Historical Insights Number 9 March 2010 Hugh Hammond Bennett and the Creation of the Soil Conservation Service, September 19, 1933 – April 27, 1935 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 1 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 ef- fective 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 2 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 3 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 unem- ployment 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- 4 less vastly more is done from now Service.