| |
NRCS History Articles
The Civilian Conservation Corps: Demonstrating the Value of Soil Conservation
by Douglas Helms
Reprinted from Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 40 (March-April 1985):
184-188.
Most conservationists are familiar
with the contributions the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) made to forestry
and recreational projects for the established conservation agencies of
the 1930s, the Forest Service and National Park Service. But other agencies
or their predecessors, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of
Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, and Soil Conservation Service (SCS),
also made use of CCC labor. For example, CCC work enabled SCS to demonstrate
the value of conservation activities. The federal role in soil and water
conservation, therefore, did not end after the Great Depression and the
termination of emergency employment programs.
Today, the CCC is the beneficiary
of a positive public reputation that has obscured the history of problems
that any large organization of individuals almost necessarily has. But
that is not our story for now; it is the CCC's contribution to the cause
of conservation.
Putting young men to work
In 1932, one-fourth of America's
men between the ages of 15 and 24 could not find work. Another 29 percent
worked only part-time (8). Incoming president Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed
on March 21, 1933, that Congress create "a civilian conservation corps
to be used in simple work, not interfering with normal employment, and
confining itself to forestry, the prevention of soil erosion, flood control
and similar projects."
Congressional deliberations resulted
in several alterations to Roosevelt's proposal, one of which held great
significance for the future course of soil conservation. Major Robert Y.
Stuart, chief of the Forest Service, asked that state and private land
be made eligible as work areas. Otherwise, men from the East would have
to be transported west of the Rocky Mountains, where 95 percent of the
public domain lay (8). Stuart's argument was persuasive in part. The Act
for the Relief of Unemployment allowed soil erosion control work on state
and federal land, but restricted work on private land to activities already
authorized under U.S. laws, such as controlling fire, disease, and pests
in forests and "such work as is necessary in the public interest to control
floods." The future of CCC work in soil conservation on private land henceforth
depended on interpreting provisions of the act.
On the day Roosevelt signed the bill,
Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace wired each governor to send a
representative to Washington to discuss cooperation on forestry work. He
also mentioned the flood control work and surmised that it "probably [included]
control of soil erosion."
But soil conservation work was to
be severely circumscribed. In April a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
representative met with Roosevelt, who wanted CCC work on erosion and flood
control directed to solving flooding 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.
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 about the criticism that too
much work on private land would bring (3, 4). Also, Roosevelt, like many
of his contemporaries, too often thought soil conservation required land
use changes from cropland to woodland and was unfamiliar with the many
conservation practices that could be installed on cropland with CCC labor.
But he also had to heed the calls for a full share of CCC camps in those
states where the acreage of public land was small. Thus, Roosevelt asked
Fechner and Wallace to grant requests from midwestern states for soil erosion
control camps.
Within USDA, the Forest Service administered
the erosion camps similarly to its state and private forestry work. Under
signed agreements with states, personnel from state agencies and land grant
colleges actually operated the camps. CCC efforts followed soil erosion
control guidelines established by USDA that limited work to "controlling
gullies by means of soil-saving dams, forest planting and vegetation."
Gradually the concept was extended to include construction of terrace outlets.
The first soil erosion control camp
under Forest Service and state control opened in Clayton County, Alabama, on
June 18, 1933. By September 1934, there were 161 such camps.
There the matter of the so-called
soil erosion camps rested until August 25, 1933. Then Secretary of Labor
Harold Ickes, also acting in his dual role as administrator of the public
works, allotted $5 million for soil conservation work under the National
Industrial Recovery Act of June 16, 1933. On September 19, 1933, a USDA
soil scientist, Hugh Hammond Bennett, the country's acknowledged expert
on soil conservation, moved to the Department of the Interior as head of
the newly formed Soil Erosion Service (SES). The soil erosion camp guidelines
then in effect hardly fit the SES director's notions of soil conservation.
To Bennett's thinking, erosion had
to be reduced through a coordinated effort that allowed farmers to continue
farming without reducing income. Land that was too steep and erodible would
have to be converted to pastureland or woodland to provide groundcover
throughout the year. On cultivated land a mixture of interdependent and
mutually supportive structural and vegetative practices needed to be tailored
to the needs of each farm and farmer. Bennett's years of observation had
taught him to be wary of single-method approaches that could create new
problems while mitigating existing ones.
Bennett's approach did not require
drastic changes in the crops that farmers grew. But his ideas about farming
land according to its capabilities did entail rearrangement of fields to
follow contour lines, changes in planting methods, and use of cover crops.
It would have been difficult enough to sell the new conservation farming
system without asking farmers, during the depth of the Depression, to borrow
money for seed, fertilizer, equipment, and labor to install terraces, waterways,
and fences and to improve pastures. Furthermore, Bennett wanted to demonstrate
the values of conservation on an area larger than the individual farm--demonstration
projects of watershed size where the concentration of CCC labor would be
ideal.
SES encountered difficulty acquiring
camps, however, especially because soil conservation, in the eyes of the
CCC administrators, was being attended to in USDA. Nonetheless, CCC allotted
22 camps, less than half the number requested, to SES in April 1934.
Linking the two pieces of legislation--the
CCC act and employment act under which SES operated--permitted Bennett
to implement his coordinated, comprehensive plans for conservation farming.
Money from the public works appropriation bought the supplies, while CCC
supplied the labor. The solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior
ruled that the public works money could be used for work on private land,
as proposed by Bennett. The restrictions on CCC work in soil conservation
largely were reinterpreted.
Coon Valley leads the way
In May 1934, Fred Morrell, in charge
of CCC work for the Forest Service, visited Coon Valley, Wisconsin, which
was destined to become one of the most successful demonstration projects.
There he found Ray Davis, director of the project, ready to use the "camps
to further any and all parts of their program...to demonstrate proper farm
management to control sheet erosion." What Bennett and Davis had in mind
for Coon Valley and other areas went far beyond simply plugging gullies,
planting trees, and building terrace outlets.
The Coon Valley project, characterized
by the narrow, steep valleys of southwestern Wisconsin's Driftless area,
illustrated how Bennett and the CCC broadened the scope of soil conservation
activities. Through the winter of 1933-1934, erosion specialists on Davis'
staff contacted farmers to arrange five-year cooperative agreements. Many
of the agreements obligated SES to supply CCC labor as well as fertilizer,
lime, and seed. Farmers agreed to follow recommendations for stripcropping,
crop rotations, rearrangement of fields, and conversion of steep cropland
to pasture or woodland. Alfalfa was a major element in the stripcropping.
Farmers were interested in alfalfa, but the cost of seed, fertilizer, and
lime to establish plantings had been a problem during the Depression (13).
Another key erosion-reducing strategy
was increasing the soil's water-absorbing capacity by lengthening the crop
rotation and keeping the hay in stripcropping in place longer. A typical
three-year rotation had been corn, small grain, then hay (timothy and red
clover). Conservationists advised farmers to follow a four- to six-year
rotation of corn, small grain, and hay (alfalfa mixed with clover or timothy)
for two to four years.
Grazing of woodlands had contributed
to increased cropland erosion. Trampling soil and stripping groundcover
reduced the forest's capacity to hold rainfall and increased erosion on
fields downslope. Moreover, grazing slowed the growth of trees while providing
little feed for cows. Most of the cooperative agreements provided that
the woodlands would not be grazed if CCC crews fenced them off and planted
seedlings where needed.
SES also tried to control gullying,
especially when gullies hindered farming operations.
Streambank erosion presented another
problem. While the conservation measures on cropland would ultimately reduce
sediment flowing into Coon Creek, streambank erosion was still a problem.
The young CCC'ers built wing dams, laid willow matting, and planted willows.
In the area of wildlife enhancement,
workers established some feeding stations to carry birds through winter.
But generally the schemes to increase wildlife populations were of a more
enduring nature. Gullies and out-of-the-way places that could not be farmed
conveniently served as prime wildlife planting areas. Some farmers agreed
to plant hedges for wildlife that also served as permanent guides to contour
stripcropping. Insofar as possible, trees selected for reforested areas
were also ones that provided good wildlife habitat (13).
Between the fall of 1933 and June
1935, 418 of the valley's 800 farmers signed cooperative agreements. Aerial
photo-graphs revealed that long after the demonstration project closed,
additional farmers began stripcropping. From Coon Valley, this practice
spread during the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s into adjacent valleys of the
Driftless area (15). To James G. Lindley, head of CCC operations for Bennett,
this dissemination was the "sincerest form of flattery."
The discrepancy between this program
and the more restricted one operating through the states did not go unnoticed.
Director Fechner certainly preferred uniformity. The Forest Service had
no great enthusiasm for keeping the soil erosion camps, but to turn them
over to SES would cause problems with the states. Nor was the Forest Service
inclined to broaden its program to resemble Bennett's SES program. After
visiting Coon Valley, the CCC representative for the Forest Service, Fred
Morrell, believed that SES was contravening the President's instructions
because the "Act [CCC] is apparently a forestry Act."
SCS assumes a greater role
If Roosevelt knew, and he probably
did not, that soil erosion had been interpreted so broadly, he certainly
did not reprimand anyone. The President appreciated an innovative mind,
initiative, and a facility for bending the rules. Bennett received a compliment
rather than a scolding. Years afterward, he told and retold the story of
being summoned to the White House. Roosevelt explained how he, without
detailed knowledge of the program, knew Bennett and his colleagues were
doing a good job because established agricultural organizations wanted
to absorb the new and as yet temporary agency. According to Roosevelt's
political instincts, the desire for conquest was a measure of the quality
of the prey.1
But Roosevelt did act to unify the
programs by moving SES to USDA in March 1935. Bennett and his group's impressive
showing were no small part in the President's decision to support and sign
the Soil Conservation Act in April 1935. Later that month the newly renamed
Soil Conservation Service took over more than 150 CCC camps previously
under the general supervision of the Forest Service.
As the Depression continued, SCS
assumed a greater role in supervising youth work through CCC. For example,
in fiscal year 1937 an average of 70,000 enrollees occupied about 440 camps.
Ninety percent of the camps worked not on the watershed-based demonstration
projects but in a work area whose radius encompassed about 25,000 acres.
As local communities began organizing soil conservation districts and signing
cooperative agreements with USDA in 1937, SCS began supplying a CCC camp
to further each district's conservation program (11). During the life of
CCC, SCS supervised the work of more than 800 of the 4,500 camps. Black
enrollees worked in more than 100 of those camps.
The expanded camp program brought
CCC crews to new farming areas with a variety of conservation problems.
Nonetheless, a majority of camps were located in the prairie states and
eastward, especially the areas of row crop farming in hilly areas under
humid conditions. The Reconnaissance Erosion Survey of 1934 provided additional
guidance on where demonstrations were most needed. The map of CCC camps
under the expanded program often coincided with maps of the areas of severe
erosion.
In addition to the type of work performed
at Coon Valley in a dairying and general farming area, CCC crews also worked
with orchardists in the Northeast. There, CCC labor was used as an inducement
to get farmers to lay out orchards on the contour, build terraces and provide
outlets for established orchards and, most importantly, plant cover crops
(9).
An agent of change
Generally, the CCC camps and demonstration
projects served as agents for agricultural change. An SCS engineer reported
from Columbus, Nebraska, that "the terracing prompted by the camp is the
first that has been done in this county." Southern farmers had terraced
land for a long time, but feared grassed outlets and waterways as sources
of weeds. Thus, camp SCS-2, a black CCC camp at Collierville, Tennessee,
received compliments for convincing tenants to accept Bermudagrass outlets
and pastures. The project was judged to be the best example of such work
in the state. Not one farmer in the Duck Creek Demonstration Project at
Lindale, Texas, used Bermudagrass for soil conservation when the project
began, but there were 2,138 acres of Bermudagrass a few years later (14).
During an era when fertilizer was used sparingly, if at all, on pastures,
the labor and supplies available through the CCC made possible a demonstration
of the importance of pasture improvement.
As Hugh Benentt's plan to work with
nature involved more vegetation, especially on highly erodible areas, there
was a great need for planting materials. CCC crews worked at the nurseries
established in conjunction with demonstration projects. Sometimes a CCC
camp worked exclusively at a larger nursery. In 1936, after taking over
the Bureau of Plant Industry's erosion nurseries, SCS had 48 major nurseries,
which produced 130 million trees and seedlings for the CCC work areas and
demonstration projects. CCC crews took to the pastures, range, and woods
in the same year and collected 664,973 pounds of native grass seed and
1,647,064 pounds of conifer and hardwood seed for nursery stock (10).
Collecting grass seed was also part
of the conservation program in semiarid areas, where regeneration of rangeland
for grazing often involved CCC work in seeding and fencing for grazing
distribution and contour furrowing, developing springs, and building water
spreaders and stock water dams for water conservation. Enrollees at Camp
SCS-4 near Huron, South Dakota, for instance, spent most of their time
in 1938 and 1939 building stockwater ponds. During the life of the SCS-supervised
camps, enrollees built 134,167 miles of contour furrows to improve range
and reduce erosion.
In areas of small, irrigated farms,
work on leaky canals, overuse of water, and control of erosion on steep,
irrigated slopes had to be incorporated into the program to attract cooperation.
One strength of CCC and SCS leaders was their ability to recognize the
need for new work and add it to the conservation program and concept.
Further west the mediterranean climate
made the Pacific Coast a prime area for vineyards and orchards. As it did
for orchards of the Northeast, SCS promoted contour planting and cover
crops. Winter cover crops were particularly important on the Pacific Coast,
where much of the rain falls during those months. On the Corralitos Creek
Demonstration Project at Watsonville, California, enrollees worked on 29
miles of terraces and grade ditches and constructed 33 major outlet structures.
A public land focus too
CCC work on farms and ranches provided
the model for future SCS work with landowners. But CCC and SCS established
some of their larger, coordinated projects on federal and state lands.
The Rio Grande watershed above Elephant Butte Reservoir in New Mexico included
both public and private lands. The reservoir, a Bureau of Reclamation project,
had a capacity of 2.6 million acre-feet of water when completed in 1917.
In the fall of 1935, SCS began deploying CCC camps to work on conservation
measures to slow siltation of the reservoir. By 1937 silt had reduced the
reservoir capacity 20 percent.
Enrollees from seven camps worked
above the dam, while those from three camps below the dam concentrated
on flood control for the towns. Within a year the 10 camps built 14 large
impoundment dams and 49 smaller ones for stockwater and flood control,
6 miles of fence, and 900 miles of contour furrows. They dug 123,000 feet
of ditches to divert water from gully heads. To further control gullies,
they built 30,000 check dams, seeded or sodded 19.6 million square yards
on banks, and planted 407,000 trees (1).
Some projects combined flood control
for towns with water retention for agricultural uses. Camp SCS-4-N built
a 2,400-foot, wire-bound rock diversion structure across Angel Canyon to
protect El Rito, New Mexico, from flooding. The water was diverted along
a 20,000-foot dike, where waterspreaders carried it to cultivated land
and improved pasture.
Camp SCS-25 at Safford, Arizona,
developed water spreaders for water infiltration on state lands in the
Gila River Valley. Camp SCS-7 at Leeds, Utah, developed levees and dikes
and built flood-control devices to protect irrigation systems.
Native American CCC enrollees worked
under the auspices of the U.S. Department of the Interior's Indian Service,
which carried out the functions of feeding, clothing, and transporting
enrollees that the U.S. Army performed for other camps. SCS developed land
management plans for several reservations, including the largest SCS work
area, the Navajo Project. Along with other laborers, the Indian CCC workers
installed numerous measures from the reservation's conservation plan
(5,6).
Enrollees at camp SCS-7, Warrenton,
Oregon, participated in a project that became internationally known to
experts on coastal sand dunes. A jetty built at the mouth of the Columbia
River in the late l9th century resulted in scouring of the channel bottom.
The sand drifted down the coast to be driven inland by strong winds onto
the overgrazed sand dunes. This combination of events caused a wide sand
flat, often covered by water at high tide. CCC enrollees logged and split
fire-killed timber, donated by the county, to build a picket fence along
the beach. They then planted European beachgrass on the dune that formed
over the picket fence. The work restored the coastal area as a popular
recreational site (2, 7).
Cooperative agreements with state
highway departments allowed CCC enrollees to work on roadside erosion problems.
Before the close of the CCC camps, 841 miles of roadside demonstration
projects were completed (12).
To be sure, not all of the ideas
for conservation originated with SCS. Local communities and states brought
their problems to the attention of SCS and CCC officials. When the CCC
program began, the Kansas Forestry, Fish, and Game Commission announced
that it wanted to construct a series of lakes in state parks with CCC labor.
The commission met objections that large structures were out of the purview
of the CCC by agreeing to pay for materials and design work. The Forest
Service supervised the work until SCS became part of USDA. The construction
of each dam required the fulltime work of a CCC camp. The camps built at
least seven lakes larger than 100 acres.
CCC valuable to SCS
In retrospect, the material accomplishments
of CCC activities, while important, seem less important than the educational
experience for conservation. The work of the CCC crews was valuable to
Bennett in proving the validity of his ideas about the benefits of concentrated
conservation treatment of an entire watershed. The large-scale approach
also permitted experimentation. Few of the conservationists' techniques
were new, but the process of fitting them together was. The work led to
the refinement and improvement of conservation measures still used today.
This experience, among both SCS staff
and the enrollees, provided a trained, technical core of workers for SCS
for years to come. Former enrollees joined the staff and during the early
years, CCC funds provided for nearly half of the agency's workforce. In
addition to contributing to the passage of the Soil Conservation Act of
1935, the CCC also was instrumental in helping the soil conservation district
movement off to a healthy start. When the states began enacting soil conservation
district laws in 1937, it came as no surprise to the SCS field force that
the first districts were organized near CCC camp work areas.
CCC's real contribution, however,
lay in proving the feasibility of conservation. The positive public attitude
associated with CCC work, including soil conservation, helped to create
an atmosphere in which soil conservation was regarded, at least in part,
as a public responsibility.
Endnote
1 Bennett, Hugh H. "To the Rescue
of Soil Conservation." Address to the National Association of Soil Conservation
Districts, San Diego, California, February 2, 1955.
References
1. Granger, C. W. 1937. The C.C.C.
and soil conservation in the Southwest. Soil Conservation 2(8): 161-164, 173.
2. McLaughlin, Willard T., and Robert
L. Brown. 1942. Controlling coastal sand dunes in the Pacific
Northwest. Circ. No. 660. U.S. Dept. Agr., Washington, D.C.
3. Nixon, Edgar B. 1957. Franklin
D. Roosevelt and conservation, 1911-1945. Franklin D. Roosevelt Lib., Nat.
Archives and Records Serv., Hyde Park, N. Y.
4. Owen, A. L. Riesch. 1983. Conservation under F.D.R. Praeger, New York, N.Y.
5. Parman, Donald L. 1967. The Indian
civilian conservation corps. Ph.D. diss. Univ. Okla., Norman.
6. -------. The Navajos and the new
deal. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, Conn.
7. Reckendorf, Frank, et al. 1985.
Stabilization of sand dunes in Oregon. In Douglas Helms and Susan L. Flader
[eds.] The History of Soil and Water Conservation: A Symposium. Agr. History
Soc., Davis, Calif.
8. Salmond John A. 1967. The civilian
conservation corps: A new deal case study. Duke Univ. Press, Durham, N. Car.
9. Seaman, James A. 1938. Enrollees
aid northeastern orchards. Soil Conservation 3(9): 243.
10. Soil Conservation Service. 1936.
Annual report. U.S.D.A., Washington, D.C.
11. -------. 1937. Annual report.
U.S.D.A., Washington, D.C.
12. -------. 1941. Annual report.
U.S.D.A., Washington, D.C.
13. -------. Project monograph: Coon
Creek Project, No. Wis-1, Coon Valley, Wisconsin. Washington, D.C.
14. -------. Project monograph, Tex-2,
Lindale, Texas. Nat. Agr. Libr., Beltsville, Md.
15. Trimble, Stanley W., and Steven
W. Lund. 1982. Soil conservation and sedimentation in the Coon Creek basin,
Wisconsin. Prof. Paper 1234. U.S. Geol. Surv., Reston, Va.
< Other Articles
< Back to History
| | |