Hugh Hammond Bennett and the Creation of the Soil Conservation Service Douglas Helms

doi:10.2489/jswc.65.2.37A feature Hugh Hammond Bennett and the creation of the Soil Conservation Service Douglas Helms

This article is a continuation of the new service. Tugwell met Lowdermilk in A North Carolinian, Bennett knew historical developments discussed in California and had recommended him to terraces had been used in the South for a “Hugh Hammond Bennett and the cre- Bennett (Helms 1984; Lowdermilk 1969). century, and the Mangum terrace, devel- ation of the Soil Erosion Service,” Jour- Bennett asked Tugwell for the assistance of oped by a North Carolina farmer, had nal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol- several erosion experiment station direc- been in use for a half-century. He con- ume 64, Number 2, pages 68A-74A. tors to start demonstration projects. This ceded the benefits of terracing on gentle The article discusses the events of first request was for the assistance of H.V. slopes where the soils were not erodible. September 19, 1933, to April 27, 1935, Geib of the Blackland Station, Texas; G.W. Bennett placed the emphasis, however, during which time Hugh Hammond Musgrave of the Missouri Valley Station, on vegetation and soil tilth. He opined to Iowa; W.A. Rookie of the Pacific North- Tugwell, “soil erosion control on cultivated Bennett and colleagues in the Soil Ero- west Station, Washington; R.E. Uhland, of land is essentially an agronomic prob- sion Service (SES) established dem- the Missouri Station, Missouri; and R.H. lem” (Bennett 1933a). He urged Tugwell onstration projects. The young agency Davis of the Upper Mississippi Valley Sta- to place supervision of all of the erosion weathered questions about their au- Copyright © 2010 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.

tion, Wisconsin. experiment stations exclusively under the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation thority to work on private lands. The Bennett also tried to convince Tugwell Bureau of Chemistry and Soils. USDA and state agricultural institu- to correct a situation that had vexed him As director of SES, Bennett began tions argued that this work belonged since the creation of the erosion experi- implementing the plan that he had earlier in USDA. Throughout the controversies, ment stations—joint supervisions of a presented to Secretary of Interior Harold the cadre of soil conservationists won number of stations. He built his case by Ickes on September 16, 1933. He thought approval in the countryside and thereby recounting the recent history of the soil the most effective results could be achieved built support in Congress for expansion conservation movement. Bennett had if the demonstration projects worked in of the soil conservation work on a per- been the driving force behind securing the large areas, preferably complete watersheds Buchanan Amendment in 1929 to fund of 25,000 to 300,000 acres. The projects manent basis. The pending expiration soil erosion experiment stations. However, should be aligned with watershed bound- of SES’s emergency employment fund- the Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry and aries so as to show the cumulative effects 65(2):37A-47A ing in June 1935 gave an air of urgency Soils (BCS) included the Forest Service and of soil conservation, including “flood pre- to legislation for a permanent agency. Bureau of Agricultural Engineering (BAE) vention.” Bennett intentionally used the Finally, drought in the Great Plains and as operators of some stations. The Forest term “flood prevention” to distinguish dust clouds sweeping eastward to the Service operated stations alone, while the this result from structural “flood control.” www.swcs.org federal city dramatically demonstrated BCS and the BAE jointly supervised some Furthermore, he believed that, “The prob- the need for soil conservation. stations. As Bennett wrote to Tugwell, “… ability is that these effects are going to be out of that move a tremendous amount of much greater than any one has supposed”

ugh Hammond Bennett’s appoint- grief has originated” (Bennett 1933a). (Bennett 1933b). These projects would be ment as director of the Soil Erosion Bennett thought that the Forest Service located in approximately 20 regional soil h Service (SES) became effective had achieved results, “all of which we have erosion areas that Bennett had identified. September 19, 1933, and he moved to the appreciated as much as they” (Bennett There were already 12 soil erosion experi- US Department of the Interior (USDI) 1933a). The engineers, agronomists, and ment stations in these regions, and now he offices in the Winder Building, 600 17th soils scientists had also “obtained basic proposed to add the action, or demonstra- Street, NW, in Washington, DC. In taking information that we should have had 75 tion, phase of the plan. his leave from the Department of Agri- years ago...” (Bennett 1933a). Yet, Bennett The first projects would be near the culture, Bennett wrote to thank Assistant firmly believed much more could have experiment stations where the directors of Secretary of Agriculture Rexford Tugwell been achieved except for the tensions the stations could implement the lessons for all the “interest you have taken in my between the BCS agronomists and BAE learned from the experiments. The station behalf in connection with the erosion agricultural engineers. The latter had kept directors would have to locate a nearby program” (Bennett 1933a). Bennett also up “an almost running attack of criticism watershed where a significant number of reported on assembling the Soil Erosion of this or that agronomic experiment farmers showed an inclination to sign an Service staff. He had written to Wal- installed at my direction” (Bennett 1933a). agreement and work with the new service. ter Lowdermilk inviting him to join the At the most extreme he said some of his A staff consisting of some combination opponents held that “erosion can be con- of agronomists, soil scientists, engineers Douglas Helms is the National Historian at the trolled by terraces and only by terraces” economists, and biologists would be USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC. (Bennett 1933a). assembled to implement the project, and depending on the location, a forester or journal of soil and water conservation March/April 2010—vol. 65, no. 2 37A range specialist would be included. Most of the watershed-based projects took the name of the water body and were numbered sequentially. Raymond H. Davis, superintendent of the Upper Mississippi Valley station at La Crosse, Wisconsin, was the first experiment station director to secure the cooperation of farmers in a nearby watershed. Thus, nearby Coon Creek was designated project number 1 in November, and by January 1934, project number 10, the Navajo Project, was established. The original $5,000,000 had been allocated at this point. About two months after arriving in the Department of the Interior, Bennett beseeched Ickes for funds to establish another 12 or 13 projects in addition to the Copyright © 2010 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.

12 projects to which the initial $5,000,000 Journal of Soil and Water Conservation had been allocated. Five or six of the proj- Chief Hugh H. Bennett, Mrs. Bennett, and regional conservator A. E. McClymonds view conservation ects would be devoted to research and work on the Frank Milsna farm, Manske Ridge, Vernon County, Wisconsin, which is on the Coon others to demonstrational models. To Creek Demonstration Project. Photo courtesy of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Madison, Wisconsin. bolster his arguments, Bennett told Ickes that, “Dr. Tugwell of the Department of a plan to pay for CWA out of the Public Springs, Georgia, retreat and would seek Agriculture and others have suggested Works Administration funds. The mission his approval there. The President granted that the Soil Erosion Service look into the of the CWA was to provide employment the additional $5,000,000 with the stipu- probability of obtaining additional funds and to provide it quickly. Ickes suggested lation, in Ickes words, that “the work to be for erosion-control projects…” (Bennett that Bennett contact Hopkins about paid out of this sum not to start until the 1933c). Unquestionably, Bennett also funding the additional SES projects, and C. C. C. camps move north next spring“

wanted to expand the program. A serious Bennett did so (Ickes 1933). Wanting to (Ickes 1933a). The statement about the 65(2):37A-47A question remained as to whether there provide immediate employment for the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) were sufficient specialists with the inter- winter, CWA established strict criteria. camps was important in that it signified est and experience in soil conservation Projects must be ready to put the unem- that President Roosevelt expected SES to to staff the projects. After some inquires, ployed to work in 15 days, and the projects use corps enrollees. www.swcs.org Bennett believed he could enlist qualified had to be finished by February 15. New While new demonstration projects staff. Most of the proposed projects would SES demonstration projects could not would not be established with CWA funds, be outside the agricultural regions covered meet this schedule (Bennett 1933d). the CWA supplied a great many workers

by the soil erosion experiment stations. Bennett explained the situation to Ickes for SES projects during winter and spring The conservation methods would have to and pointed to the urgent need as dem- 1934. They were instrumental in what be determined as work commenced. The onstrated by the many requests arriving was perhaps SES’s first large-scale foray second $5,000,000 became available in daily by “letter, telegraph, long distance into dam building. Project number 25, the March 1934. SES established another 14 telephone and delegations” for additional Gila Project in Arizona, was a new type of projects by late April 1934, at which time projects (Bennett 1933d). He recounted work for SES. SES built thousands of dams the second $5,000,000 had been allocated the destruction erosion had wrought and or water retarding structures of varying (USDOI 1934). made his plea. “We simply can not afford sizes on the tributaries to reduce floods Since the initial funding of the Service, to lose this most indispensible asset of the and store sediments. This type of upstream the emphasis in New Deal emergency country, but we will lose it unless vastly flood control would become prevalent after work programs had shifted. Bennett more is done from now on than ever has Congress assigned flood control authori- submitted this request to Ickes in mid- been done along the line of conserving ties to the Soil Conservation Service. The November, 1933, and the Civil Works good agricultural land” (Bennett 1933d). 8,200,000 acres project, mainly in the Administration (CWA) had been estab- Bennett saw no other alternative than to upper Gila River watershed, was second lished on November 9, 1933. The CWA seek another allocation from the Public in size only to the 16 million acre Navajo reflected President Roosevelt’s (FDR) Works Administration appropriation. Project (Bennett 1934a). preference for work relief over direct Once again Bennett was persuasive. Soon SES would no longer have CWA unemployment relief. As unemployment Ickes, however, needed the President’s funds due to yet another shift in New Deal threatened to rise in the winter of 1933- approval. Within the week, Ickes was work relief policy in 1934. Despite the 1934, Harry Hopkins presented FDR with scheduled to join FDR at his Warm plight of the unemployed, work relief had

38A March/April 2010—vol. 65, no. 2 journal of soil and water conservation not been universally accepted in the countryside or in Congress. Within the New Deal administration, opponents of deficit spending for work relief, especially FDR’s budget director, inveighed against it. FDR, at least temporarily, relented, closed CWA, and transferred the remaining funds to the Emergency Work Relief Program of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA). A critical result of the demise of CWA and reinvigoration of FERA was that FERA only financed state-initiated projects, not federally initiated and controlled projects (Schlesinger 1958). As CWA closed its door, Bennett turned to FERA with his case for assistance for soil conservation. FERA, created by the Federal Emergency Relief Act of May 12, Copyright © 2010 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.

1933, provided money to states to hire the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation unemployed. Harry Hopkins continued as FERA administrator during the time he Navajo Civilian Conservation Corps workers build a diversion. Navajo Nation, Tuba City, Arizona. Photo 75N-Nav-296 from the National Archives, College Park, Maryland. also headed the CWA. SES staff prepared a plan requesting FERA labor for estab- single-track method of undertaking to Tugwell and E. K. Burlew, special assistant lished demonstration projects, but was told control a great national problem involv- to Secretary Ickes, to assist in advancing that all projects needed approval by each ing numerous variables, such as soil, this effort (Bennett 1934c). FERA state administrator. After the ini- slope, type of agriculture, and rainfall. I The origins of these camps lay in the tial rebuff, Ickes advised Bennett to meet think he discussed the matter with you need to locate CCC camps east of the personally with Hopkins. While Hopkins and that you or he discussed it with the Rocky Mountains. While there was sup- seemed sympatric, he deferred to his staff, President. At any rate, I was informed by port for CCC investments in federal lands, who would not deviate from the policy Dr. Tugwell the President felt that the the potential for investing public funds on 65(2):37A-47A that all projects had to be state initiated best way to attack the program was to private lands was not met by some with (Bennett 1934b). select representative watersheds in vari- enthusiasm. During the deliberations over The news would only get worse. ous parts of the country, and on these the act creating the CCC, officially the Bennett began to receive letters from his carry through a complete, impressive Emergency Conservation Work, Robert Y. www.swcs.org field staff that some states were gearing job of erosion control, such as would Stuart, chief of the Forest Service, asked up for FERA-funded terracing efforts. arouse the land owners of the coun- that state and private land also be made The complex of land-grant colleges, state try to the practical possibilities, not eligible as work areas. Otherwise, enrollees

agricultural experiment stations, and state only of directly curbing erosion, but from the East would have to be transported extension services usually applied for these through this control reduce the hazards west of the Rocky Mountains, where 95% projects. The development had echoes of of floods and silting of stream channels of the public domain lay. Stuart’s argu- the conflicts leading up to the creation of and reservoirs. Accordingly, the strictly ment was persuasive in part. The Act for the Soil Erosion Service. Bennett felt it engineering proposal was laid aside the Relief of Unemployment allowed soil was time to inform the Secretary, lest the and this complete, correct land-use and erosion control work on state and fed- growth of disparate state FERA-funded land-protective program which the Soil eral land, but restricted work on private terracing only projects undermined the Erosion Service is now engaged in was land to activities already authorized under national soil conservation effort. He adopted. There is no question about the US laws, such as controlling fire, disease, recounted to Ickes the persuasive case that success of this present program, if it is and pests in forests and “such work as is had been made for setting up SES: not undermined in the manner men- necessary in the public interest to control When the matter of the use of Public tioned above. (Bennett 1934a) floods” (Statutes at Large 1933). On the Works funds for erosion control first In late 1934, Bennett was also becoming day Roosevelt signed the bill, Secretary came to my attention it was presented as concerned that the Forest Service seemed of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace wired a program essentially identical with this to be expanding its soil erosion camps. each governor to send a representative to present proposed program of FERA. Dr. By September 1934, there were 161 such Washington to discuss cooperation on for- Tugwell asked me what I thought of camps whose work was actually planned estry work. He also mentioned the flood it. I told him frankly what I am briefly and supervised by the state agricultural control work and surmised that it “prob- telling you in this memorandum, giving agencies. Bennett wanted SES to direct ably [included] control of soil erosion” him the proof of the futility of any such these camps and called upon Rexford (Helms 1985). journal of soil and water conservation March/April 2010—vol. 65, no. 2 39A President Roosevelt and other New Dealers remained concerned about the appearance of spending public money on private land. He told a USDA representative that he wanted CCC work on erosion and flood control directed to solving flood- ing problems over broad areas rather than benefiting an individual parcel of land. CCC Director Robert Fechner reiterated the president’s reservations about work on private land to the governors in May 1933. Concern about the public’s objections to expenditures of federal funds on private lands caused some of Roosevelt’s reservations. He continued to warn Fechner that too much work on private land would bring criticism. Also, Roosevelt, like many of his contemporaries, too often thought Copyright © 2010 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.

soil conservation required shifting crop- Journal of Soil and Water Conservation land to woodland and was unfamiliar with the many conservation practices that could be installed on cropland with CCC labor. However, he also had to heed the calls for a full share of CCC camps in those states with small public land hold- ings. Thus, Roosevelt asked Fechner and Soil Erosion Service demonstration projects, 1933 to March 1935. Image courtesy of the USDA Natural Wallace to grant requests for soil erosion Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Division, Washington, DC. control camps. Within USDA, the Forest Service Simultaneously SES was losing the labor of immediately on the research station at

administered the erosion camps similarly to Civil Works Administration workers, which Mexican Springs, New Mexico. After 65(2):37A-47A its state and private forestry work. Under was available from December 15, 1933, to SES was created in the Department of the signed agreements, personnel from state May 1, 1934. By June 1934, another 29 Interior, Bennett established the 16 mil- agencies and land grant colleges actually CCC camps, including some dedicated to lion acre Navajo Project in the first group operated the camps. CCC efforts followed drought-relief, would be assigned to SES, of projects. To augment the work being www.swcs.org soil erosion control guidelines established making a total of 51. CWA and CCC done on the Navajo Project, Bennett also by USDA that limited work to control- labor gave SES a persuasive tool in work- proposed a Rio Grande Demonstration ling gullies by means of soil-saving dams, ing with farmers. Demonstration projects Project that included both public and pri-

forest planting and vegetation. Gradually, could control gullies, fence and establish vate land. Much of the valuable private the concept was extended to include con- pastures, build terrace outlets, and lay out land was in the Rio Grande River drain- struction of terrace outlets. This was hardly contour stripcropping. Despite this boost age. Except for the Zuni Pueblo, the Rio the approach utilizing agronomic and to Bennett’s program, SES faced several Grande River drained all of New Mexico’s other integrated methods that Bennett unforeseen threats in second half of 1934. Pueblo Indian lands. Spanish villages dot- envisioned. While still in USDA, Bennett The issues revolved around SES’s author- ted the Rio Grande and its tributaries advised the Forest Service on work of the ity to work on private land, expenditures north of Albuquerque. The earliest vil- soil erosion camps (Helms 1985). for fencing, and the growing terracing lages predated the English settlement at When Bennett moved to the Department program funded out of the FERA. These Jamestown. Rectangular fields lay perpen- of the Interior, he tried to have the soil ero- interrelated issues roiled simultaneously in dicular to the streams giving all farmers sion CCC camps transferred to SES. SES the second half of 1934. access to the water. Over three centuries, did acquire the aid of some CCC camps the strips narrowed as heirs subdivided the when they moved north in the spring of PUBLIC LAND DEMONSTRATION land. Planning for the project would take 1934 as the President had stipulated. Ickes PROJECTS into account “the human factors involved forwarded SES’s requested for 53 camps or The resolve of John Collier, Commissioner in the Spanish and Indian civilizations” approximately two camps per demonstra- of Indian Affairs, to improve the land con- (Bennett 1934d). SES would hire anthro- tion project to Robert Fechner, director ditions on the Navajo Reservation had led pologists to study how to most effectively of the Emergency Conservation Work, him to Hugh Hammond Bennett in mid- bring conservation to the Spanish villages. in February 1934 (Ickes 1934a). Fechner 1933. After the Navajo Council approved The need to understand the human aspects assigned 22 camps to SES on April 1, 1934. the plan proposed by Bennett, work began in order to make conservation effective led

40A March/April 2010—vol. 65, no. 2 journal of soil and water conservation to the original studies that are the founda- to set up a demonstration project in the sites for erosion experiment stations, tion of applied anthropology in the United yet to be named Dust Bowl. At Bennett’s they established one at Guthrie, north of States (Bennett 1934d; Kelly 1985). request, Dr. H.V. Geib, the regional direc- Oklahoma City, to serve the “red plains.” The Rio Grande was the 34th proj- tor at the Blacklands erosion experiment Cotton growing was the primary cause ect established, and another six would be station in Temple, Texas, submitted a plan of erosion in the area. The demonstration added by the time SES was transferred for a 16-square-mile demonstration proj- project at Stillwater Creek, on the edge to USDA, although a number of projects ect. Bennett forwarded the plan to Ickes of the “red plains,” was in the first group were never fully implemented or were for approval and made the case to Ickes: of projects established. One of Bennett’s projects in name only and not actual dem- If the project could be put over suc- respected allies from the early soil con- onstration projects. The Tennessee Valley cessfully, as I believe it can, we would servation movement, Nathaniel Winters Authority Project, number 8, was never have demonstrated that wind erosion of the nearby Oklahoma A.&M. College, fully implemented since the Authority can be successfully controlled, and will directed it. Following Ickes approval, chose to work with farmers through the have pointed the way to the preven- Bennett enlisted H.H. Finnell, then direc- state agricultural institutions rather than tion of this phenomenon which is so tor of Panhandle A&M Experiment Station SES. Projects numbered 23 and 24 were seriously affecting the agricultural and at Goodwell, Oklahoma, to establish the actually the national soil erosion sur- grazing lands of the western Mississippi demonstration project at Dalhart, Texas. veys headquartered at Pennsylvania State Valley. (Bennett 1934e) College and Cornell University, and while Bennett did not ask for additional funds ISS UE OF WORK ON PRIVATE LANDS Copyright © 2010 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.

they were implemented, they were not and believed that the $35,000 needed Accomplishments at the demonstration Journal of Soil and Water Conservation demonstration projects in collaboration could be scraped together out of existing projects were impressive, creating a clamor with farmers. SES funds. Without delay, Ickes approved for additional projects. However, Bennett’s the project on May 29, 1934 (Bennett Soil Erosion Service had a key hurdle to DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR THE 1934e). overcome—work on private land compli- SOUTHERN GREAT PLAINS None of the original demonstration cated the situation. Many people supported The dust storms of 1933 were localized in projects had been located in the area that CCC and WPA work on national parks, the Southern Great Plains, but in 1934, a would become known as the “Dust Bowl.” national forests, public buildings, roads, large dust cloud ascended over the plains. In fact, Bennett’s 1933 regional erosion and other public infrastructure. Such work Carried by the westerly winds, it attracted map, compiled before wind erosion swept seemed a clear-cut case of spending public national attention. On May 11, 1934, it the area, had not included the area of the funds for public benefits. FDR, and Ickes swept fine soil particles over Washington, coming Dust Bowl. In the late 1920s, as to an even greater extent, feared the nega- 65(2):37A-47A DC, and 300 miles out into the Atlantic Bennett worked with the states to select tive perceptions that could accompany the Ocean. Bennett seized the opportunity to explain the cause and offer the solu- tion. Confidently, he touted the need for www.swcs.org soil conservation and predicted future trouble if changes were not made in land use and farming practices. The New York

Times quoted him on May 14, 1934, as saying, “Now, we have the evil with us on an enormous scale, and the nation may as well gird tightly its belt for a continuing battle against this process of land wasting, that is if we are to avoid the eventuality of becoming probably the world’s most out- standing nation of subsoil farming-which of course generally means bankrupt farming on bankrupt land” (New York Times 1934). In the future, when discussing the edifying aspect of that storm, Bennett quickly reiterated that it was SES which “centered attention not only upon the cause, but upon the cure of these destruc- tive phenomena” (USDA SCS 1935). It went without saying that Bennett was the agency’s primary spokesman. In May 1934, as Bennett publicized the Civilian Conservation Corps enrollees building fences. Camp SCS-NC-5, Yanceyville, North Carolina. dust storms in the press, he also moved Photo 35G-287 from the National Archives, College Park, Maryland.

journal of soil and water conservation March/April 2010—vol. 65, no. 2 41A expense of public funds for private ben- erosion itself” (Ickes 1934c). Bennett that his stewardship of the Department of efit. Thus, the proposed work of the Soil explained to Ickes that fences were needed the Interior would not be tainted by mis- Erosion Service on private farmland came to protect the vegetation while the gul- use of funds or corruption. He appointed under scrutiny. More so than the use of lies were being stabilized. They were also a Special Committee on Soil Erosion to WPA and CCC labor, government pur- essential to the land use adjustments on advise him on future policy, including the chases of supplies used on farms were individual farms. The demonstration proj- private lands issue. Ward Shepard, a pro- examined closely. One of the triumphs ects had been placed in cropland areas fessional forester, chaired the committee. of the soil conservation movement under with severe erosion and where a major After a long career in the Forest Service, Bennett would be the public acceptance objective was the conversion of cropland Shepard was hired by John Collier to assist of soil conservation as a public benefit and to pasture. He elaborated as follows: in the reform of the Bureau of Indian worthy of the expense of public funds. If there were any possible way in which Affairs. Another committee member was This concept was not universally accepted we could induce the farmers to construct Charles F. Shaw, a professor of soil science in the early New Deal. the necessary fencing, I would agree that at the University of California and former Ickes disliked his moniker, “Honest they should do so. The simple fact is that employee of the Bureau of Soils. Shaw co- Harold,” but it indeed correctly char- on most of our areas the farmers are so wrote the 1905 soil survey of Robertson acterized his aversion to the actuality or poor that they cannot possibly afford to County, Texas, with Bennett. perception of the misuse of public funds. bear all the expense of such construc- During the committee’s deliberations, In April 1934, Ickes notified Bennett of tion. Preliminary results obtained from Bennett received an inquiry from Fred E. Copyright © 2010 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.

“grave doubt” concerning the amount of economic surveys indicate that in many Schnepfe, Director of the Planning and Journal of Soil and Water Conservation money spent on and the policy of working instances farm incomes are as low as Federal Projects Division of the Federal on private lands. He directed Bennett to $100 per family per year and that gen- Emergency Administration of Public make no further commitments for work erally incomes are astoundingly low. Works, as to why SES had not reached on private land (Ickes 1934b). The instruc- Under these circumstances, it is impos- their assigned goal of hiring 5,000 work- tion shocked Bennett. The legislation sible to persuade cooperating farmers to ers. Bennett immediately brought the funding SES has seemed clear on the issue. construct fences at their own expense contradiction to Ickes’s attention—SES In appealing to Ickes, he used the example and at the same time to remove from was going to have to lay off workers due of public funds for soil surveys made on agricultural use the areas being fenced, to the private land ruling, while another private lands. Landowners could then use thus reducing their apparent incomes. arm of government demanded more pub- the information for private benefit. While (Bennett 1934h) lic employment (Bennett 1934i). Through

assuring Ickes that his instructions would To placate Ickes, Bennett proposed a special assistant E.K. Burlew, Ickes asked 65(2):37A-47A be followed, he made the case that federal clause in the cooperative agreement stat- Bennett’s forbearance and explained his work on private land was critical to halt- ing that “all fence materials provided thinking. He wrote to Burlew as follows: ing soil erosion: to the Cooperator at the expense of the I wonder if you can persuade Bennett Private land owners could not carry Government under this Agreement will to let me alone until we have had a www.swcs.org through the necessary educational, dem- remain the property of the United States, report from the men who are survey- onstrational and experimental work, which reserves the right to remove such ing his Division? I don’t want to hold even if they had the funds. They do not materials when they have served their pur- up any work that he can legitimately

know how....I am so deadly in earnest pose….” (Soil Erosion Service 1935). In do and I don’t want him to have to lay about the absolute necessity of carrying the interest of promoting the conversion men off, but, on the other hand, I don’t on this work as a matter of vital national of cropland to pasture, SES supplied seed want to permit the use of public funds economy…. (Bennett 1934f) and fertilizer. Bennett tried to head off this for improper purposes. I wish there By mid-May of 1934, the Solicitor of issue by advising field staff to keep these were some way of getting the answer the Department ruled that the work on purchases to the minimum “necessary to this whole question as soon as pos- privately owned land was legal. The imbro- for effective and complete demonstra- sible because if he is on the right track, glio was settled, at least temporarily, just as tions” (Soil Erosion Service 1935). Project he ought to be permitted to go ahead. the dust storm of May 11, 1934, reached directors should make the point that (Ickes 1934d) the east coast, bringing with it more atten- expenditures on private land were for The committee issued a preliminary tion to soil erosion. Nonetheless, Ickes demonstrations and educational purposes report that work on private land was legal wanted work restricted as much as possible rather than direct aid to landowners (Soil and necessary. Solicitors of USDI and to public lands (Bennett 1934g). Erosion Service 1935). USDA had already ruled that work on Later in 1934, Ickes became alarmed private lands was permissible. The com- over the issue of fencing. In late October SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON mittees’ full report recommended that of 1934, he ordered Bennett to stop SOIL EROSION new projects be limited to 25,000 acres expenditures “on fences or other improve- Ickes was conflicted. He wanted the and that the Soil Erosion Service be trans- ments….” However, expenditures were soil conservation work to succeed and ferred to USDA. permitted on “the plantings or materi- admired Bennett’s persistence when not In transmitting the report, Shepard als necessary to prevent or correct actual exasperated by it. Yet, he was determined referred to Bennett’s “magnificent work” as

42A March/April 2010—vol. 65, no. 2 journal of soil and water conservation a “brilliant opportunity for the beginning agencies. Since Richberg knew that the Chair, Marvin Jones, had telephoned of a permanent attack on soil erosion….” institutional location of the SES was the Secretary saying he was prepared (Shepard 1934). The opportunity should be under discussion, he arranged a meeting to introduce a bill to create a perma- seized. The committee strongly endorsed with the President. FDR and Richberg nent soil conservation agency in the US Bennett’s comprehensive approach. The met on February 9, 1935, and Richberg Department of Agriculture. Jones wanted CCC and FERA should provide labor and left believing that FDR had told him that to be in step with the President’s plans and not operate their own programs. Finally, all Federal soil erosion work should be asked Wallace’s guidance. Jones, who had Shepard offered a rebuke to his former consolidated in USDA (Richberg 1935a). been chairman of the House Agriculture employer when he wrote, “the Forest Given the President’s decision, Richberg Committee since March 1931, represented Service, in developing a large CCC ero- sought the advice of USDA on the legality Amarillo in the Texas panhandle, the area sion control project on private lands, is of the proposed legislation. Seth Thomas, soon to be dubbed the “Dust Bowl” by a getting completely outside the domain of Solicitor of USDA, concluded that the Washington journalist. Wallace asked Jones forestry” (Shepard 1934). President, by executive order, could not to delay while he consulted the President. With the preliminary report of the consolidate all Federal soil erosion control Wallace essentially made the argument Soil Erosion Committee in hand, Bennett activities in USDA. Legislation would be to FDR that the “work of the Soil Erosion and colleagues recommended another required. The President could, however, by Service is excellent but it is largely agricul- seven projects to Ickes for funding in late executive order, transfer the Soil Erosion tural ….” (Nixon 1957). Were it to remain December 1934. The projects were drawn Service to USDA. Secretary Wallace con- in Interior, eventually there would be Copyright © 2010 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.

from over 100 applications and most fell curred (Richberg 1935b). political difficulties with the agricultural Journal of Soil and Water Conservation within the 25,000-acre limitation recom- Allocation of CCC camps for the fifth establishment. Wallace told the President mended by the committee. Ickes approved enrollment period, April 1 to September that Ickes probably recognized these reali- the projects on January 7, 1935, while the 30, 1935, added another element of ties but regarded SES as “good trading funding was set to expire in June 1935, the urgency to the decision about SES’s future. stock” in his plan to create a Department second anniversary of the passage of the Walter Lowdermilk, SES’s assistant direc- of Conservation that would include the National Industrial Recovery Act (Bennett tor and who handled CCC matters, had national forests, then under the Forest 1934j). These projects would have only a requested 533 camps. Director Robert Service in USDA. six-month lifespan unless something was Fechner, on March 9, 1935, allocated 570 Wallace concluded with an appeal done to give SES new life. units for the Soil Erosion Service but to avoid disruption in the President’s pending “the decision of the President larger agenda:

TRANSFER TO USDA as to the manner in which Soil Erosion I know you don’t want any fights within 65(2):37A-47A With SES funding due to expire in June Work is to be supervised in the future” your family and I am sure that I don’t 1935, discussion of the future of SES accel- (Fechner 1935). want any disagreement within the erated. Wallace and Ickes exchanged letters progressive segment of the family; nev- arguing over the transfer of SES to USDA. DUST STORM OVER EAST COAST ertheless, I am certain that inasfar as the www.swcs.org The President brought up the possibility A yellow haze appeared over Washington Department of Interior deals with agri- of such a transfer at a Cabinet meeting before noon on March 6, 1935. The cultural matters and with farmers, there in early March 1935. Ickes objected and Weather Bureau reported that pilots is likely to be eventual serious trouble.

thought he would have an opportunity observed thick dust at 8,000 feet eleva- (Nixon 1957) to make his case before the President tion above Bolling Field, south of the FDR read the letter on Friday, March 8, took any action. At a later meeting, also Capitol. Bennett turned his pen to the 1935, and appended the following note for in March, Ickes left believing he had the event and explained the source of the dust the assistant secretary in charge of appoint- President’s approval to draft legislation to readers of the Washington Post’s Sunday ments, Marvin McIntyre: to create a permanent soil conservation edition. Employing his descriptive pow- I want to see Mr. Bennett of the Soil agency in Interior and to have that legis- ers, Bennett wrote “To Washington and Erosion Service. Make an appointment lation introduced by Congressional allies the urban East last week came a grim and for Monday for me and I want to have (Ickes 1953). Ickes was already receiving graphic reminder of calamity in the rural this to take up with him when he comes. requests from Congress for assistance in West. Tons of dirt—topsoil from the wind- (Roosevelt 1935a) drafting legislation. Bennett, Lowdermilk, swept fields of Kansas, Colorado, Texas, and and the Department of the Interior’s Oklahoma—appeared suddenly in the sky BENNETT’S MEETING WITH FDR legal staff were working on legislation above the cities of the Atlantic seaboard, Evidently McIntyre did not give Bennett (Ickes 1935a). hovered pall-like for a day, and then passed notice of the meeting on Friday or over Ickes forwarded to Donald Richberg, slowly on to be dissipated somewhere over the weekend. Bennett’s article on the dust Executive Director of the National the ocean” (US Congress. House 1935). storm appeared in the Sunday edition of Emergency Council, proposed legislation Thursday, the day after the dust storm, the Washington Post, March 10, 1935. Late that provided for soil conservation and Henry Wallace wrote to the President on the morning of Monday, March 11, authorized the President to coordinate the trying to prompt a decision. Earlier that Bennett received a call from the office of soil conservation activities of all Federal week, House Agriculture Committee Marvin McIntyre to come to the White journal of soil and water conservation March/April 2010—vol. 65, no. 2 43A House prepared to discuss the allocation of New Mexico, and Congresswoman of Civilian Conservation Corps camps to Isabella S. Greenway of Arizona, intro- SES. Walter Lowdermilk had developed duced H.R. 6432, H.R. 6439 and H.R. the recent request for 533 camps that had 6440, respectively, to create a soil conser- been submitted to Robert Fechner, direc- vation agency. tor of the Emergency Conservation Work. Since Lowdermilk knew the details of the DUST STORM OVER THE CAPITOL AND camp request, Bennett asked if Lowdermilk CONG RESSIONAL HEARINGS could accompany him. The two had only On March 20, 1935, hearings on the a short time to gather up a few maps and proposed legislation commenced rush to the White House. After discussing in a subcommittee of the House of this matter with Donald Richberg, Chair Representatives’ Committee on Public of the Emergency Council, Bennett was Lands. On March 20th, the opening day Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes at his desk. asked to go in to see the President. of the hearings, FDR wrote to Ickes Photo RG208-PU-98K-6 from National Archives, The President said numerous requests announcing his decision. True to his word, College Park, Maryland. were coming to him to transfer SES to the the President assured Ickes that Bennett Department of Agriculture. FDR implied had not initiated this meeting. He wrote, future Presidential challenger, Governor that this acquisitiveness by others was “Mr. Bennett is most appreciative of the Alf Landon, telegrammed FDR asking Copyright © 2010 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.

surely the best endorsement of the qual- splendid cooperation which he has had for Federal assistance and declaring, “This Journal of Soil and Water Conservation ity of SES’s work. The President inquired from the Department of the Interior, and I catastrophe is of such size and importance whether Bennett was averse to transferring want to make it perfectly clear to you that that it is more than the problem of a sin- to USDA. Upon returning to his office, he has not in any shape, manner or form, gle state” (Landon 1935). Soon Landon Bennett, his memory fresh, recounted the advocated a transfer of the Soil Erosion would be in Washington to organize sup- conversation in a memorandum to Ickes: Service to the Department of Agriculture” port of the Congressional delegation from My replies to questions asked in this con- (Roosevelt 1935b). The President had the Plains states for a relief program. The nection were much in line with those decided that as a matter of “function” the storm on March 20 reduced visibility in which I recently made to you; namely, Soil Erosion Service belonged in USDA. Kansas City to two blocks. The Kansas that we had made great progress in the When the hand-carried letter arrived at highway patrol stopped traffic to prevent Department of the Interior, we had been the Department of the Interior, the staff accidents. The storm crossed Kansas at an

treated nicely, were satisfied to remain notified Ickes, who was reviewing the estimated 35 miles an hour and crossed 65(2):37A-47A in the Department and that you had Seminole Reservation in South Florida. the Mississippi River at Quincy, Illinois, taken great pains to help us. In answer On March 21, 1935, Secretary Ickes sent in early evening (New York Times 1935). to the question as to whether I had any a telegram to the President pleading Heavier soil particles dropped out while strong objection to the Department of his case and reminding the President of the finer particles were carried higher into www.swcs.org Agriculture, my reply was to the effect the pledge of a personal hearing before the faster moving jet stream. As the cloud that I had no antipathy toward that the final decision was made. He wrote, swept eastward, it appeared higher on the Department, but I did suggest that in “Notwithstanding your memorandum on horizon, rather than as a darkening storm

case it should be decided that the Soil this subject I hope that I may be heard on at ground level. Erosion Service would be transferred to this subject before final order is entered” Hearings on the soil conservation bills that Department it was my feeling that (Ickes 1935b). Roosevelt would not relent, before a subcommittee of the House those parts of various organizations car- but offered an explanation. “I would cer- Committee on Public Lands opened rying on direct erosion control work tainly have waited in the matter of the Soil on March 20 with Hugh Hammond should be transferred to the Soil Erosion Erosion Bureau except for the fact that a Bennett testifying primarily on water ero- Service. (Bennett 1935a) very difficult situation started to come to a sion. Bennett certainly knew of the dust FDR did not tell Bennett what he head on the Hill” (Roosevelt 1935c). storm approaching from the Midwest planned to do, nor did he act immedi- As the hearings on the soil conserva- when the hearings continued on March ately. Tugwell confided in his diary that tion bills opened, the wind erosion season 21. That morning’s Washington Post car- at their March 14 meeting, FDR pledged of 1935, February through April, was in ried an article describing the conditions to write a letter to Ickes that afternoon; full force. A telegram from Frank L. Duley, on March 20 in Midwestern cities. Also, yet, he delayed (Tugwell 1935). Events in director of the demonstration project at Soil Erosion Service field offices had kept Congress eventually nudged FDR into Mankato, Kansas, to the SES Washington Bennett informed of dust storms by tele- action. Marvin Jones kept his pledge to DC office announced that “Dust storms gram, and had mailed local newspaper Wallace not to introduce his bill, favorable (are an) almost daily occurrence in articles (Telegrams 1935). When Bennett to USDA, until the President had made a Western Kansas” (Duley 1935). The 1935 resumed his testimony on the second day, decision. Others, however, were not wait- blow season proved to be the worst of the March 21, he inserted into the record that ing. Congressman John C. Nichols of thirties drought. On March 20, the day a morning’s Washington Post article, his Post Oklahoma, Congressman John J. Dempsey dust storm swept over Kansas, Roosevelt’s article of March 10 detailing the March 6

44A March/April 2010—vol. 65, no. 2 journal of soil and water conservation dust cloud over Washington DC, and other recent newspaper articles from the Midwest and Great Plains cities (US Congress. House 1935). Bennett opened his testimony with a discussion of the clouds that passed over Washington DC on May 11, 1934, and March 6, 1935. The transcript for March 21 makes no note of the arrival of the dust cloud, but arrive it did. The center passed north of Washington DC, but it was clearly visible in the Washington DC on March 21. The Washington Post reported “Throngs of curious persons, leaving Government offices, swarmed down the Mall and to Potomac Park, where the dust was visible” (Washington Post 1935b). Most accounts of events in the hearing room are second- Copyright © 2010 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.

hand, based on conversations with Bennett. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Some of the details and embellishments conflict with the actual events. There are few first-hand accounts by Bennett. North Carolina State College invited Bennett to deliver a series of lectures, near the end of his life. Recounting the successful campaign for a soil conservation agency, he recalled, “There were other incidents, such as the timely arrival of a dust storm during Dust reaches Washington DC, Spring, 1935. Photo RG 114G-c-6001a from the National Archives, the Committee hearings” (Bennett 1959). College Park, Maryland. He seldom elaborated in writing and left 65(2):37A-47A the door open to confusion. Biographers the Secretary was out of town, to which that the agency would be known as the Jonathan Daniels and Wellington Brink McIntyre replied: “Yes, the President Soil Conservation Service (US Congress. place the dust cloud event during hearings knows that.” Chapman offered to get Senate 1935). of the Senate Committee on Public Lands. the board together the next day, only to Meanwhile, dust storms kept national www.swcs.org The Senate hearings actually were held by be told, “Can’t you do it immediately? attention on the plains. On April 14, the Committee on Agriculture, while the The President wants it done now, today.” 1935, (Black Sunday), the most awesome House of Representatives hearings were Chapman called Ickes, asking what to do. of the black blizzards, driven by 60 miles

held before the Committee on Public Ickes already knew of the President’s deci- per hour winds, struck without warning. Lands. The dust cloud of March 20 in the sion. “You have to do what he tells you,” Total darkness prevailed in Dodge City, Midwest and its arrival over Washington advised the Secretary (Telephone tran- Kansas, for forty minutes. The black bliz- DC on March 21 was well documented in scripts 1935). The Interior staff notified zard traveled the 105 miles between Boise newspapers. Weather observations for the the members of a 4:00 p.m. meeting that City, Oklahoma, and Amarillo, Texas, in East Coast and Washington newspapers did day. Later that day, the Public Works Board one hour and fifteen minutes. In Guymon, not report a dust cloud over Washington executed the transfer order, which FDR Oklahoma, the reporter Robert Geiger during the Senate hearings in April 1935 signed on March 25. penned an article for the Washington (DC) (Daniels 1941; Brink 1951). The House hearings concluded on Evening Star in which he used the term Down Pennsylvania Avenue at the March 25 and the Committee reported out “Dust Bowl.” It stuck (Hurt 1935). White House the transfer of SES unfolded. H.R. 7054 with amendments on March 29. The Senate debated and passed H.R. The President acted on the day after the After the House debated and passed H.R. 7054, with the Senate amendments, on arrival of the dust cloud. At noon, March 7054 on April 1, the Senate Committee April 15, 1935. The next day, Senator 22, 1935, Marvin McIntyre telephoned on Agriculture and Forestry held hearings William Henry King of Utah made a Oscar Chapman, Assistant Secretary of the on April 2 and 3, 1935, and reported out motion to reconsider. His objective was to Department of the Interior to say, “The their amended bill on April 11. The Senate assign the new agency to the Department President is instructing you to call a special committee amended the bill by adding the of the Interior. Failing to attract enough meeting of the Public Works Board to pass word “permanently” to the statement of support, he withdrew the motion on the resolution on the transfer of the Soil policy and included “public health” as an April 19. The House concurred in the Erosion Service.” Chapman protested that objective. Also the amendment specified Senate amendments on April 23. After journal of soil and water conservation March/April 2010—vol. 65, no. 2 45A Department of Agriculture officials exasperated, Ickes learned to admire his the Soil Erosion Service, the Civil Works reviewed the bill, President Roosevelt dedication and relentlessness. Bennett was Administration and the Federal Emergency signed Public Law 46 of the 74th Congress perhaps the only career civil servant, with- Relief Administration. File 1-275 Soil Erosion, on April 27, 1935 (Nixon 1957). out strong personal social and political ties, Central Classified Files, Record Group 48. to create and lead a federal service. College Park, MD: National Archives and CONCLUSION Finally, passage of legislation was not Records Administration. In retrospect, passage of the legisla- solely a matter of Washington maneuver- Bennett, H.H. 1934c. Bennett to E.K. Burlew, August tion was hardly a predictable outcome, ing. Bennett assembled a capable staff that 11, 1934, and Burlew to Bennett, August 16, 1934. despite Bennett’s intense desire for such was committed to the soil conservation File 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified Files, an agency. Consider the obstacles. The ideal. Farmers and their Congressional Record Group 48. College Park, MD: National funding was temporary and set to expire representatives liked the demonstration Archives and Records Administration. September in June 1935, less than two years after projects and requested more. The cause 18, 1934. commencement of the work. Labor for easily elicited congressional supporters Bennett, H.H. 1934d. Letter to Harold L. Ickes. the projects was uncertain, as the admin- nationwide. The dust clouds sweeping File 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified Files, istration waffled between their hope that eastward were dramatic and lent urgency Record Group 48. College Park, MD: National the depression would end soon and their to the cause of soil conservation, but the Archives and Records Administration. January 3, full embrace of public employment pro- intention had always been for a national 1934 (Approved by Ickes, January 24, 1934). grams. Then there were the competitors: program. Favorable reviews in the coun- Bennett, H.H. 1934e. Letter to Harold L. Ickes, Copyright © 2010 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.

the terracing projects under the Federal tryside assured passage of the legislation. Handwritten at bottom of page “Approved, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Emergency Relief Administration, the H.L.I.” File 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified CCC erosion camps of the Forest Service, Acknowledgements Files, Record Group 48. College Park, MD: and the emerging plans of the Agricultural The author thanks Patricia J. Lawrence, Paul Reich, National Archives and Records Administration. Adjustment Administration to add a and Samuel R. Stalcup of the USDA Natural May 29, 1934. soil conservation component to their Resources Conservation Service for their assistance. Bennett, H.H. 1934f. Letter to Harold L. Ickes. price-support programs. Folder Soil Erosion, Secretary of the Interior File, These hurdles were counterbalanced References 1928-1946, Harold L. Ickes Papers, Manuscript in part by Ickes’s support of legislation to Bennett, H.H. 1933a. Letter to Rexford G. Tugwell. Division. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. create a soil conservation agency in his con- Folder “Erosion,” General Correspondence, April 23, 1934. templated Department of Conservation. Record Group 16. College Park, MD: National Bennett, H.H. 1934g Letter to Hugh H. Bennett.

Reflecting on the early history, Bennett Archives and Records Administration. September Folder Soil Erosion, Secretary of the Interior File, 65(2):37A-47A thought it was probably a good idea SES 20, 1933. 1928-1946, Harold L. Ickes Papers, Manuscript got its start in Interior and recalled that Bennett, H.H. 1933b. A Plan for Erosion Control Division. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Ickes “invariably came to the assistance Under the Erosion Section of the Public Works May 15, 1934. of his bureaus in arguments originating Administration Corporation. File 1-275 Soil Bennett, H.H. 1934h. Letter to Harold L. Ickes. www.swcs.org outside the Department” (Bennett 1959). Erosion, Central Classified Files, Record Group File 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified Files, Though Bennett had not been Rexford 48. College Park, MD: National Archives and Record Group 48. College Park, MD: National Tugwell’s first choice as Director of the Records Administration. Archives and Records Administration. November Bennett, H.H. 1933c. Memorandum of Inquiry 24, 1934.

Soil Erosion Service, he remained a sup- porter and advisor who had access to the to the Secretary of the Interior With Respect Bennett, H.H. 1934i. Letter to Harold L. Ickes. File President as a member of the Brain Trust. to Advisability of Using Additional Funds for 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified Files, Bennett’s concept of a comprehensive Additional Regional Erosion-Control Projects Record Group 48. College Park, MD: National approach to soil conservation found favor by the Soil Erosion Service. File 1-275 Soil Archives and Records Administration. November with Tugwell and Secretary of Agriculture Erosion, Central Classified Files, Record Group 28, 1934. Wallace. They simply held that the soil 48. College Park, MD: National Archives and Bennett, H.H. 1934j. Letter to Harold L. Ickes. File conservation program belonged in USDA Records Administration. November 23, 1933. 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified Files, and they would support Bennett once he Bennett, H.H. 1933d. Letter to Harold L. Ickes. Record Group 48. College Park, MD: National arrived in the department. File 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified Files, Archives and Records Administration. December Bennett was the critical element to Record Group 48. College Park, MD: National 31, 1934. the successful creation of a federal Soil Archives and Records Administration. November Bennett H.H. 1935a. Letter to Harold L. Ickes. Conservation Service. He had the ability, 23, 1933. Folder Soil Erosion, Secretary of the Interior File, whether by dint of personality or experi- Bennett, H.H. 1934a. Letter to Harold L. Ickes. File 1928-1946, Harold L. Ickes Papers, Manuscript ence, to persist without alienating others. 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified Files, Division. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Faced with an obstacle, he explained and Record Group 48. College Park, MD: National March 11, 1935, educated, often in lengthy memoranda, and Archives and Records Administration. September Bennett H.H. 1959. The Hugh Bennett Lectures. did not succumb to burning bridges with 18, 1934. Raleigh, NC: The Agricultural Foundation, Inc. those whose support he needed or might Bennett, H.H. 1934b. A Brief Statement of the Brink, W. 1951. Brink, Big Hugh: The Father of Soil need in the future. Though occasionally Cooperative Activities Carried Out Between Conservation. New York: Macmillan.

46A March/April 2010—vol. 65, no. 2 journal of soil and water conservation Daniels, J. 1951. Tar Heels: A Portrait of North File. Hyde Park, NY: Franklin D. Roosevelt L. Ickes Papers, Manuscript Division. Washington, Carolina. New York: Dodd, Mead. Presidential Library. March 20, 1935. DC: Library of Congress. March 22, 1935. Duley, F.L. 1935. Letter to George A. Barnes. File Lowdermilk, W.C. 1969. Walter Clay Lowdermilk- Tugwell, R. 1935. Tugwell Diary, Rexford Tugwell 107.2, General Files, 1933-1935, Record Group -Soil, Forest, and Water Conservation and Papers. Hyde Park, NY: Franklin D. Roosevelt 114. College Park, MD: National Archives and Reclamation in China, Israel, Africa, and the Presidential Library. March 14, 1935, Records Administration. March 21, 1935. United States. Oral History Collection No. 17. US Congress. Senate. 1935. Congressional Record, Fechner, R. 1935. Robert Fechner, Emergency Berkeley, CA: University of California, Bancroft 74th Cong., 1st sess., 1935, 79 pt. 5:5645. Conservation Work, to Ferdinand Silcox, Chief, Library. US Congress. House. 1935. Quoted in US Congress, Forest Service, A.B. Cammerer, Director, National New York Times. 1934. Dust Storms Due to Soil House, Subcommittee of the Committee on the Park Service, Duncan K. Major, Jr., Colonel, Erosion. May 14, 1934. Public Lands, Soil Erosion Program. Hearings on General Staff, War Department. File OF 6U Soil New York Times. 1935. Black Dust Storm Chokes HR 7054, 74th Cong., 1st. sess., 20, 21, 22, 25 Erosion, Official File. Hyde Park, NY: Franklin D. Midwest. March 21, 1935. March, 1935. Roosevelt Presidential Library. March 9, 1935. Nixon, E.B. Jr. 1957. Franklin D. Roosevelt & USDA SCS (USDA Soil Conservation Service). Helms, D. 1984. Walter Lowdermilk’s Journey: Conservation, 1911-1945. Volume 1. Hyde Park, 1935. Report of the Chief of the Soil Forester to Land Conservationist Environmental NY: General Services Administration, National Conservation Service. Washington, DC: USDA Review 8(2):132-145. Archives and Records Service, Franklin D. Soil Conservation Service. Helms, D. 1985. The civilian conservation corps: Roosevelt Library. USDOI (US Department of the Interior). 1934. Demonstrating the value of soil. Journal of Soil Richberg D. 1935a. Letter to Henry A. Wallace. Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior for Copyright © 2010 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.

and Water Conservation 40(2):184-188. Folder Erosion, General Correspondence, Record the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1934. Washington, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Ickes, H.L. 1933. Letter to Hugh H. Bennett. File 1- Group 16. College Park, MD: National Archives DC: US Department of the Interior. 275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified Files, Record and Records Administration. February 11, 1935. Washington Evening Star. 1935. Cleveland Has Dust Group 48. College Park, MD: National Archives Richberg D. 1935b. Letter to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Fall. March 22, 1935, p. A-9. and Records Administration. November 20, Folder Erosion, General Correspondence, Record Washington Post. 1935a. Dust Storms Menace 1933. Group 16. College Park, MD: National Archives Midwest Wheat Crop—Kansas City Paralyzed— Ickes, H.L. 1934a. Letter to Robert Fechner. File 1- and Records Administration. February 21, 1935. Deaths in Scourge Mount to Six. March 21, 275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified Files, Record Roosevelt, F.D. 1935a. Letter to Marvin McIntyre. 1935, p. 1. Group 48. College Park, MD: National Archives Note attached to letter of Henry Wallace to Washington Post. 1935b. D.C. Invaded By Dust Storm and Records Administration. February 22, 1934. Roosevelt, March 7, 1935. File OF 6U Soil From Midwest. March 22, 1935, pp. 1 and 5. Ickes, H.L. 1934b. Letter to Hugh H. Bennett. Folder Erosion, Official File. Hyde Park, NY: Franklin D.

Soil Erosion, Secretary of the Interior File, Roosevelt Presidential Library. March 9, 1935. 65(2):37A-47A 1928-1946, Harold L. Ickes Papers, Manuscript Roosevelt, F.D. 1935b. Letter to Harold L. Ickes. File Division. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. OF 6U Soil Erosion, Official File. Hyde Park, April 21, 1934. NY: Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library. Ickes, H.L. 1934c. Letter to E.K. Burlew. File 1-275 March 20, 1935. www.swcs.org Soil Erosion, Central Classified Files, Record Roosevelt, F.D. 1935c. Letter to Harold L. Ickes. Group 48. College Park, MD: National Archives Folder Soil Erosion, Secretary of the Interior File, and Records Administration. October 28, 1934. 1928-1946, Harold L. Ickes Papers, Manuscript Ickes, H.L. 1934d. Letter to E. K. Burlew. File 1-275 Division. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.

Soil Erosion, Central Classified Files, Record March 22, 1935 Group 48. College Park, MD: National Archives Schlesinger. A.M. 1958. The Coming of the New and Records Administration. December 1, 1934. Deal. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Ickes, H.L. 1935a. Letter to Rufus Poole. Secretary Shephard, W. 1934. Letter to Harold L. Ickes. File 1- of the Interior File, 1928-1946, Harold L. Ickes 275 Soil Erosion, Central Classified Files, Record Papers, Manuscript Division. Washington, DC: Group 48. College Park, MD: National Archives Library of Congress. March 2, 1935. and Records Administration. December 18, 1934. Ickes, H.L. 1935b. Letter to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Soil Erosion Service 1935. Field Order enclosed with File OF 6U Soil Erosion, Official File. Hyde Park, Bennett to Ickes. File 1-275 Soil Erosion, Central NY: Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library. Classified Files, Record Group 48. College March 21, 1935. Park, MD: National Archives and Records Ickes, H.L. 1953. The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes: Administration. January 30, 1935. The First Thousand Days, 1933-1936. Volume 1. Statutes at Large. 1933. 48 Stat. 22. New York: Simon and Schuster. Telegrams 1935. These telegrams may be found in Kelly, L.C. 1985. Anthropology in the Soil file 107.2, General Files, 1933-1935, Record Conservation Service. Agricultural History Group 114. College Park, MD: National Archives 59(2):136-147. and Records Administration. Landon, A.M. 1935. Letter to The President (tele- Telephone transcripts. 1935. Folder Soil Erosion, gram). File OF 732 Soil Erosion, Official Secretary of the Interior File, 1928-1946, Harold journal of soil and water conservation March/April 2010—vol. 65, no. 2 47A