Hugh Hammond Bennett and the Creation of the Soil Conservation Service, September 19, 1933 – April 27, 1935

Historical Insights Number 9

March 2010

Douglas Helms National Historian

Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA Washington, D.C.

SUMMARY the soil conservation work on a This article is a continuation of the permanent basis. The pending expi- historical developments discussed in ration of SES’s emergency employ- “Hugh Hammond Bennett and the ment funding in June 1935 gave an Creation of the Soil Erosion Serv- air of urgency to legislation for a ice,” Journal of Soil and Water Con- permanent agency. Finally, drought servation, Vol. 6, No. 2 (March- in the Great Plains and dust clouds April, 2009): 68A-74A, and in sweeping eastward to the federal “Hugh Hammond Bennett and the city dramatically demonstrated the Creation of the Soil Erosion Serv- need for soil conservation. ice,” NRCS Historical Insights Num- ber 8, September 2008. ARRIVAL IN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR The article discusses the events of Hugh Hammond Bennett’s appoint- September 19, 1933, to April 27, ment as director of the Soil Erosion 1935, during which time Hugh Service (SES) became effective Hammond Bennett and colleagues September 19, 1933, and he moved in the Soil Erosion Service estab- to Department of the Interior offices lished demonstration projects. The in the Winder Building, 600 17th young agency weathered questions Street, N.W. In taking his leave about their authority to work on pri- from the Department of Agriculture, vate lands. The U. S. Department of Bennett wrote to thank Assistant Agriculture and state agricultural Secretary of Agriculture Rexford institutions argued that this work Tugwell for all the “interest you belonged in USDA. Throughout the have taken in my behalf in connec- controversies the cadre of soil con- tion with the erosion program.” servationists won approval in the Bennett also reported on assem- countryside and thereby built sup- bling the Soil Erosion Service staff. port in Congress for expansion of He had written to Walter Lowder- milk inviting him to join the new Douglas Helms is the National Historian for the Natural Resources Conservation Service. He service. Tugwell met Lowdermilk in thanks Patricia J. Lawrence, Paul F. Reich, and California and had recommended Samuel R. Stalcup for their assistance. him to Bennett.1 Just as he had

done with Secretary Wallace, mists, and soils scientists had also Bennett asked Tugwell for the assis- “obtained basic information that we tance of some erosion experiment should have had 75 years ago...” station directors to start demonstra- Yet Bennett firmly believed much tion projects. This first request was more could have been achieved ex- for the assistance of Dr. H. V. Geib cept for the tensions between the of the Blackland Station, Texas; G. BCS agronomists and BAE agricul- W. Musgrave, Missouri Valley Sta- tural engineers. The latter had kept tion, Iowa; W. A. Rookie, Pacific up “an almost running attack of Northwest Station, Washington; R. criticism of this or that agronomic E. Uhland, Missouri Station; and R. experiment installed at my direc- H. Davis of Upper Mississippi Valley tion.” At the most extreme he said Station, Wisconsin. some of his opponents held that “erosion can be controlled by ter- Bennett also tried to convince Tug- races and only by terraces.”2 well to correct a situation that had vexed him since the creation of the A North Carolinian, Bennett knew erosion experiment stations - terraces had been used in the South namely joint supervisions of a num- for a century and that the Mangum ber of stations. He built his case by terrace, developed by a North Caro- recounting the recent history of the lina farmer, had been in use for a soil conservation movement. half-century. He conceded the Bennett had been the driving force benefits of terracing on gentle behind securing the Buchanan slopes where the soils were not Amendment in 1929 to fund soil erodible. Bennett placed the em- erosion experiment stations. How- phasis, however, on vegetation and ever, the Chief of the Bureau of soil tilth. He opined to Tugwell, “soil Chemistry and Soils included the erosion control on cultivated land is Forest Service and Bureau of Agri- essentially an agronomic problem.” cultural Engineering as operators of He urged Tugwell to place supervi- some stations. The Forest Service sion of all of the erosion experiment operated stations alone, while the stations exclusively under the Bu- Bureau of Chemistry and Soils reau of Chemistry and Soils.3 (BCS) and the Bureau of Agricul- tural Engineering (BAE) jointly su- As director of SES, Bennett began pervised some stations. As Bennett implementing the plan that he had wrote to Tugwell, “… out of that earlier presented to Secretary of In- move a tremendous amount of grief terior Harold Ickes on September has originated.” 16, 1933. He thought the most effective results could be achieved if Bennett thought that the Forest the demonstration projects worked Service had achieved results, “all of in large areas, preferably complete which we have appreciated as much watersheds of 25,000 to 300,000 as they.” The engineers, agrono- acres. The projects should be

aligned with watershed boundaries Thus, nearby Coon Creek was des- so as to show the cumulative effects ignated project number 1 in No- of soil conservation, including “flood vember and by January 1934, pro- prevention.” Bennett intentionally ject number 10, the Navajo Project, used the term “flood prevention” to was established. The original distinguish this result from struc- $5,000,000 had been allocated at tural “flood control.” Furthermore, this point. he believed that, “The probability is that these effects are going to be About two months after arriving in much greater than any one has the Department of the Interior, supposed.”4These projects would be Bennett beseeched Ickes for funds located in approximately 20 regional to establish another 12 or 13 pro- soil erosion areas that Bennett had jects in additional to the 12 projects identified. There were already 12 to which the initial $5,000,000 had soil erosion experiment stations in been allocated. Five or six of the these regions, and now he proposed projects would be devoted to re- to add the action, or demonstration, search, the others being on the phase of the plan. demonstrational models. To bolster his arguments, Bennett told Ickes The first projects would be near the that “Dr. Tugwell of the Department experiment stations where the di- of Agriculture and others have sug- rectors of the stations could imple- gested that the Soil Erosion Service ment the lessons learned from the look into the probability of obtaining experiments. The station directors additional funds for erosion-control would have to locate a nearby wa- projects….”5 Unquestionably, tershed where a significant number Bennett also wanted to expand the of farmers showed an inclination to program. A serious question re- sign an agreement and work with mained as to whether there were the new Service. A staff consisting sufficient specialists with the inter- of some combination of agronomist, est and experience in soil conserva- soil scientist, engineer, economist, tion to staff the projects. After some and biologist would be assembled to inquires, Bennett believed he could implement the project; and depend- enlist qualified staff. Most of the ing on the location a forester or proposed projects would be outside range specialist would be included. the agricultural regions covered by Most of the watershed-based pro- the soil erosion experiment stations. jects took the name of the water The conservation methods would body and were numbered sequen- have to be determined as work tially. Raymond H. Davis superin- commenced. The second tendent of the Upper Mississippi $5,000,000 became available in Valley station at La Crosse, Wiscon- March 1934. SES established an- sin, was the first experiment station other 14 projects by late April 1934, director to secure the cooperation of at which time the second farmers in a nearby watershed. $5,000,000 had been allocated.6

Chief Hugh H. Bennett, Mrs. Bennett, and regional conservator A.E. McClymonds view conservation work on the Frank Milsna farm, Manske Ridge on the Coon Creek Demonstration Project in Vernon County, Wisconsin, October 25, 1946 (Wis-1178, NRCS, Madison, Wisconsin) 7 Since the initial funding of the Serv- did so. Wanting to provide immedi- ice, the emphasis in New Deal ate employment for the winter, emergency work programs had CWA established strict criteria. Pro- shifted. Bennett submitted this re- jects must be ready to put the un- quest to Ickes in mid-November, employed to work in 15 days and and the Civil Works Administration the projects had to be finished by (CWA) had been established on No- February 15. New SES demonstra- vember 9. The CWA reflected Presi- tion projects could not meet this dent Roosevelt’s (FDR) preference schedule.8 for work relief over direct unemployment relief. As unemployment Bennett explained the situation to threatened to rise in the winter of Ickes and pointed to the urgent 1933-1934, Harry Hopkins pre- need as demonstrated by the many sented FDR with a plan to pay for requests arriving daily by “letter, CWA out of the Public Works Ad- telegraph, long distance telephone ministration funds. The mission of and delegations,” for additional pro- the CWA was to provide employ- jects. He recounted the destruction ment and to provide it quickly. erosion had wrought and made his Ickes suggested that Bennett con- plea. “We simply can not afford to tact Hopkins about funding the ad- lose this most indispensible asset of ditional SES projects, and Bennett the country, but we will lose it un-

less vastly more is done from now Service. The 8,200,000 acre pro- on than ever has been done along ject, mainly in the upper Gila River the line of conserving good agricul- watershed, was second in size only tural land.”9Bennett saw no other to the 16 million acre Navajo Pro- alternative than to seek another al- ject.11 location from the Public Works Ad- ministration appropriation. Soon SES would no longer have CWA funds due to yet another shift Once again Bennett was persuasive. in New Deal work relief policy in Ickes, however, needed the Presi- 1934. Despite the plight of the un- dent’s approval. Within the week, employed, work relief had not been Ickes was scheduled to join FDR at universally accepted in the country- his Warm Springs, Georgia, retreat side or in Congress. Within the New and would seek his approval there. Deal administration, opponents of The President granted the additional deficit spending for work relief, es- $5,000,000 with the stipulation, in pecially FDR’s budget director, in- Ickes words, that “the work to be veighed against it. FDR, at least paid out of this sum not to start un- temporarily, relented, closed CWA, til the C. C. C. camps move north and transferred the remaining funds next spring.”10The statement about to the Emergency Work Relief Pro- the Civilian Conservation Corps gram of the Federal Emergency Re- (CCC) camps was important in that lief Administration (FERA). A critical it signified that President Roosevelt result of the demise of CWA and re- expected SES to use corps enrol- invigoration of FERA was that FERA lees. only financed state-initiated projects, not federally initiated and While new demonstration projects controlled projects.12 would not be established with CWA funds, the short-lived agency sup- As CWA closed its door, Bennett plied a great many workers for SES turned to FERA with his case for as- projects during winter and spring sistance for soil conservation. FERA, 1934. They were instrumental in created by the Federal Emergency what was perhaps SES’s first large- Relief Act of May 12, 1933, provided scale foray into dam building. Pro- money to states to hire the unem- ject number 25, the Gila Project in ployed. Harry Hopkins continued Arizona, was a new type of work for as FERA administrator during the SES. SES built thousands of dams time he also headed the CWA. SES or water retarding structures of staff prepared a plan requesting varying sizes on the tributaries to FERA labor for established demon- reduce floods and store sediments. stration projects, but was told that This type of upstream flood control all projects needed approval by would become prevalent after Con- each FERA state administrator. After gress assigned flood control the initial rebuff, Ickes advised authorities to the Soil Conservation Bennett to meet personally with

Hopkins. While Hopkins seemed At any rate, I was informed sympatric, he deferred to his staff, by Dr. Tugwell the President felt that the best way to at- who would not deviate from the pol- tack the program was to se- icy that all projects had to be state- lect representative water- 13 initiated. sheds in various parts of the country, and on these carry The news would only get worse. through a complete, impressive job of erosion control, Bennett began to receive letters such as would arouse the from his field staff that some states land owners of the country to were gearing up for FERA-funded the practical possibilities, not terracing efforts. The complex of only of directly curbing ero- land-grant colleges, state agricul- sion, but through this control reduce the hazards of floods tural experiment stations, and state and silting of stream chan- extension services usually applied nels and reservoirs. Accord- for these projects. The development ingly, the strictly engineering had echoes of the conflicts leading proposal was laid aside and up to the creation of the Soil Ero- this complete, correct land- use and land-protective pro- sion Service. Bennett felt it was gram which the Soil Erosion time to inform the Secretary, lest Service is now engaged in the growth of disparate state FERA- was adopted. There is no funded terracing only projects un- question about the success dermine the national soil conserva- of this present program, if it is not undermined in the tion effort. He recounted to Ickes, manner mentioned above.14 as follows, the persuasive case that had been made for setting up SES: In late 1934, Bennett was also becoming concerned that the Forest When the matter of the use of Public Works funds for Service seemed to be expanding its erosion control first came to soil erosion camps. By September my attention it was pre- 1934, there were 161 such camps sented as a program essen- whose work was actually planned tially identical with this pre- and supervised by the state agricul- sent proposed program of FERA. Dr. Tugwell asked me tural agencies. Bennett wanted SES what I thought of it. I told to direct these camps and called him frankly what I am briefly upon Rexford Tugwell and E. K. telling you in this memoran- Burlew, special assistant to Secre- dum, giving him the proof of tary Ickes, to assist in advancing the futility of any such sin- 15 gle-track method of under- this effort. taking to control a great national problem involving nu- The origins of these camps lay in merous variables, such as the need to locate CCC camps east soil, slope, type of agricul- of the Rocky Mountains. While there ture, and rainfall. I think he discussed the matter with was support for CCC investments in you and that you or he dis- federal lands, the potential for in- cussed it with the President. vesting public funds on private

lands was not met by some with en- land to the governors in May 1933. thusiasm. During the deliberations Concern about the public's objec- over the act creating the CCC, offi- tions to expenditures of federal cially the Emergency Conservation funds on private lands caused some Work, Robert Y. Stuart, chief of the of Roosevelt's reservations. He con- Forest Service, asked that state and tinued to warn Fechner that too private land also be made eligible as much work on private land would work areas. Otherwise, enrollees bring criticism. Also, Roosevelt, like from the East would have to be many of his contemporaries, too of- transported west of the Rocky ten thought soil conservation re- Mountains, where 95 percent of the quired shifting cropland to woodland public domain lay. Stuart's argu- and was unfamiliar with the many ment was persuasive in part. The conservation practices that could be Act for the Relief of Unemployment installed on cropland with CCC la- allowed soil erosion control work on bor. But he also had to heed the state and federal land, but re- calls for a full share of CCC camps stricted work on private land to ac- in those states with small public tivities already authorized under land holdings. Thus, Roosevelt U.S. laws, such as controlling fire, asked Fechner and Wallace to grant disease, and pests in forests and requests for soil erosion control "such work as is necessary in the camps. public interest to control floods." On the day Roosevelt signed the bill, Within USDA, the Forest Service Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. administered the erosion camps Wallace wired each governor to similarly to its state and private for- send a representative to Washing- estry work. Under signed agree- ton to discuss cooperation on for- ments, personnel from state agen- estry work. He also mentioned the cies and land grant colleges actually flood control work and surmised operated the camps. CCC efforts that it "probably [included] control followed soil erosion control guide- of soil erosion."16 lines established by USDA that limited work to "controlling gullies by President Roosevelt and other New means of soil-saving dams, forest Dealers remained concerned about planting and vegetation." Gradually the appearance of spending public the concept was extended to in- money on private land. He told a clude construction of terrace out- USDA representative that he lets. This was hardly the approach wanted CCC work on erosion and utilizing agronomic and other inte- flood control directed to solving grated methods that Bennett envi- flooding problems over broad areas sioned. While still in USDA, Bennett rather than benefiting an individual advised the Forest Service on work parcel of land. CCC Director Robert of the soil erosion camps.17 Fechner reiterated the president's reservations about work on private

When Bennett moved to the De- PUBLIC LAND DEMONSTRATION partment of the Interior he tried to PROJECTS have the soil erosion CCC camps The resolve of John Collier, Com- transferred to SES. SES did acquire missioner of Indian Affairs, to im- the aid of some CCC camps when prove the land conditions on the they moved north in the spring of Navajo Reservation had led him to 1934 as the President had stipu- Hugh Hammond Bennett in mid- lated. Ickes forwarded SES’s re- 1933. After the Navajo Council ap- quested for 53 camps, or approxi- proved the plan proposed by mately two camps per demonstra- Bennett, work began immediately tion project, to Robert Fechner, di- on the research station at Mexican rector of the Emergency Conserva- Springs, New Mexico. After SES was tion Work in February 1934.18 Fech- created in the Department of the ner assigned 22 camps to SES on Interior, Bennett established the 16 April 1, 1934. Simultaneously SES million acre Navajo Project in the was losing the labor of Civil Works first group of projects. To augment Administration workers, which was the work being done on the Navajo available from December 15, 1933, Project, Bennett also proposed a Rio to May 1, 1934. By June 1934 an- Grande Demonstration Project that other 29 CCC camps, including included both public and private some dedicated to drought-relief, land. Much of the valuable private would be assigned to SES--making land was in the Rio Grande River a total of 51. CWA and CCC labor drainage. Except for the Zuni gave SES a persuasive tool in work- Pueblo, the Rio Grande River ing with farmers. drained all of New Mexico’s Pueblo Indian lands. Spanish villages dot- Demonstration projects would help ted the Rio Grande and its tributar- to control gullies, fence and estab- ies north of Albuquerque. The ear- lish pastures, build terrace outlets liest villages predated the English and lay out contour stripcropping settlement at Jamestown. Rectan- rows. Despite this boost to gular fields lay perpendicular to the Bennett’s program, SES faced sev- streams giving all farmers access to eral unforeseen threats in the sec- the water. Over three centuries the ond half of 1934. The issues re- strips narrowed as heirs subdivided volved around SES’s authority to the land. Planning for the project work on private land, expenditures would take into account “the human for fencing, and the growing terrac- factors involved in the Spanish and ing program funded out of the Indian civilizations.” SES would hire FERA. These interrelated issues anthropologists to study how to roiled simultaneously in the second most effectively bring conservation half of 1934. to the Spanish villages. The need to understand the human aspects in order to make conservation effective led to the original studies that

are the foundation of applied an- need for soil conservation and pre- thropology in the United States.19 dicted future trouble if changes The Rio Grande was the 34th pro- were not made in land use and ject established, and another six farming practices. The New York would be added by the time SES Times quoted him on Mary 14, as was transferred to USDA, although saying, "Now, we have the evil with a number of projects were never us on an enormous scale, and the fully implemented or were projects nation may as well gird tightly its in name only and not actual demon- belt for a continuing battle against stration projects. The Tennessee this process of land wasting, that is Valley Authority Project, number 8, if we are to avoid the eventuality of was never fully implemented since becoming probably the world's most the Authority chose to work with outstanding nation of subsoil farm- farmers through the state agricul- ing-which of course generally tural institutions rather than SES. means bankrupt farming on bank- Projects numbered 23 and 24 were rupt land.”20 In the future when dis- actually the national soil erosion cussing the edifying aspect of that surveys headquartered at Pennsyl- storm, Bennett quickly reiterated vania State College and Cornell Uni- that it was SES which “centered at- versity, and while they were imple- tention not only upon the cause, but mented they were not demonstra- upon the cure of these destructive tion projects in collaboration with phenomena.”21 It went without say- farmers. ing that Bennett was the agency’s primary spokesman. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR THE SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS In May 1934, as Bennett publicized The dust storms of 1933 were local- the dust storms in the press, he ized in the Southern Great Plains, also moved to set up a demonstra- but in 1934 a large dust cloud as- tion project in the yet to be named cended over the plains. Carried by dust bowl. At Bennett’s request, Dr. the westerly winds, it was to attract H. V. Geib the regional director at national attention. On May 11, the Blacklands erosion experiment 1934, it swept fine soil particles station in Temple, Texas, submitted over Washington, D.C., and 300 a plan for a 16 square mile demon- miles out into the Atlantic Ocean. stration project. Bennett forwarded Bennett seized the opportunity to the plan to Ickes for approval and explain the cause and offer the so- made the case to Ickes thusly: lution. Confidently, he touted the

Navajo CCC workers build a diversion. Tuba City, Arizona (75N-Nav-296 National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, Maryland)

None of the original demonstration

If the project could be put projects had been located in the over successfully, as I be- area that would become known as lieve it can, we would have demonstrated that wind ero- the “Dust Bowl.” In fact Bennett’s sion can be successfully con- 1933 regional erosion map, com- trolled, and will have pointed piled before wind erosion swept the the way to the prevention of area, had not included the area of this phenomenon which is so the coming Dust Bowl. In the late seriously affecting the agricultural and grazing lands of 1920s as Bennett worked with the the western Mississippi Val- states to select sites for erosion ex- ley. periment stations they established one at Guthrie, north of Oklahoma Bennett did not ask for additional City, to serve the “red plains.” Cot- funds and believed that the $35,000 ton growing was the primary cause needed could be scraped together of erosion in the area. The demon- out of existing SES funds. Without stration project at Stillwater Creek, delay, Ickes approved the project on the edge of the “red plains,” was on May 29.22 in the first group of projects estab-

lished. One of Bennett’s respected jects. However, Bennett’s Soil Ero- allies from the early soil conserva- sion Service had a key hurdle to tion movement, Nathaniel Winters overcome – work on private land of the nearby Oklahoma A. M. Col- complicated the situation. Many lege, directed it. Following Ickes people supported CCC and WPA approval, Bennett enlisted H. H. work on national parks, national Finnell, then director of Panhandle forests, public buildings, roads and AM Experiment Station at Goodwell, other public infrastructure. Such Oklahoma, to establish the demon- work seemed a clear-cut case of stration project at Dalhart, Texas. spending public funds for public benefits. FDR, and Ickes to an even ISSUE OF WORK ON PRIVATE greater extent, feared the negative LANDS perceptions that could accompany Accomplishments at the demonstra- the expense of public funds for pri- tion projects were impressive, cre- vate benefit. Thus the proposed ating a clamor for additional pro- work of the Soil Erosion Service on

private farmland came under scru- how....I am so deadly in ear- tiny. More so than the use of WPA nest about the absolute ne- cessity of carrying on this and CCC labor, government pur- work as a matter of vital na- chases of supplies used on farms tional economy….24 were examined closely. One of the triumphs of the soil conservation By mid-May 1934 the Solicitor of movement under Bennett would be the Department ruled that the work the public acceptance of soil con- on privately owned land was legal. servation as a public benefit and The imbroglio was settled, at least worthy of the expense of public temporarily, just as the dust storm funds. This concept was not uni- of May 11 reached the east coast, versally accepted in the early New bringing with it more attention to Deal. soil erosion. Nonetheless Ickes wanted work restricted as much as Ickes disliked his moniker, “Honest possible to public lands.25 Harold,” but it indeed correctly characterized his aversion to the ac- Later in 1934 Ickes became tuality or perception of the misuse alarmed over the issue of fencing. of public funds. In April 1934, Ickes In late October 1934 he ordered notified Bennett of ”grave doubt” Bennett to stop expenditures “on concerning the amount of money fences or other improvements….” spent on and the policy of working However, expenditures were per- on private lands. He directed mitted on “the plantings or materi- Bennett to make no further com- als necessary to prevent or correct mitments for work on private actual erosion itself.”26 Bennett ex- 23 land. The instruction shocked plained to Ickes that fences were Bennett. The legislation funding SES needed to protect the vegetation has seemed clear on the issue. In while the gullies were being stabi- appealing to Ickes he used the ex- lized. They were also essential to ample of public funds for soil sur- the land use adjustments on indi- veys made on private lands. Land- vidual farms. The demonstration owners could then use the informa- projects had been placed in crop- tion for private benefit. While assur- land areas with severe erosion and ing Ickes that his instructions would where a major objective was the be followed, he made the case that conversion of cropland to pasture. Federal work on private land was He elaborated as follows: critical to halting soil erosion, and made his case thusly: If there were any possible way in which we could in- Private land owners could duce the farmers to con- not carry through the neces- struct the necessary fencing, sary educational, demonstra- I would agree that they tional and experimental should do so. The simple fact work, even if they had the is that on most of our areas funds. They do not know the farmers are so poor that they cannot possibly afford

to bear all the expense of when not exasperated by it. Yet he such construction. Prelimi- was determined that his steward- nary results obtained from economic surveys indicate ship of the Department of the Inte- that in many instances farm rior would not be tainted by misuse incomes are as low as $100 of funds or corruption. He appointed per family per year and that a Special Committee on Soil Erosion generally incomes are as- to advise him on future policy, in- toundingly low. Under these circumstances, it is impossi- cluding the private lands issue. ble to persuade cooperating Ward Shepard, a professional for- farmers to construct fences ester, chaired the committee. After at their own expense and at a long career in the Forest Service, the same time to remove Shepard was hired by John Collier from agricultural use the areas being fenced, thus re- to assist in the reform of the Bureau ducing their apparent in- of Indian Affairs. Another commit- comes.27 tee member was Charles F. Shaw, a professor of soil science at the Uni- To placate Ickes, Bennett proposed versity of California and former em- a clause in the cooperative agree- ployee of the Bureau of Soils. Shaw ment stating that ”all fence materi- co-wrote the 1905 soil survey of als provided to the Cooperator at Robertson County, Texas, with the expense of the Government un- Bennett. der this Agreement will remain the property of the United States, which During the committee’s delibera- reserves the right to remove such tions, Bennett received an inquiry materials when they have served from Fred E. Schnepfe, Director of their purpose….” In the interest of the Planning and Federal Projects promoting the conversion of crop- Division of the Federal Emergency land to pasture, SES supplied seed Administration of Public Works, as and fertilizer. Bennett tried to head to why SES had not reached their off this issue by advising field staff assigned goal of hiring 5,000 work- to keep these purchase to the ers. Bennett immediately brought minimum “necessary for effective this contradiction to Ickes’s atten- and complete demonstrations.” Pro- tion. SES was going to have to lay ject directors should make the point off workers due to the private land that expenditures on private land ruling, while another arm of gov- were for demonstrations and educa- ernment demanded more public tional purposes rather than direct employment.29 Through special as- aid to landowners.28 sistant E. K. Burlew, Ickes asked Bennett's forbearance and ex- SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON SOIL plained his thinking. He wrote to EROSION Burlew as follows: Ickes was conflicted. He wanted the soil conservation work to succeed I wonder if you can persuade and admired Bennett’s persistence Bennett to let me alone until we have had a report from

CCC enrollees building fences. Camp SCS-NC-5, Yanceyville, North Carolina. 35G No.287 (National Ar- chives and Records Administration, College Park, Maryland)

the men who are surveying In transmitting the report, Shepard his Division? I don't want to referred to Bennett’s “magnificent hold up any work that he can legitimately do and I don't work” as a brilliant opportunity for want him to have to lay men the beginning of a permanent at- off, but, on the other hand, I tack on soil erosion….” The oppor- don't want to permit the use tunity should be seized. The com- of public funds for improper mittee strongly endorsed Bennett’s purposes. I wish there were some way of getting the an- comprehensive approach. The CCC swer to this whole question and Federal Emergency Relief Ad- as soon as possible because ministration should provide labor if he is on the right track, he and not operate their own pro- ought to be permitted to go grams. Finally Shepard offered a ahead. 30 rebuke to his former employer when The committee issued a preliminary he wrote, “the Forest Service, in report that work on private land developing a large CCC erosion con- was legal and necessary. Solicitors trol project on private lands, is getting completely outside the domain of USDI and USDA had already 31 ruled that work on private lands of forestry.” was permissible. The committees’ full report recommended that new With the preliminary report of the projects be limited to 25,000 acres Soil Erosion Committee in hand, and that the Soil Erosion Service be Bennett and colleagues recom- transferred to USDA. mended another seven projects to

Ickes for funding in late December lation that provided for soil conser- 1934. The projects were drawn vation and authorized the President from over 100 applications and to coordinate the soil conservation most fell within the 25,000-acre activities of all Federal agencies. limitation recommended by the Since Richberg knew that the insti- committee. Ickes approved the pro- tutional location of the SES was un- jects on January 7, 1935, while the der discussion, he arranged a meet- funding was set to expire in June ing with the President. FDR and 1935, the second anniversary of the Richberg met on February 9, and passage of the National Industrial Richberg left believing that FDR had Recovery Act. These projects would told him that all Federal soil erosion have only a six month lifespan un- work should be consolidated in less something was done to give USDA.35 Given the President's deci- SES new life.32 sion, Richberg sought the advice of USDA on the legality of the pro- TRANSFER TO USDA posed legislation. Seth Thomas, So- With SES funding due to expire in licitor of USDA, concluded that the June 1935, discussion of the future President, by executive order, could of SES accelerated. Wallace and not consolidate all Federal soil ero- Ickes exchanged letters arguing sion control activities in USDA. Leg- over the transfer of SES to USDA. islation would be required. The The President brought up the possi- President could, however, by execu- bility of such a transfer at a Cabinet tive order, transfer the Soil Erosion meeting in early March. Ickes ob- Service to USDA. Secretary Wallace jected and thought he would have concurred.36 an opportunity to make his case be- Allocation of CCC camps for the fifth fore the President took any action. enrollment period, April 1 - Sep- At a later meeting, also in March, tember 30, 1935, added another Ickes left believing he had the element of urgency to the decision President’s approval to draft legisla- about SES’s future. Walter Lowder- tion to create a permanent soil con- milk, SES’s assistant director and servation agency in Interior and to who handled CCC matters, had re- have that legislation introduced by quested 533 camps. Director Rob- Congressional allies.33 Ickes was al- ert Fechner on March 9 allocated ready receiving requests from Con- 570 units for the Soil Erosion Serv- gress for assistance in drafting leg- ice but pending “the decision of the islation. Bennett, Lowdermilk and President as to the manner in which the Department of the Interior’s le- Soil Erosion Work is to be super- gal staff were working on legisla- vised in the future.”37 tion.34 DUST STORM OVER EAST COAST Ickes forwarded to Donald Richberg, A yellow haze appeared over Wash- Executive Director of the National ington before noon on Wednesday, Emergency Council, proposed legis- March 6. The Weather Bureau re-

ported that pilots observed thick dust at 8,000 feet elevation above Bolling Field, south of the Capitol. Bennett turned his pen to the event and explained the source of the dust to readers of the Washington Post’s Sunday edition. Employing his descriptive powers, Bennett wrote “To Washington and the ur- ban East last week came a grim and graphic reminder of calamity in the rural West. Tons of dirt—topsoil from the wind-swept fields of Kan- sas, Colorado, Texas, and Okla- homa—appeared suddenly in the sky above the cities of the Atlantic seaboard, hovered pall-like for a day, and then passed slowly on to be dissipated somewhere over the ocean.”38 Thursday, the day after the dust Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes storm, Henry Wallace wrote to the (208-PU-98K-6, National Archives and Records President trying to prompt a deci- Administration, College Park, Maryland) sion. Earlier that week House Agri- culture Committee Chair, Marvin Soil Erosion Service is excellent but Jones had telephoned the Secretary it is largely agricultural ….” Were it saying he was prepared to introduce to remain in Interior, eventually a bill to create a permanent soil there would be political difficulties conservation agency in the Depart- with the agricultural establishment. ment of Agriculture. Jones wanted Wallace told the President that to be in step with the President’s Ickes probably recognized these re- plans, and asked Wallace’s guid- alities but regarded SES as “good ance. Jones, who had been chair- trading stock” in his plan to create a man of the House Committee of Ag- Department of Conservation that riculture since March 1931, repre- would include the national forests, sented Amarillo in the Texas pan- then under the Forest Service in handle, the area soon to be dubbed USDA. the “dust bowl” by a Washington journalist. Wallace asked Jones to Wallace concluded with an appeal to delay while he consulted the Presi- avoid disruption in the President’s dent. larger agenda:

Wallace essentially made the argu- I know you don’t want any fights within your family and ment to FDR that the “work of the I am sure that I don’t want

any disagreement within the Chair of the Emergency Council, progressive segment of the Bennett was asked to go in to see family; nevertheless, I am certain that inasfar as the the President. Department of Interior deals with agricultural matters and The President said numerous re- with farmers, there is likely quests were coming to him to trans- to be eventual serious trou- fer SES to the Department of Agri- ble.39 culture. FDR implied that this ac-

quisitiveness by others was surely FDR read the letter on Friday, March the best endorsement of the quality 8, and appended the following note of SES’s work. The President in- for the assistant secretary in charge quired whether Bennett was averse of appointments, Marvin McIntyre: to transferring to USDA. Upon re-

I want to see Mr. Bennett of turning to his office, Bennett, his the Soil Erosion Service. memory fresh, recounted the con- Make an appointment for versation in a memorandum to Monday for me and I want to Ickes. have this to take up with him 40 when he comes. My replies to questions asked in this connection were much BENNETT’S MEETING WITH FDR in line with those which I re- Evidently McIntyre did not give cently made to you; namely, that we had made great pro- Bennett notice of the meeting on gress in the Department of Friday or over the weekend. the Interior, we had been Bennett’s article on the dust storm treated nicely, were satisfied appeared in the Sunday edition of to remain in the Department the Washington Post, March 10. and that you had taken great pains to help us. In answer Late on the morning of Monday, to the question as to whether March 11, Bennett received a call I had any strong objection to from the office of Marvin McIntyre the Department of Agricul- to come to the White House pre- ture, my reply was to the ef- pared to discuss the allocation of fect that I had no antipathy toward that Department, but Civilian Conservation Corps camps I did suggest that in case it to SES. Walter Lowdermilk had de- should be decided that the veloped the recent request for 533 Soil Erosion Service would be camps that had been submitted to transferred to that Depart- Robert Fechner, director of the ment it was my feeling that those parts of various orga- Emergency Conservation Work. nizations carrying on direct Since Lowdermilk knew the details erosion control work should of the camp request, Bennett asked be transferred to the Soil if Lowdermilk could accompany him. Erosion Service.”41 The two had only a short time to gather up a few maps and rush to FDR did not tell Bennett what he the White House. After discussing planned to do, nor did he act imme- this matter with Donald Richberg diately. Tugwell confided in his diary

that at their March 14 meeting, FDR Interior, the staff notified Ickes, pledged to write a letter to Ickes who was reviewing the Seminole that afternoon; yet he delayed.42 Reservation in South Florida. On Events in Congress eventually March 21, Secretary Ickes sent a nudged FDR into action. Marvin telegram to the President pleading Jones kept his pledge to Wallace not his case and reminding the Presi- to introduce his bill, favorable to dent of the pledge of a personal USDA, until the President had made hearing before the final decision a decision. Others, however, were was made. He wrote, “Notwith- not waiting. Congressman John C. standing your memorandum on this Nichols of Oklahoma, Congressman subject I hope that I may be heard John J. Dempsey of New Mexico, on this subject before final order is Congresswoman Isabella S. Green- entered.44 Roosevelt would not re- way of Arizona, introduced H. R. lent, but offered an explanation. “I 6432, H. R. 6439 and H.. R. 6440, would certainly have waited in the respectively, to create a soil con- matter of the Soil Erosion Bureau servation agency. except for the fact that a very diffi- cult situation started to come to a DUST STORM OVER THE CAPI- head on the Hill.”45 TOL AND CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS As the hearings on the soil conser- On March 20, 1935, hearings on the vation bills opened, the wind ero- proposed legislation commenced in sion season of 1935, February a Subcommittee of the House of through April, was in full force. A Representatives’ Committee on telegram from Frank L. Duley, di- Public Lands. On the 20th, the open- rector of the demonstration project ing day of the hearings, FDR wrote at Mankato, Kansas, to the SES to Ickes announcing his decision. Washington office announced that True to his word, the President as- “Dust storms (are an) almost daily sured Ickes that Bennett had not occurrence in Western Kansas.”46 initiated this meeting. He wrote: The 1935 blow season proved to be "Mr. Bennett is most appreciative of the worst of the thirties drought. On the splendid cooperation which he March 20, the day a dust storm has had from the Department of the swept over Kansas, Roosevelt’s fu- Interior, and I want to make it per- ture Presidential challenger, Gover- fectly clear to you that he has not in nor Alf Landon, telegrammed FDR any shape, manner or form, advo- asking for Federal assistance and cated a transfer of the Soil Erosion declaring, “This catastrophe is of Service to the Department of Agri- such size and importance that it is culture.” The President had decided more than the problem of a single that as a matter of “function” the state.”47 Soon Landon would be in Soil Erosion Service belonged in Washington to organize support of USDA.43 When the hand-carried let- the Congressional delegation from ter arrived at the Department of the the Plains states for a relief pro-

gram. The storm on March 20 re- Bennett opened his testimony with duced visibility in Kansas City to a discussion of the clouds that two blocks. The Kansas highway pa- passed over Washington on May 11, trol stopped traffic to prevent acci- 1934 and March 6, 1935. The tran- dents. The storm crossed Kansas at script for March 21 makes no note an estimated 35 miles an hour and of the arrival of the dust cloud, but crossed the Mississippi River at arrive it did. The center passed Quincy, Illinois, in early evening.48 north of Washington, but it was Heavier soil particles dropped out clearly visible in the Federal City on while the finer particles were carried March 21. The Washington Post re- higher into the faster moving jet ported “Throngs of curious persons, stream. As the cloud swept east- leaving Government offices, ward it appeared higher on the ho- swarmed down the Mall and to Po- rizon, rather than as a darkening tomac Park, where the dust was storm at ground level. visible.”51 Most accounts of events in the hearing room are second- Hearings on the soil conservation hand, based on conservations with bills before a subcommittee of the Bennett. Some of the details and House Committee on Public Lands embellishments conflict with the ac- opened on March 20 with Hugh tual events. There are few first hand Hammond Bennett testifying pri- accounts by Bennett. marily on water erosion. Bennett certainly knew of the dust storm North Carolina State College invited approaching from the Midwest when Bennett to deliver a series of lec- the hearings continued on March tures, near the end of his life. Re- 21. That morning’s Washington Post counting the successful campaign carried an article describing the for a soil conservation agency, he conditions on March 20 in Midwest- recalled, “There were other inci- ern cities. Also, Soil Erosion Service dents, such as the timely arrival of field offices had kept Bennett in- a dust storm during the Committee formed of dust storms by telegram, hearings.”52 He seldom elaborated and had mailed local newspaper ar- in writing and left the door open to ticles to Bennett in Washington.49 confusion. Biographers Jonathan When Bennett resumed his testi- Daniels and Wellington Brink place mony on the second day, March 21, the dust cloud event during hear- he inserted into the record that ings of the Senate Committee on morning’s Washington Post article, Public Lands. The Senate hearings his Post article of March 10 detailing actually were held by the Commit- the March 6 dust cloud over Wash- tee on Agriculture, while the House ington, and other recent newspaper of Representatives hearings were articles from the Midwest and Great held before the Committee on Public Plains cities.50 Lands. The dust cloud of March 20 in the Midwest and its arrival over Washington on March 21 was well

This photo of the Lincoln Memorial shrouded in a dust cloud was likely taken on either March 6 or March 21, 1935. It was taken by Science Service Photographer John Hugh O'Neill and it appeared on the March 30, 1935 cover of "Science News Letter." (114G-c-6001a National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, Maryland) documented in newspapers. Down Pennsylvania Avenue at the Weather observations for the East White House the transfer of SES un- Coast and Washington newspapers folded. The President acted on the did not report a dust cloud over day after the arrival of the dust Washington during the Senate hear- cloud. At noon, March 22, 1935, ings in April 1935.53 Marvin McIntyre telephoned Oscar Chapman, Assistant Secretary of

the Department of the Interior to April 14, 1935, (Black Sunday), the say “The President is instructing you most awesome of the black bliz- to call a special meeting of the Pub- zards, driven by 60-mile-an-hour lic Works Board to pass the resolu- winds, struck without warning. To- tion on the transfer of the Soil Ero- tal darkness prevailed in Dodge sion Service." Chapman protested City, Kansas, for forty minutes. The that the Secretary was out of town, black blizzard traveled the 105 to which McIntyre replied: “Yes, the miles between Boise City, Okla- President knows that.” Chapman of- homa, and Amarillo, Texas, in one fered to get the board together the hour and fifteen minutes. In Guy- next day, only to be told. “Can’t you mon, Oklahoma, the reporter Rob- do it immediately? The President ert Geiger penned an article for the wants it done now, today.” Chap- Washington (D.C.) Evening Star in man called Ickes, asking what to which he used the term “dust bowl.” do. Ickes already knew of the It stuck.56 President’s decision. “You have to do what he tells you,” advised the The Senate debated and passed H. Secretary.54 The Interior staff noti- R. 7054, with the Senate amend- fied the members of a 4:00 PM ments, on April 15. The next day, meeting that day. Later that day Senator William Henry King of Utah the Public Works Board executed made a motion to reconsider. His the transfer order, which FDR objective was to assign the new signed on March 25. agency to the Department of the In- terior. Failing to attract enough The House hearings concluded on support, he withdrew the motion on March 25 and the Committee re- April 19. The House concurred in ported out H. R. 7054 with amend- the Senate amendments on April ments on March 29. After the 23. After Department of Agriculture House debated and passed H. R. officials reviewed the bill, President 7054 on April 1, the Senate Com- Roosevelt signed Public Law 46 of mittee on Agriculture and Forestry the 74th Congress on April 27, held hearings on April 2 and 3, and 1935.57 reported out their amended bill on April 11. The Senate committee CONCLUSION amended the bill by adding the In retrospect, passage of the legis- word “permanently” to the state- lation was hardly a predictable out- ment of policy and included “public come, despite Bennett’s intense de- health” as an objective. Also the sire for such an agency. Consider amendment specified that the the obstacles. The funding was agency would be known as the “Soil temporary and set to expire in June Conservation Service.”55 1935, less than two years after commencement of the work. Labor Meanwhile dust storms kept na- for the projects was uncertain, as tional attention on the plains. On the administration waffled between

their hope that the depression sonality or experience, to persist would end soon and their full em- without alienating others. Faced brace of public employment pro- with an obstacle, he explained and grams. Then there were the com- educated, often in lengthy memo- petitors: the terracing projects un- randa, and did not succumb to der the Federal Emergency Relief burning bridges with those whose Administration, the CCC erosion support he needed or might need in camps of the Forest Service, and the future. Though occasionally ex- the emerging plans of the Agricul- asperated, Ickes learned to admire tural Adjustment Administration to his dedication and relentlessness. add a soil conservation component Bennett was perhaps the only ca- to their price-support programs. reer civil servant, without strong personal social and political ties, to These hurdles were counterbal- create and lead a Federal service. anced in part by Ickes’s support of legislation to create a soil conserva- Finally, passage of legislation was tion agency in his contemplated De- not solely a matter of Washington partment of Conservation. Reflect- maneuvering. Bennett assembled a ing on the early history, Bennett capable staff that was committed to thought it was probably a good idea the soil conservation ideal. Farmers SES got its start in Interior and re- and their Congressional representa- called that Ickes “invariably came to tives liked the demonstration pro- the assistance of his bureaus in ar- jects and requested more. The guments originating outside the De- cause easily elicited Congressional partment.”58 Though Bennett had supporters nationwide. The dust not been Rexford Tugwell’s first clouds sweeping eastward were choice as Director of the Soil Ero- dramatic and lent urgency to the sion Service, he remained a sup- cause of soil conservation, but the porter and advisor who had access intention had always been for a na- to the President as a member of the tional program. Favorable reviews Brain Trust. Bennett’s concept of a in the countryside assured passage comprehensive approach to soil of the legislation. conservation found favor with Tug- well and Secretary of Agriculture 1 J. Douglas Helms, “Walter Lowdermilk’s Wallace. They simply held that the Journey: Forester to Land Conservationists, soil conservation program belonged Environmental History 8 (Summer 1984): 138; Walter Lowdermilk, Walter Clay Low- in USDA and they would support dermilk--Soil, Forest, and Water Conserva- Bennett once he arrived in the De- tion and Reclamation in China, Israel, Af- partment. rica, and the United States, Oral History Collection No. 17 (Berkeley: University of Bennett was the critical element to California Bancroft Library, 1969), 133- 134. the successful creation of a Federal 2 Hugh Hammond Bennett to Rexford G. soil conservation service. He had Tugwell, September 20, 1933, “Erosion,” the ability, whether by dint of per- General Correspondence, Record Group 16,

Records of the Office of the Secretary of Files, RG 48, NARA, College Park, Mary- Agriculture, National Archives and Records land. Administration, College Park, Maryland. 12 Arthur M. Schlesinger, The Coming of the Hereinafter the abbreviation RG for Record New Deal (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Com- Group and NARA for National Archives and pany, 1958), 277-278. Records Administration will be used. After 13 “A Brief Statement of the Cooperative the first use of the record group title, only Activities Carried Out Between the Soil Ero- the record group number will be used. Full sion Service, the Civil Works Administration personal names will be used in the first ci- and the Federal Emergency Relief Admini- tation and thereafter, only the surname will stration,” n. d., File 1-275 File 1-275 Soil be used. Erosion, Central Classified Files, RG 48, 3 Bennett to Tugwell, September 20, 1933, NARA, College Park, Maryland. Erosion,” General Correspondence, RG 16, 14 Bennett to Ickes, September 18, 1934, NARA, College Park, Maryland. File 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified 4 “A Plan for Erosion Control Under the Ero- Files, RG 48, NARA, College Park, Mary- sion Section of the Public Works Admini- land. stration Corporation,” n. d., File 1-275 Soil 15 Bennett to E. K. Burlew, August 11, 1934 Erosion, Central Classified Files, RG 48, Re- and Burlew to Bennett, August 16, 1934, cords of the Office of the Secretary of the File 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified Interior, NARA, College Park, Maryland. Files, RG 48, NARA, College Park, Mary- 5 "Bennett to Harold L. Ickes, “Memoran- land. dum of Inquiry to the Secretary of the In- 16 Douglas Helms, “The Civilian Conserva- terior With Respect to Advisability of Using tion Corps: Demonstrating the Value of Soil Additional Funds for Additional Regional Conservation,” Journal of Soil and Water Erosion-Control Projects by the Soil Erosion Conservation 40 (March-April): 184-188. Service, “ November 23, 1933, File 1-275 17 Helms, “The Civilian Conservation Corps: Soil Erosion, Central Classified Files, RG 48, Demonstrating the Value of Soil Conserva- NARA, College Park, Maryland. 6 tion,” 184-188. Annual Report for the Secretary of the 18 Ickes to Robert Fechner, February 22, Interior for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1934, File 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Clas- 1934. (Washington, DC: Department of the sified Files, RG 48, NARA, College Park, Interior, 1934), 357. 7 Maryland. Ickes to Bennett, November 20, 1933, 19 Bennett to Ickes, January 3, 1934 (Ap- File 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified proved by Ickes, January 24), File 1-275, Files, RG 48, NARA, College Park, Mary- Soil Erosion, Central Classified Files, RG 48, land. 8 NARA, College Park, Maryland; See also Bennett to Ickes, November 23, 1933, Lawrence C. Kelly, “Anthropology in the File 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified Soil Conservation Service,” Agricultural His- Files, RG 48, NARA, College Park, Mary- tory, Volume 59, No. 2 (April 1985): 136- land. 137. 9 Bennett to Ickes, November 23, 1933, 20 “Dust Storms Due to Soil Erosion,” New File 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified York Times, May 14, 1934. Files, RG 48, NARA, College Park, Mary- 21 Report of the Chief of the Soil Conserva- land. 10 tion Service, 1935 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Ickes to Bennett, November 30, 1933, Department of Agriculture, Soil Conserva- File 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified tion Service, 1935), 5. Files, RG 48, NARA, College Park, Mary- 22 Bennett to Ickes, May 29, 1934, Hand- land. 11 written at bottom of page “Approved, H. L. Bennett to Ickes, September 18, 1934, I.” File 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Classi- File 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified fied Files, RG 48, NARA, College Park, Maryland. 23

23 Ickes to Bennett, April 21, 1934, Secre- Folder “Erosion,” General Correspondence, tary of the Interior File, 1928-1946, Harold RG 16, NARA, College Park, Maryland. 36 L. Ickes Papers, Manuscript Division, Li- Donald Richberg, Executive Director, Na- brary of Congress, Washington, D.C., tional Emergency Council, to Franklin D. Herinafter cited as Ickes Papers, LOC, Roosevelt, February 21, 1935, Folder “Ero- Washington, D.C. sion,” General Correspondence, RG 16, 24 Bennett to Ickes, April 23, 1934, Secre- NARA, College Park, Maryland. 37 tary of the Interior File, 1928-1946, Ickes Robert Fechner, Emergency Conservation Papers, LOC, Washington D. C. Work, to Ferdinand Silcox, Chief, Forest 25 Ickes to Bennett, May 15, 1934, Secre- Service, A. B. Cammerer, Director, National tary of the Interior File, 1928-1946, Ickes Park Service, Duncan K. Major, Jr., Colonel, Papers, LOC, Washington D. C. General Staff, War Department, March 9, 26 Ickes to Bennett, October 28, 1934, File 1935, OF 6U (Soil Erosion), Official File, 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified Files, Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library, RG 48, NARA, College Park, Maryland. Hyde Park, New York. Hereinafter FDR Li- 27 brary. Bennett to Ickes, November 24, 1934, 38 File 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified H. H. Bennett, “Capitol, Caught by Dust Files, RG 48, NARA, College Park, Mary- Storm, Turns to West’s Topsoil Problem- land. Tons of Dirt from Central Plains Deluged 28 Field Order enclosed with Bennett to the City,” Washington Post, March 10, Ickes, January 30, 1935, File 1-275 Soil 1935. Quoted in U. S., Congress, House, Subcommittee of the Committee on the Erosion, Central Classified Files, RG 48, Public Lands, Soil-Erosion Program, Hear- NARA, College Park, Maryland. ings on H. R. 7054. 74th Cong., 1st. sess., 29 Bennett to Ickes, November 28, 1934, 20, 21, 22, 25 March, 1935, 58. File 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified 39 Edgar B. Nixon, (Ed.), Franklin D. Roose- Files, RG 48, NARA, College Park, Mary- land. velt Conservation, 1911-1945. Volume 1 (Hyde Park, N.Y., General Services Admini- 30 Ickes to E. K. Burlew, December 1, 1934, stration, National Archives and Records File 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified Service, Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Files, RG 48, NARA, College Park, Mary- 1957), 361-362. land. 40 Franklin D. Roosevelt to Marvin McIntyre, 31 Ward Shepard to Ickes, December 18, March 9, Note attached to letter of Henry 1934, File 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Clas- Wallace to Roosevelt, March 7, 1935, OF sified Files, RG 48, NARA, College Park, 6U (Soil Erosion), Official File, FDR Library, Maryland. 32 Hyde Park, New York. Bennett to Ickes, December 31, 1934, 41 Bennett to Ickes, March 11, 1935, Secre- File 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified tary of the Interior File, 1928-1946, Ickes Files, RG 48, NARA, College Park, Mary- Papers, LOC, Washington D. C. land. 42 Tugwell Diary, March 14, 1935, Rexford 33 Harold L. Ickes, The Secret Diary of Har- Tugwell Papers, FDR Library, Hyde Park, old L. Ickes: The First Thousand Days, New York. 1933-1936. Volume 1 (New York: Simon 43 Roosevelt to Ickes, March 20, 1935, , OF and Schuster, 1953), 325. 6U (Soil Erosion), Official File FDR Library; 34 Ickes to Rufus Poole, March 2, 1935, Ickes to Roosevelt, March 21, 1935, OF 6U “Soil Erosion,” Secretary of the Interior (Soil Erosion), Official File, FDR Library, File, 1928-1946, Ickes Papers, LOC, Wash- Hyde Park, New York. ington, D.C. 44 Ickes to Roosevelt, March 21, 1935, OF 35 Donald Richberg, Executive Director, Na- 6U (Soil Erosion), Official File, FDR Library, tional Emergency, National Emergency Hyde Park, New York. Council, to Wallace, February 11, 1935,

45 Roosevelt to Ickes, March 22, 1935, “Soil Erosion,” Secretary of the Interior File, Ickes Papers, LOC, Washington, D.C. 46 Frank L. Duley to George A. Barnes, March 21, 1935, File 107.2, General Files, 1933-1935, RG 114, Records of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, NARA, College Park, Maryland. 47 Alf M. Landon to The President (telegram), OF 732 (Soil Erosion) Official File. March 20, 1935, FDR Library, Hyde Park, New York. 48 “Black Dust Storm Chokes Midwest,” New York Times, March 21, 1935, 25. 49 These telegrams may be found in file 107.2, General Files, 1933-1935, RG 114,, NARA, College Park, Maryland. 50 U.S. Congress, House Subcommittee on the Public Lands, Soil Erosion Program, Hearings on H.R. 7054. 74th Cong., 1st sess., 20,21,22,25 March, 1935, 37-46. 51“D. C. Invaded By Dust Storm From Mid- west,” Washington Post, March 22, 1935, 1 and 5. 52 Hugh Hammond Bennett, The Hugh Hammond Bennett Lectures (Raleigh, North Carolina: The Agricultural Foundation, Inc., June 1959), 23. 53 Jonathan Daniels, Tar Heels: A Portrait of North Carolina (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1941, 188; Wellington Brink, Big Hugh: The Father of Soil Conservation (New York: Macmillan, 1951), 2-7. 54 Telephone transcripts, March 22, 1935, Secretary of the Interior File, 1928-1946, Ickes Papers, LOC, Washington, D.C. 55U. S. Congress, Senate, Congressional Record, 74th Cong., 1st sess., 1935, 79 pt. 5:5645. 56R. Douglas Hurt, The Dust Bowl: An Agri- cultural and Social History (Chicago: Nel- son-Hall, 1981), 1-3. 57Nixon, (Ed.), Franklin D. Roosevelt Con- servation, 1911-1945. Volume 1, 371-372. 58Bennett, The Hugh Bennett Lectures, 24.