956; Paul Koger to Peterson, 51 These four examples are filed under August 2 and September 21, 1956; Walter C. "Information," GPCP Files, SCS. Berger to Peterson, October 18, 1956; John Muelbeier to Peterson, November 19, 1956, 52 James D. Abbott to William L. Vaught, "Drought," RG 16, NA. January 2, 1968, "Information," GPCP Files,

SCS; Michael A. Isbell, District ' Conserva- tionist, SCS, Iowa Park, Texas, to the 63 Section 162-8-3. Agricultural Conserva- author, July 23, 1981. tion Program Development and General Provisions. Agricultural Stabilization and 53 A Program Evaluation of the Great Conservation Service. Plains Conservation Program, Soil Conser- vation Service (May 1974):22. 64 William L. Vaught to John W. Peterson, September 20, 1981. 54 Great Plains Conservation Program, U.S. Congress, House, Hearings before the 65 William L. Vaught to Norman A. Berg, Subcommittee on Conservation and Credit September 11, 1968, and attached speech, of the Committee on Agriculture, 94th "National Association of Conservation Dis- Cong., 1st. sess., Washington (1969), 1-60. tricts Great Plains Committee," GPCP Files, SCS. 55 Williams to Peterson, January 16, 1958, "Farm Program 2," RG 16, NA. Jefferson C. Dykes, Oral History Inter- view, April 9, 1981, History Office, SCS. 56 Smith to Williams, December 24, 1963; Williams to Smith, January 14, 1964, 67 Donald A. Williams, Oral History Inter- "Designation of Counties," GPCP Files, SCS. view, June 11, 1981, History Office, SCS.

57 F. A. Mark to Norman A. Berg, January 22, 1964, "Designation of Counties," GPCP Files, SCS.

58 Great Plains News, National Association of Conservation Districts, April 1964.

59 Robert G. Halstead, "25 Years of Suc- cess--GPCP 1956-81," speech to the 35th annual convention of the National Associa- tion of Conservation Districts, San Fran- cisco, California, February 3, 1981.

Edward E. Thomas to Vic Barry, Jr., August 19, 1975, "Policy Changes," GPCP Files, SCS.

61 R. M. Davis to Allen L. Fisk, December 8, 1977; Victor H. Barry, Jr., to Benny Martin, June 21, 1977; R. M. Davis to Albert W. Hamelstrom, October 3, 1977; Davis to Robert D. Swenson; December 20, 1978; Edward E. Thomas to Albert w. Hamelstrom, March 4, 1977; Norman A. Berg to J. Michael Nethery, July 31, 1981, "Special Practices," GPCP Files, SCS.

62 Food and Agriculture Act of 1981, US. Congress, House Report No. 97-106, 97th Cong., 1st. sess., 1981, 320-322; Food and Agriculture Act of 1981, U.S. Congress, Senate Report No. 97- 126, 97th Cong., 1st. sess., 1981, 253-254. New Authorities and New Roles: SCS and the 1985 Farm Bill

Reprinted from Implementing the Conservation Title of the Food Security Act of 1985. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society, 1990. pp. 11 -25. by Douglas Helms, National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

Since passage of the Soil Conservation Act Many individuals and organizations in the in 1935, the U.S. government has tried in environmental movement who lobbied for various ways to promote soil conservation. the act are now monitoring the progress. Federal policy-makers have promoted re- They and the older soil conservation search; created an agency of technically groups--NACD and SWCS--came to be trained people to carry soil conservation known as the "conservation coalition." information to the farming community; encouraged the growth of conservation dis- While soil erosion would undoubtedly have tricts; shared in the cost of establishing soil attracted the attention of environmental conservation practices on farms and groups eventually, events in the U.S. farm ranches; and tried innovative approaches, community accelerated the process. In the including long-term contracts, such as those early 1970s, only a couple of years after in the Great Plains Conservation Program. passage of the National Environmental Policy Act, events brought soil erosion to Title XII, Conservation, of the Food Secu- the attention of the public. After several rity Act of 1985 (Public Law 99198), added decades of U.S. agricultural surpluses, grain a new array of soil conservation provisions prices began rising in the early 1970s as the designed to link soil conservation to eligi- Soviet Union purchased large quantities. bility for other U.S. Department of Agri- Grain exports in 1973 were double those in culture (USDA) Programs. The framers of 1972. Prices of wheat, soybeans, and corn the various clauses especially wanted to in 1974 were 208 percent, 133 percent, and eliminate the possibility that commodity 128 percent, respectively, of what they price support programs encouraged poor were in 1970 (2). In response, USDA eased soil conservation practices or the loss of production controls, including the require- wetlands. ment that "set-aside" be held out of production as a condition of participation in The Environmental Movement Extended price-support programs. Secretary of Agri - Inclusion of provisions in the 1985 farm culture Earl L. Butz proclaimed, "For the bill to reduce soil erosion can be seen as an first time in many years the American extension of the environmental movement. farmer is free to produce as much as he Traditional soil conservation groups, the can" (5). National Association of Conservation Dis- tricts (NACD) and the Soil and Water Con- USDA encouraged production in the belief servation Society (SWCS); USDA officials that increased foreign demand was a long- who were favorable to the concept; mem- term trend that might well make price sup- bers of Congress and their staffs; and aca- ports and production controls unnecessary. demics all contributed. But major changes Early on, the rush to produce also threat- in legislation require active lobbying from ened some long-established conservation some groups. The environmental groups' measures. By late 1973, according to Butz, new emphasis on soil erosion was not a USDA was receiving reports of the turning of attention away from earlier "heedlessness of some producers." He wrote issues, such as preserving woodland, wild in the Journal of Soil and Water Conserva- rivers, wetlands, and reducing pollutants in tion that reports from the northern Great air and water. Rather, it represented a Plains told of "plowing up grassed water- wider view encompassing agricultural land. ways, shallow hilltops, and steep slopes... and tearing out windbreaks that involved some land not used for production took many years to establish." From the over the past 40 or so years (16). southern Great Plains, there were "reports of speculators breaking ground and The expansion of acreage in grain crops preparing to plant cotton on thousands of also turned people's attention to soil ero- acres of native rangeland that have never sion.' Questions arose about the wisdom of been used for crops' before" (5). Farmers expanding grain production for export, converting to irrigation did remove wide hoping to reduce the balance of payments, windbreaks, but, later, an SCS survey found but at the same time causing more soil ero- that new plantings of narrower windbreaks sion as a consequence. Was this a case of had' more than offset windbreak losses in mortgaging the future? While some of the most Great Plains states during the period attention focused on trade and agricultural 1970 to 1975 (28). Whatever the actual production policies, the effectiveness of soil magnitude of the loss, aerial views of the conservation programs also came under shifts from some older, wide windbreaks to scrutiny- - both the technical assistance irrigation systems vividly illustrated what activities of SCS and the financial assistance took place. programs administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service An SCS survey of cropland expansion in (ASCS). In the late 1970s the General July 1974 found that farmers had converted Accounting Office (GAO) issued several 3.6 million acres of grassland, 400,000 acres reports on conservation activities, including of woodland, and 4.9 million acres of idle To Protect Tomorrow's Food Supply, Soil land to cropland. About 4 million of the 4.9 Conservation Needs Priority At ten tion, million converted acres had inadequate ero- which reviewed the Agricultural Conserva- sion control. At the time, public attention tion Program (ACP). ACP provided cost- centered on the Great Plains, but land con- sharing money for soil conservation prac- versions took place in all regions. The tices with farmers. Critics of the program eroding land was scattered throughout the believed much of the cost-share money was United States, with the heaviest concentra- spent not on soil conserving practices but tions in the Corn Belt, western Great on practices that enhanced production of Plains, southern Coastal Plain, eastern crops that were already in surplus and Piedmont and Coastal Plain, and the costing the government through price sup- southern High Plains (15). During the early port payments. A related criticism was that 1980s, the prospects that domestic and the more prosperous farmers, often owners export demands might absorb all U.S. proof the best land, were in a better position duction would prove illusory as good crop to take advantage of cost -sharing; thus, years worldwide and loss of markets, in much of the money was spent on less part because of crop embargoes, took a toll. erodible land rather than on the land most But the trend that began in 1973 continued. at risk. Finally, program reviewers believed Food and feed grains were planted on 294 that both the ACP funds and SCS technical million acres in 1972, 318 million acres in assistance should be targeted to the most 1973, 326 million acres in 1974, and 363 critical erosion areas, rather than being million acres in 1981 (41). Thereafter, distributed evenly across the country (11, cropland devoted to food and feed grains 25). Some of the criticism was ahistorical, went into a slight decline. taking the view that little had been done in the way of conservation in the past. That Total land in crops had declined in the view gave little recognition to shifting gains 1950s and ' 1960s. The land brought into and losses over time in the soil conservation production during the 1970s and early movement. 1980s actually restored the U.S. cropland base to its level immediately following Congress' most significant act in response to World War 11. It was not the same cropland the concern over soil erosion, however, was in all cases because some cropland was con- passage of the Soil and Water Resources verted to other uses. The expansion Conservation Act of 1977 (RCA). The RCA process, as it came to be called, required little additional money for soil conservation; the USDA to report to Congress on four rather, there might be less. As Congress, interrelated topics: the status and condition USDA agencies, and public interest groups of America's natural resource base, the debated the final RCA report and recom- present and likely future demands on these mendations, Congress completed the 1981 resources, the programs needed to protect farm bill (12). The Agriculture and Food and enhance these resources for sustained Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-88) included use, and any new approaches that may be several major conservation provisions. needed (12). Government observers in the United States often scoffed at the prospect The Farmland Protection Policy Act sought of another study as a way of evading a to minimize "the extent to which federal difficult issue. In retrospect, the RCA programs contribute to the unnecessary and seems to have become one of the instru- irreversible conversion of farmland to mental factors in passage of the conserva- nonagricultural uses." Throughout much of tion provisions of the 1985 farm bill. the 1960s and 1970s, the continuing loss of Previous studies of conservation needs by fertile and generally fairly level land, espe- SCS had concentrated on identifying con- cially "prime farmland," to development servation problem areas and needed conser- meant that the major soil conservation topic vation work. The studies started under was prime farmland and planning develop- RCA concentrated on quantifying soil ment in agricultural areas, rather than soil erosion. Earlier, in the Rural Development erosion. The National Agricultural Lands Act of 1972, Congress provided for a Study, an interagency-sponsored study of continuing land inventory and monitoring the problems and issues, was completed in program that collected information for the early 1981 (9, 29). Another provision of the RCA studies. The National Resources act, the Conservation Loan Program, made Inventories (NRI), which became linked to it possible for farmers to borrow from the the RCA process, had compiled information Commodity Credit Corporation to install on land cover, small water areas, flood- conservation practices. The Matching prone areas, irrigated land, conservation Grants for Conservation Activities would go needs for various land uses, water erosion, to local units of government through state wind erosion, prime farmland, potential for soil conservation agencies. The RCA report new cropland, land capability classification, submitted to Congress had included and wetlands. The availability of this matching grants. The Special Areas Conser- information, as well as the public comment vation Program would accelerate technical process established under RCA, provided a and financial assistance to farmers and forum for numerous individuals, organiza- ranchers in areas with severe soil erosion or tions, other government agencies, and aca- other resource problems. USDA would demics to express their opinions. The contract with farmers or ranchers to carry inventories supplied the raw material of out conservation. SCS, in the Great Plains analysis and debate. Conferences and Conservation Program, had developed long- special volumes flourished as soil erosion term contracts with farmers covering the became one of the main environmental whole farm or ranch that served as a model issues in the late 1970s and early 1980s (37, for the special areas program. The infor- 38). mation gathered in the RCA process to identify soil erosion problem areas would Austerity Begets Tar~etinq be used to identify special areas. USDA did Under RCA, USDA analyzed the data and not include special areas in the report sub- submitted a program of recommendations to mitted to Congress, but Congress added a Congress. It fell to the incoming USDA section on it (19, 30). administration in 1981 to complete the proposed program and forward it to Congress. The administration did not request The formulation of the program and the additional funds for the matching grants discussions of legislative initiatives took and special areas. The RCA reeommenda- place in a climate in which there would be tions, however, included a proposal on "targeting" as another way to direct funds Meanwhile, other events shaped the legisla- and people to problem areas. USDA did not tive climate in which the conservation sec- have additional funds for special areas, but tions of the 1985 farm bill would be con- did start a targeting program. The action sidered. The Great Plains, scene of the came under existing law and did not renowned Dust Bowl of the 1930s, provided require legislative authority. The RCA some of the impetus. Between 1977 and report to Congress recommended that soil 1982 wheat farmers planted large tracts of conservation programs be moved away from grassland in Montana (1.8 million acres), the traditional first-come, first-served South Dakota (750,000 acres), and Colorado allocation and shifted to designated resource (572,000 acres). In some places the resulting problem areas where excessive soil erosion, wind erosion proved a nuisance to neigh- water shortages, flooding, or other problems boring farmers as windblown dust covered threatened long-term agricultural produc- irrigated pasture and piled up against tivity. SCS and ASCS were to devote an fences. Some vocal and effective local additional five percent of their technical landowners wanted action, especially Edith and financial assistance to the targeted areas Steiger Phillips of Keota, Colorado. She until 25 percent of their funds were going persuaded county commissioners in Weld to targeted areas (39, 40). From its national County to take action against out-of-state office, SCS designated 10 targeted areas in interests who plowed up adjacent grassland 1982. In 1983 the states submitted proposals for wheat production (33). She and others for additional targeted areas. created sufficient sentiment for action that Colorado Senator William Armstrong intro- In 1983 SCS undertook another program to duced a bill (S. 1825) in 1981 that would shift resources to problem areas. The areas deny USDA program benefits, including of the country that created soil conservation price support payments, to farmers who districts early on had laid claim to SCS converted fragile land to cropland. The bill people and funds because the agency applied only to land west of the 100 worked through districts. But years later, in meridian that had not been in crops during the 1980s, the areas with the greatest con- the preceding 10 years. Owners would not centration of SCS personnel did not tally be eligible for price supports on that land with the greatest erosion problem areas unless they entered into a long-term agree- being identified in studies. SCS began ment with the secretary of agriculture to adjusting the formulas for allocating funds protect it with soil conservation practices. and personnel to states by giving greater The bugabear of outside investors looking weight to resource problems. In cases where for tax breaks and a quick return on the one or two people stationed by SCS at investment usually showed up in discussions the district office constituted the major part of the Great Plains and soil conservation. of the operation, the changes seemed omi- Certainly, there were some large operations, nous. Also, districts tended to see them- but surveys conducted after the outcry selves as having a broader natural resource indicated that Coloradans had owned most role than just soil conservation. At any rate, of the converted land for some time before when Congress heard from the districts, the planting it to small grains. They responded, issues of targeting and adjusting the for- it seems, to the prospects of more profit in mula for allocating monies to states had grain production than from rangeland (18, become inseparable. Congress in 1984 froze 20). the adjustments (23, 24, 34). Under the conservation provisions of the Food Secu- The Armstrong bill, dubbed the "Sodbuster rity Act of 1985, the obligation to make Bill," did not become law in its first ver- highly erodible land and wetland determi- sion, but it did occasion congressional nations and to help farmers with conserva- hearings and furthered discussion. The Col- tion plans caused SCS to put people and orado Cattlemen's Association, the resources where they were most needed. American Farm Bureau Federation, and traditional soil . conservation and- environ- A Changing Climate mental groups testified in favor of the bill. The grassroots actions to support legislation Kind) program provided an example of gave greater credence to Washington-based how farm programs could deflect pressure for linking soil conservation and conservation aims. USDA needed to reduce commodity programs. In addition to Weld crop surpluses to boost prices and hopefully County, other counties in Colorado and reduce the cost of price support programs. Petroleum County in Montana passed ordi- Out of several options, USDA officials in nances to try to prevent plowing of native the early 1980s selected PIK, just one of grassland (20, 26). several tools at their disposal that could be used in price support programs. It offered The bill provided a forum for the conser- the possibility of reducing crop surpluses, vation groups to promote a broader conser- which were depressing prices, by paying vation section. NACD, for example, testi- farmers in-kind, with farm commodities, to fied that denial of participation in USDA reduce their planted acreage. Proponents of programs because of sodbusting should not tying conservation to the farm programs be limited to price-support programs. Other often held that commodity programs suggestions further defined the marginal encouraged farmers to push their cropland land in terms of land capability classifica- base to the limit in order to be able to par- tion and set in process an attempt to define ticipate in annual set-aside programs. Con- fragile land and, eventually, highly erodible versely, farmers who voluntarily put land (17). erodible land into pasture, forests, or cover crops found that such land was not eligible In 1981 Senator Armstrong incorporated for programs like PIK. The voluntary set- many of these suggestions in an amend- aside, a key element in some bills intro- ment, "Agricultural Commodity Production duced in Congress, sought to address this on Highly Erodible Land," to an agricul- problem. Reports that the "conservation-use tural appropriations act. It passed the Senate acres" under PIK achieved less for conser- but was eliminated in the conference com- vation than projected also highlighted the mittee (35). In the next congressional ses- problems of programs in which conserva- sion he introduced S. 663, "Prohibition of tion was a secondary benefit (3, 9, 22). Incentive Payments for Crops Produced on Highly Erodible Land." The bill still per- Another O~~ortunitv tained to sodbusting, or land that had not The 1985 farm bill provided the next been cultivated during the past 10 years. opportunity to incorporate conservation into The sodbuster bill drew wide support from agricultural programs. Developments in the such organizations as the American Farm farm economy also made for some signifi- Bureau Federation and the National cant changes. US. farmers had lost signifi- Farmers Union. Peter C. Myers, chief of cantly in export markets. During the SCS, spoke for the department in support embargoes on grain to the Soviet Union, of the bill (36). other countries increased production and exports. The rising value of the dollar During 1983 there were additional hearings further weakened the American farmer's on the sodbuster and other soil conservation position as an exporter. Farmers were initiatives that eventually came to be caught in the price-cost squeeze, especially included in the farm bill. While USDA sup- those who had bought land and equipment ported the sodbuster provisions, the in the 1970s and who were faced with department consistently held that soil con- long-term, high interest loans on land and servation initiatives in other bills equipment whose value had declined. The introduced in 1983 and 1984, such as a percentage drop in farmland values in the conservation reserve program or a certified five years after 1981 was the greatest for voluntary set-aside, should await any five-year period since the Civil War consideration of the 1985 farm bill (32). (21). Many farmers had little borrowing equity for operating loans. In such a climate During the interim period between the 1981 the security of price support programs and 1985 farm bills, the PIK (Payment-in- became crucial. With the dramatic increase in the cost of commodity programs ($17.7 maximum in price support programs. There billion in fiscal year 1985), the administra- was less incentive to adjust production to tion began looking for ways to reduce costs price or to make the land use changes that in the future. Not only were individual matched land to its best uses. In a sense, farmers in trouble, but the whole farm farmers who voluntarily retired land to less credit system administered by USDA and intensive uses were penalized because they the Farm Credit Administration was reduced the size of their potential payments tottering. All these matters required atten- under commodity programs. tion from Congress (4). The framers of the conservation sections in Urban interests had for some time bar- the 1985 farm bill had years of experience gained with farm state representatives in and observation and studies to rely on in giving their support to agricultural pro- writing the provisions. There had been grams. In some cases, the legislation bene- congressional hearings on various bills after fited both sides, as in the school lunch and 1981. Many of the provisions that food stamp programs. In what turned out to eventually appeared in the bill were laid be a very prophetic analysis, Don Paarlberg, out earlier in a report, "Soil Conservation in an agricultural economist who served in the America: What Do We Have to Lose?", Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford administra- issued by the American Farmland Trust (1). tions, reasoned at the beginning of the Coalition members presented extensive tes- Reagan years that the food programs were timony early in 1985 before the Senate popular enough to stand on their own. The Agriculture Committee. Some of the more newer scenario was more likely to be urban active participants included Ken Cook, now congressmen voting for farm legislation if of The Conservation Foundation, Bob Gray that legislation included performance in soil of the American Farmland Trust, Norm conservation provisions (31). The Paarlberg Berg, Washington representative for SWCS, prophecy came to pass in the 1985 farm Maureen Hinkle of the National Audubon bill. The conservation coalition, represent- Society, Neil Sampson of the American ing the traditional environmental groups Forestry Association, Charlie Boothby of with urban support and the primary soil NACD, and Justin Ward of the Natural conservation organizations, mobilized their Resources Defense Council. In mid-March forces for a strong conservation section. Sierra Club lobbyists Dan Weiss and Rose McCullough and club members visited hun- The conservation provisions were tied to dreds of members of Congress to press their USDA programs. Any sort of government conservation agenda. The group had also intervention has never been popular with worked with USDA officials. The move- the farming community. But the proponents ment to link conservation with commodity had several ready arguments. Farmers did programs benefitted from the presence of not have to participate in programs; so two strong conservation advocates in the conservation seemed an equitable trade for department in John Block, secretary of public taxpayer support of farm programs. agriculture, and Peter Myers, chief of SCS Also, experience and years of analysis of and, later, assistant secretary for natural USDA programs pointed out how conserva- resources and the environment. Block had tion programs and price support programs earlier announced that he believed use of worked at cross-purposes. The conservation soil-conserving practices was a reasonable programs had encouraged voluntary dedica- request to make of farmers receiving USDA tion of land to its best uses, frequently to assistance. Myers served as the liaison to less intensive uses, such as pasture, hay, Congress and reported weekly to John and rangeland. Another element of public Block. Wayne Chapman of SCS, who was support brought about adjustments through serving as a legislative fellow with the rental or contracting arrangements. But the House Committee on Agriculture, provided price support programs sent the message to communication between the Congress and farmers that they should maintain their the department. Numerous individuals in cropland base in order to participate to the SCS and other USDA agencies provided analysis on various provisions included in patterns, and writing conservation plans. A the bill (6, 10). field is considered highly erodible if one- third of its soil map units, or as much as 50 Under the support and chairmanship of acres in it, are highly erodible. About 120 Congressman Ed Jones of Tennessee, the million acres on 1.7 million out of the 2.3 Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, and million farms in the United States are Rural Development of the House affected. SCS concentrated first on conser- Committee on Agriculture had long been vation compliance and is now turning its the incubator for new soil conservation attention to making wetland determinations. legislation, including many forerunners of Of the estimated 70 million acres of wet- the conservation provisions in the 1985 lands, about 5 million acres have potential farm bill. During April 1985, Senator for conversion to cropland and thus are Richard Lugar of Indiana chaired sessions affected. of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry on the reauthoriza- Not only has there been a high work load, tion of the 1981 farm bill. At these meet- but there has also been the stress associated ings the-conservation coalition laid out its with rendering unpopular options. Conser- agenda. vation compliance has resulted in a role change for soil conservationists. They can The Matter of Im~lementation still be, as they have been in the past, As with many laws, it was not the framing friends with farmers. But at times they may of the law but the writing of rules and need to make determinations on highly guidelines for implementation that has erodible land or wetlands that are unwel- created the most debate and disagreement. corned. The ability to work with the farmer SWCS sponsored a special conference, toward a mutually acceptable solution is a "American Agriculture at the Crossroads," challenge for soil conservationists. Because in the fall of 1987 to discuss implementa- of this need, states have begun to focus tion issues (27). There have been some more of their training for field office disagreements over how rigorously the employees on stress management, conflict Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) resolution, and public relations skills to should be restricted to the most highly prepare them to deal more effectively with erodible land; the uses of the CRP land, the publics that they serve. especially for grazing and hay; the treatment of cover crops, such as alfalfa in a The Food Security Act also has some crop rotation, under conservation implications for the work of SCS. Operating compliance; the definitions of wetlands for soil conservation programs under the con- swampbuster; and, finally, the implementa- servation provisions will lead to greater tion of conservation compliance. integration of economic analysis into farm conservation planning and the design of Probably the most difficult jobs in imple- conservation practices. The process has menting the conservation provisions have already started. Researchers in experiment been those of the SCS soil conservationists stations have, from the early days of the in field offices who work directly with soil conservation movement, undertaken farmers. Excluding the national office, four economic analysis of soil conservation pro- technical centers, and the state offices, grams to assist farmers and to promote the there are about 7,000 SCS employees in the programs. At other times, researchers have field. SCS estimated that work on the con- tried to analyze motivation to reveal why servation provisions would require about 70 farmers adopt conservation practices. Will percent of that staff's time until 1995. To farmers adopt conservation practices only if date, much of the time has gone to making it can be demonstrated conclusively that highly erodible soil determinations; they are profitable? Are farmers signifi - updating field office technical guides with cantly motivated to adopt conservation conservation systems for that particular practices by the conservation ethic? What region, its soils and traditional cropping needs, other than economic viability, do farmers have that may provide the incen- competitors for conservation funds. Bennett tive for conservation? Future analyses of successfully argued against an emergency the response to conservation compliance terracing program and made the case that legislation may provide some answers to there was more to soil conservation than these questions. Conservation compliance terracing. When the Soil Erosion Service focuses more attention, both on the part of started contacting the farmers in demon- the farmer and SCS, on the benefits, costs, stration project areas, they worked out and motivations involved in soil conserva- conservation plans for the whole farm. The tion. concept was and is good. But the agency has still had to struggle with a couple of Also, the economic aspect should influence problems. First, in judging progress in soil the range of options available to farmers. conservation on the land or the employee's That is to say, it should influence the effectiveness, completion of plans could too design of conservation systems. One criti - readily be confused with accomplishments. cism of soil conservation practices has been Conservation compliance has changed the that too often practices have not been focus. The farmer is more likely to look at designed for small farmers with limited his or her operation as a whole when resources. This, of course, is not a new making decisions about the crop rotations, concern. When speaking of working with cover crops, and other aspects of a conser- minority groups, Kenneth E. Grant, then vation system. Planning and application of administrator of SCS, said in 1972, 'We may conservation practices should correlate more have to invent ways to install practices that closely than ever before. do not require expensive specialized equipment or costly materials" (14). The number The Food Security Act should also lead to of minority farmers has continued to greater coordination of SCS recommenda- decrease drastically, but there have been tions to farmers with advice to the farmers significant increases in the number of small from other federal agencies and the state and part-time farmers. With conservation extension services. Again, the historical compliance, the need exists to design sys- reasons are illustrative. The early propo- tems and practices for limited-resource nents of SCS argued successfully that atten- farmers and part-time farmers that are eco- tion to soil conservation from USDA was nomically feasible. Economists should be lagging and that a separate agency was involved, along with the engineers, appropriate. Opponents of a service devoted agronomists, and earth scientists, in solely to soil conservation held that soil working out a whole range of options with conservation was only one aspect of farm varying degrees of effectiveness and cost management. Any assistance to farmers in efficiency. soil conservation should be delivered along with other assistance in animal or crop pro- Conservation compliance also provides an duction and the other facets of farm man- opportunity to reduce the gap between agement. But SCS has maintained its inde- conservation measures planned and conser- pendence. In delineating responsibilities vation measures applied. Of all the people within USDA to avoid conflicts soil conser- SCS assisted with conservation plans in vation has been treated as a separate com- 1968, only 65 percent actually applied at ponent of farm management. Admittedly, least one conservation practice. A few years the boundaries were blurred. With the later, the figure had dropped to under 60 requirements of conservation compliance, percent, and, indeed, 65 percent was farmers are likely to insist that USDA viewed as a reasonable goal (14). speak with one voice and that farmers receive information on soil conservation A little historical perspective on this matter that is coordinated with advice on other is in order. When Hugh Hammond Bennett farm matters that they received from other was successful in securing emergency relief agencies. administration funds to conduct demonstration projects in 1933, there were other The Food Security Act emphasis on linking General Technical Report RM-158. U.S. soil conservation to other assistance Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. pp. available from USDA and trying to add 9-13. some consistency to program objectives is only the latest of numerous devices tried. 7. Cook, Kenneth A. 1981. Problems and We- -society- -have relied on research, prospects for the Agricultural Conservation science, technology, and education in Program. Journal of Soil and Water Conser- delivering information on soil conservation vation 36(1): 24-27. directly to farmers. As a society we have helped pay for conservation through cost- 8. ------.1981. RCA and the art of the sharing. Through purchase or rental, we possible. Journal of Soil and Water have tried to retire or change the uses of Conservation 36(6): 330-333. erodible land. Appeals to farmers have varied from stewardship to profitability as a 9 ------. 1981. The National Agricultural reason for soil conservation. None of these Lands Study goes out with a bang. Journal ways to promote soil conservation proved a of Soil and Water Conservation 36(2): 91- panacea, but all had and have merit. The 93. results of the conservation provisions have not run their course. In our complex society 10. ------. 1983. Soil Conservation: PIK we dare not hope for perfection. But we in a poke. Journal of Soil and Water can recognize the legislation as a significant Conservation 38(6): 475-476. addition to the quest and our work toward an enduring agriculture. 11, ------. 1986. Pinch me, I must be dreamin! Journal of Soil and Water Conser- vation 41(2): 93-94. References 12. Davis, R. M. 1978. RCA: Your role in 1. American Farmland Trust. 1984. Soil conservation's future. Journal of Soil and conservation in American: What do we have Water Conservation 33(6): 267-269. to lose? Washington, D. C. 131 pp. 13. Glasser, Lawrence. 1986. Provisions of 2. Batie, Sandra A. 1983. Crisis in Amer- the Food Security Act of 1985. Agricultural ica's croplands? The Conservation Founda - Information Bulletin No. 498. U.S. Depart- tion, Washington, D.C. 131 pp. ment of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. pp. 46-50. 3. Berg, Norman A., and Robert J. Gray. 1984. Soil Conservation: The search for so- 14. Grant, Kenneth E. 1972. Annual lutions. Journal of Soil and Water Conser- message, Conference of State vation 39( 1): 18- 22. Conservationists, September 25, 1972. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of 4. Browne, William P. 1988. Private Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 25 pp. interests, public policy, and American agriculture. University Press of Kansas, 15 ------. 1975. Erosion in I 973 - 1974: Lawrence. 294 pp. The record and the challenge. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 30(1): 29-32. 5. Butz, Earl L. 1973. Produce and protect. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 16. Heimlich, Ralph E. 1985. Soil erosion 28(6): 250-251. on new cropland: A sod busting perspective. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 6. Chapman, E. Wayne. 1987. Rationale and 40(4): 322 - 326. legislation for the creation of the Conser- vation Reserve Program. In Symposium 17. Heimlich, Ralph E., and Nelson L. Bills. Proceedings, Impacts of the Conservation 1984. An improved soil erosion classifica- Reserve Program in the Great Plains. tion for conservation policy. Journal of Soil 28. Soil Conservation Service, US. Depart- and Water Conservation 39(4): 261 -266. ment of Agriculture. 1980. Field Windbreak removals in five Great Plains States, 1970- 18. Huszar, Paul C. 1985. Dusting off the 1975. Washington, D.C. 15 pp. sodbuster issue. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 40(6): 482 - 484. 29. Soil Conservation Society of America. 1981. An interview with Robert Gray. 19. Jeffords, James M. 1982. Soil conserva- Journal of Soil and Water Conservation tion policy for the future. Journal of Soil 36(3): 62- 68. and Water Conservation 37(1): 10- 13. 30. ------. 1982. Twenty questions, John 20. Laycock, W. A. 1981. History of grass- Block. Journal of Soil and Water land plowing and grass planting on the Conservation 37( 1): 7-9. Great Plains. In Impact of the Conservation Reserve Program in the Great Plains. Gen- 31. Soth, Lauren. 1981. Farm and conserva- eral Technical Report RM- 158. Rocky tion policy decisions Reagan will face. Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of 36(1): 22-24. Agriculture, Fort Collins, Colorado. pp. 3- 8. 32. U.S. Congress. 1982. Congressional Record. S. 12376, September 28, 1982. 21. Lindert, Peter H. 1988. Long-run trends in American fafmland values. Agricultural 33. ------. 1982. Prohibition of price History 62(summer): 45-85. supports for crops produced on certain lands. House of Representatives, Committee 22. Mekelburg, Milton E. 1983. New ap- on Agriculture. 97th Congress, 2nd session, proaches to commodity programs and con- Washington, D.C. servation goals. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 38(4): 324-325. 34. ------.1983. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Hearing, prohibition of 23. Myers, Peter C. 1984. A new look at incen tive payments for crops produced on funding technical assistance. Journal of Soil highly erodible land. 98th Congress, 1st and Water Conservation 38(1): 38-39. session, Washington, D.C. 106 pp.

24. ------. 1985. Targeting How good is 35. U.S. Congress, House of Representa- the aim? Journal of Soil and Water tives. 1984. Agriculture, rural development, Conservation 49(3): 282- 283. and related agencies appropriation bill, 1985. House Report 98-809, 98th Congress, 25. Sampson, R. Neil. 1981. Farmland or 2nd session. Washington, D.C. wasteland: A time to choose. Rodale Press, Emmaus, Pennsylvania. 422 pp. 36. U.S. Congress, House of Representa- tives, Committee on Agriculture. 1984. 26. Society of Range Management. 1983. Hearings, miscellaneous conservation. 98t h Symposium on the plowing of fragile Congress, 1st session, Serial No. 98-13. grasslands in Colorado. Rangelands 5(2): 61 - Washington, D.C. 503 pp. 65. 37. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1981. 27. Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1980 appraisal. Part I. Soil, water, and 1988. American agriculture at the cross- related resources in the United States: Sta- roads: A conservation assessment in the tus, condition and trends. Washington, D.C. Food Security Act. Journal of Soil and 327 pp. Water Conservation 43(1): 1- 112. 38. ------. 1981. 1980 Appraisal. Part II. Soil, water, and related resources in the United States: Analysis of resource trends. Washington, D.C. 296 pp.

39. ------. 1981. 1981 program report and environmental impact statement, revised draft, Sail and Water Resources Conservation Act, 1981. Washington, D.C.

40. ------. 1982. A national program for soil and water conservation: 1982 final program report and environmental impact statement. Washington, D.C. 163 pp.

41 ------. 1987. Agricultural statistics, 1987. Washington, D.C.

42. ------, 1988. Conservation systems workshop. Produced for the U.S. Department of Agriculture by the Cooperative Extension Service. University of Illinois, Urbana. Agriculture That Fits the Environment: A Look Backward and Forward

Reprinted from Agriculture and the Environment: 1991 Yearbook of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1991. pp. 9-15. by Douglas Helms, National Historian, Soil Conservation Service;

Karl H. Reinhardt, Conservation Planning & Application Leader, Soil Conservation Service; and

Gary A. Margheim, Deputy Chief, Programs, Soil Conservation Service

The search continues for an agriculture that influenced agriculture. Conversely, agri- fits the land as well as maintains it. Public culture influenced the environment. It opinion polls increasingly identify the wasn't long before perceptive people could environment as a major public concern. recognize that the meshing of agriculture with the environment of North America Through legislation passed by Congress and was not completely harmonious. signed by the President, this concern has been translated into action affecting During the 18th and 19th centuries, numerous aspects of life in the United Americans borrowed and developed States--including life on the farm. Within methods for soil conservation. Growing the past decade, laws such as the Food concerns in the 20th century led to the Security Act of 1985, the Clean Water Act development of Government programs to amendments of 1987, and the Conservation help farmers use the soil while at the same Program Improvements Act of 1990 (part of time reducing erosion. Starting in 1929, the 1990 farm bill) called for modifications USDA focused on research, setting up ex- in programs and development of new ones periment stations to test methods of soil in USDA. The intent of the new laws is to conservation. ensure that USDA's programs are compatible with our environmental objectives. The Soil Conservation Act of 1935 established the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) But, if we are to maintain environmental to work with farmers. With the encourage- quality, we must have a mechanism and a ment of President Franklin D. Roosevelt source of knowledge to turn legislative and USDA, States passed laws to allow intent into action on the land. Fortunately farmers to create conservation districts. for the American public and American Since 1937, farmers, ranchers, and other farmers, earlier concerns over soil and landowners have created nearly 3,000 con- water conservation led to a system that servation districts and, all along, the SCS helps producers farm efficiently while still has had trained soil conservationists meeting environmental objectives. Without working with these local conservation dis- the scientific research, the practical expe- tricts and the farmers. It is this system--the rience, and the development of institutions experience, knowledge of land and at the local, State, and Federal level, public resources, familiarity with the local concerns about the environment would be landowners, and governmental institutions- - far more difficult to translate into action at that makes it possible to shape on-farm the farm level. management to meet national goals.

Lookinn Backward At the same time SCS was developing New crops, new climates, virgin soils, and expertise in soil conservation, some devel- new social and governmental systems opments in agriculture did not bode well for conservation. Part of the problem was legislation, first in the 1981 farm bill, and the increasing specialization of agriculture. to a much greater extent in the Food Secu- The mixture of cropland and livestock had rity Act of 1985. allowed for many conservation techniques, such as using the steeper lands for pasture The Conservation Reserve Program is and hay, rotating crops, and interspersing intended to remove highly erodible land close-growing crops into strip-cropping to from production by paying farmers an an- retard runoff. But increasingly, American nual rental for 10 years under a contract. farms specialized in a few crops or in live- The conservation provisions of the 1985 stock. farm bill required that farmers comply with these environmental objectives if they USDA's commodity price support programs wished to continue to participate in certain also affected soil erosion. For some time, other agricultural programs, such as com- people believed that some USDA programs modity price supports, crop insurance, had encouraged poor land use. In the 1930s, loans, and farm storage facility loans. during a time of low prices for agricultural Under the "Highly Erodible Land" provi- commodities, laws such as the Agricultural sion, farmers had until 1990 to develop a Adjustment Act of 1933 set up a system of conservation plan, approved by USDA and price support payments to farmers. The local conservation districts, and until 1995 payments were supposed to help maintain to complete the implementation of the supplies and prices, thereby leveling out the conservation plan. peaks and valleys of prices and supplies of agricultural commodities. Fifty years later, Sodbuster, another part of the Highly critics of USDA programs held that these Erodible Lands provision, was designed to programs, including crop insurance, discourage erodible land from being encouraged farmers to keep very erodible brought into production. If land had not land in production. A larger issue involved been used for an annual crop during 1981- fairness, and the feeling on the part of 85, it could not be used for crop production many that farmers should use methods that unless acceptable conservation methods conserved resources if they were to receive were used. The, Swampbuster provision, financial assistance. officially titled 'Wetland Conservation," was included to slow the conversion of wetlands Recent Legislation to cropland. Farmers who converted wet- The National Environmental Policy Act of land and produced agricultural commodities 1970 addressed some USDA programs, but on it after December 23, 1985, the date of by no means all of them. Partly impelled by the act's passage, would be ineligible for concern over agriculture's impact on the certain USDA program benefits. environment, Congress passed the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 The Task of Making Laws Work (RCA). The act . mandated a continuing Within USDA, SCS has generally provided appraisal of the Nation's soil, water, and the technical assistance and advice while related resources. From this information, the Agricultural Stabilization and Conser- USDA was to develop a long-term National vation Service (ASCS) has handled financial Resources Program. assistance.

The second National Conservation Program Bringing the intent of the conservation pro- was issued in 1988 and set priorities visions of the Food Security Act of 1985 through 1997. It calls for reduced erosion from the halls of Congress to farm opera- and improved water quality, and encourages tions has required substantial work. This State and local governments to assume includes writing definitions, establishing additional responsibility in soil and water rules and procedures, and giving the public conservation. The results from the studies, time to offer opinions and suggestions. debates, and pilot projects started under RCA found their way into national farm The field staff in about 2,800 field offices Government price support programs started has dealt directly with conservation districts in the 1930s. farmers often had to set aside and farmers. That work has kept SCS and lands on an annual basis. The Soil Bank of ASCS busy during the past 5 years and will the late 1950s and early 1960s promoted a require most of the time of the SCS staff longer term shifting of cropland to trees or for the coming 4 years. After developing grass through contracts. The general criti- the criteria for defining highly erodible cism of these programs has been that the lands, SCS field staff identified the highly purpose of the price support programs was erodible land with soil surveys and field to reduce crop acreage rather than to con- examinations. The agency accelerated soil serve soil. In the case of the Soil Bank, the surveys to areas not already covered by the program was not aimed at the most erodible published soil surveys. land; farmers could sign contracts and enroll any land they chose. SCS and other Federal agencies, especially the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Under the Conservation Reserve Program Department of the Interior, took the defi- (CRP), only land determined to be highly nition of wetlands in the farm bill and erodible was eligible. From the time of the developed criteria for identification in the sixth signup under the CRP in 1988, the field. In 1988, SCS started making invento- criteria have been changed at intervals to ries of wetlands. In some areas where wet- .allow the entrance of filter strips, flood- land inventorying has progressed, especially plain scour lands, and finally wetlands into in the pothole region of the North-Central the program. These lands, however, consti- States, many farmers have appealed the tute only a very small fraction of the acres designation of some of their lands as wet- allowed. As of 1990, landowners have lands for purposes of the Food Security enrolled 34 million acres in the CRP. SCS Act, and local SCS employees in those areas also gives advice on planting methods used . must review these appeals. to establish grasses and then checks to ensure that the work has been done prop- The 1985 law required that farmers have a erly. conservation plan by January 1, 1990, and that they fully implement it by January 1, Im~acton Water Oualitv 1995, in order to stay eligible for a variety Another concern related to agriculture has of USDA programs. The task for SCS field been the impact of agriculture on water staff was to formulate 1.3 million plans quality. Part of the concern involves the covering 135 million acres. Farmers and sediment in water caused by erosion. The SCS now face a greater task than writing use of irrigation can lead to salinity plans- -designing and installing, by 1995, all problems. Dairying or raising livestock in a of the conservation practices that have been small space, with many such operations agreed to in the plans. concentrated within a watershed, can also cause water quality problems. One of the New Role for SCS most complicated problems is determining The work associated with the Food Security the exact effect of agricultural chemicals Act of 1985 created a new, unaccustomed such as nutrients and pesticides. While the role for the agency and the field staff. Pre- first task is understanding the nature and viously, SCS worked strictly on a voluntary the extent of the problem, there is then the basis. Now SCS must make decisions about challenge of devising practical remedia1 whether farmers are complying with the measures and getting landowners to use law. A vast majority of farmers participate them. in farm programs to some extent and are affected by the law. One of the earliest efforts to understand the water quality problem came out. of the One method used to reduce erosion has Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with been to take erodible land out of produc- Canada in 1972. In that agreement, USDA tion. As a requirement for participating in 172 and the Canadians defined the problem and and the near future. Farmers and the State developed sohtions. and Federal agencies with which they work will live in this climate of concern. But in a During the 1970s USDA learned a great larger sense the recent legislation is part of deal from the Rural Clean Water Program a longer quest for agriculture that fits the (RCWP),which included a number of pilot environment, in which the impetus for and demonstration projects. The projects adaptation is not a response to legislation tested the value of various methods as well but an acknowledgment of the forces of as the feasibility of getting farmers to use nature. them.

President George Bush's State of the Union message on February 9, 1989, included a major water quality initiative that pertained to the work of several agencies.

One of the most promising recent developments in water quality has been greater cooperation within USDA to give farmers advice on the use of agricultural chemicals at the same time that they receive advice on soil and water conservation measures.

Since the 1960s, entomologists in the Extension Service, State experiment stations, and Agricultural Research Service have worked on integrated pest management systems. One of the objectives of these systems is to reduce the amount of chemicals used in insect control. At the same time, agronomists in these agencies have developed ways to use chemical nutrients so that there will be little runoff into surface water or seepage into the ground water.

SCS has worked with the Extension Service to develop recommendations in SCS's technical guides, usually one for each county, that will include information about where and when these chemicals can be used effectively, but in a manner that keeps movement to ground and surface waters to a minimum. These same technical guides also provide the basic information on soil and water conservation measures. The promise is for a better environment through greater cooperation within USDA and, hence, greater service to farmers.

Looking Forward Concern over the environment seems to be a constant and prominent feature on the political landscapes of both the recent past A Short List of References

Compiled by Douglas Helms, National Historian, Soil Conservation Service

Batie, Sandra. Soil Erosion: Crisis in America's Croplands. Washington, D.C.: Lowdermilk, Walter C. Conquest of the Conservation Foundation, 1983. (An Land Through Seven Thousand Years. account of the resurgence of soil erosion Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 99. and the national concern over it in the Washington, D.5.: Soil Conservation Ser- 1970s.) vice, US. Department of Agriculture, 1953, reprinted 1986. (Study by a noted Bennett, Hugh Hammond. Soil Conserva- scientist of the effects of soil erosion on tion. New York: McGraw-Hill Book ancient civilizations.) Company, 1939. (Not intended as a work of history, it nonetheless provides a McDonald, Angus. Early American Soil thorough account of soil conservation Conservationists. USDA Miscellaneous activities and plans in the late 1930s.) Publication No. 449, Washington, D.C.: Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Depart- Brink, Wellington. Big Hugh, The Father of ment of Agriculture, 1941, reprinted Soil Conservation. New York: Macmillan, 1986. (The contributions of Americans to 1951. (A popular biography.) soil conservation before the beginning of the 20th century soil conservation Hardin, Charles M. The Politics of Agri- movement.) culture: Soil Conservation and the Struggle for Power in R ural America. Morgan, Robert J. Governing Soil Conser- Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1952. vation: Thirty Years of the New Decen- (Early history of SCS and the political tralization. Baltimore, Maryland: John struggles.) Hopkins University Press, 1965. (Very thorough on legislative history, political Held, R. Burnell and Clawson, Marion. Soil struggles, growth of districts, and Agri- Conservation in Perspective. Baltimore, cultural Conservation Program.) Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 1967. (Reviews the results of Parks, W. Robert. Soil Conservation Dis- thirty years of soil conservation activi- tricts in Action. Ames: Iowa State Col- ties.) lege Press, 1952. (An account of the status and operation of districts in the Homes, Beatrice Hort. A History of Federal late 1940s and early 1950s. but not a Water Resources Program, 1900-1960. history of the district movement.) . USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 1233. Washington, D.C.: Economic Sam pson,R. Neil. Farmland or Wasteland: A Research Service, U.S. Department of Time To Choose. Emmaus, Pennsylvania: Agriculture, 1972. Rodale Press, 1981. (Includes a chapter on the history of public programs in ------. History of Federal Water addition to its thorough treatment of the Resources Programs and Policies, 1961 - current situation.) 1970. USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 1379. Washington, D.C.: Agriculture, ------. For Love of the Land; A His- 1979. (Includes a chapter on P.L. 566, tory of the National Association of Small Watershed Program. The earlier Conservation Districts. League City, volume includes information on the Texas: National Association of Con- eleven authorized projects and the 1936 servation Districts, 1985. Flood Control Act.) Simms, D. Harper. The Soil Conservation Service. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970. (A good general history of SCS up to 1970.)

f? U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1992 625-708160587