It was an extraordinary time to be a new employee of the Soil Conservation Service in 1982. The field offices were staffed and trained with a new crop of conservationists. It is this generation who I consider to be the greatest generation of soil and water conservationists.
The individuals hired by the agency in the years 1970–1980 were special. They were people like my supervisor, Warren Johnson; a farm kid with a deep respect for agriculture and a passion for conservation. Warren knew how to listen to farmers and how to talk farming.
Warren, like the rest of his generation, had solid technical training in both structural and agronomic practices. They knew how to design terraces, ponds, basins, and grassed waterways. They could also talk about the conservation benefits of agronomic practices such as no-till, field borders, and contour strip cropping.
This generation really clicked. Under their management and with new conservation programs like EQIP, CRP, WRP, conservation compliance, sodbuster and swampbuster, the agency realized never before seen gains in conservation. They had the keys to their own success – a great work ethic, the ability to relate well to farmers and, most importantly, an incredible technical foundation. I often wonder what if they had today’s technology.
I remember surveying with my supervisor Warren, out in the field, day after day. We walked numerous miles and recorded hundreds of survey points in a day – distance and elevation. And when surveying was done, we went back to the office to plot each survey point with paper and pencil. I know it sounds crazy but I loved this work. I was outside in the sunshine, trying to master my surveying skills. Looking back, I realize how time consuming and inefficient the transit and rod surveying technique really was.
Few people would argue that the technical knowledge of local field office staff has slipped dramatically since Warren’s generation. It takes years to build strong technical skills. Some could argue we don’t have the time to teach those skills. Or perhaps, people aren’t as inclined to learn. But in my view, we can’t ignore this shortcoming any longer.
Again, I’m thinking what if. What if we identified and nurtured a new group of eager, committed conservationists? And, what if we supplied each one of them with the newest and best technology to do their job? What if each one had access to LiDAR, GPS, GIS, machine control, computer tablets, and technology we haven’t even heard of yet? And what if these individuals worked for ag retailers, a farmer’s most trusted advisor? Would the new conservationists be able to match or exceed the accomplishments of the greatest generation? I think so. I would like to hear what you think.
Sending a man to the moon
Tom you are spot on in my opinion. The Ag Retailer needs to house these highly trained TSP ‘s. The connection this could provide would be valuable in bringing in new clients as well as maintaining current ones!
Dave, I know you have followed this issue for sometime. I appreciate your feedback. Yes there is a lot more that can be accomplished with the TSP program but it is a program that must be streamlined in order to be effective. Additionally there is a lot of conservation that is being implemented with no government assistance. I think there is room for the public sector, the private sector, and public-private partnerships.
Tom, I believe it is indeed possible to exceed the accomplishments of the greatest generation, but only if ag retailers work in partnership with their growers and the NRCS. Neither group can accomplish these goals by themselves. Much has been accomplished during the past 37 years and perhaps just the low-hanging fruit has been harvested in terms of conservation planning. The more difficult to reach fruit will require a collaborative effort between the growers, ag retail and the NRCS. Together, we can do this!
John, I absolutely agree. It is long overdue that ag retailers and NRCS develop a meaningful private-public relationship. But to be successful we will have to streamline the conservation delivery system.
Tom. Always good to look back and build on what we have learned during our careers. When I was a young and energetic soil scientist my supervisor stated “Good results start and end in the field”. In those days we had a soil probe, aerial photograph, pencil, Munsell color book and a bottle of 10% HCL, plus a pick-up truck to get us to the field. Today, soil scientists and soil conservationists have the current generation of technology. When used appropriately these technical tools greatly enhance efficiency and use of time. However, the nagging question is whether all of the technology really provides “good results”. Efficiency and technical results, yes! However, are there advantages for going to the field and observing the soils and landscape and having the opportunity to meet with the landowner/manager on their farm and having a conversation about the pluses and minuses of implementing alternative conservation practices. Hopefully, we have not become 100% dependent on the computer sitting on the desk or the smart phone hooked on to our belt. I still believe that “Good results start and end in the field”.
Gerald “Jerry” Miller
Jerry, always good to hear from you. Yes, I do agree that all conservationists need to go to the field. Regardless of who we work for or what technology we possess , we all need to get out of office and help farmers in the field. For some projects it is absolutely critical. However for other projects, like a small straight-forward waterway, maybe there are alternative methods we have to consider. We must figure out how to streamline conservation, and reduce the cost, if we are going to accomplish our goals.
Tom
For that matter Jerry, John and Dave – we all agree that work in the field is an imperative as we use the new technology with the old work ethic.
Monday I was in Ames briefly and had the opportunity to talk with a few of our leaders. I believe that acceptance that times do change. Our ability to accept change and then adapt will be critical to the care and use of the resources we have. Rather than continue to laminate the lack of funds taking a collaborative approach to have our best conservationist work with private industry to reach farmers at the retail level may just be the most effective way today to get conservation on the land.
Dave, I completely agree that we spend too much time laminating the lack of funding and we need a new path forward.
I take issue with your comment that you believe the SCS employees coming on the scene in the 1980’s were the greatest generation of soil and water conservationists. They aren’t even close. Granted there are some outstanding ones in that time frame, and I much appreciate your own pride in your generation and peer group. This is a sign of a real professional. But let me offer rebuttal.
The greatest generation were those that started in the 1930’s and 1940’s with Hugh Hammond Bennett and the people he surrounded himself with, and who started SES in Interior, and then in 1935 SCS in USDA. I’ll call them the founders. They were recognized as some of the world’s best scientists and conservationists, and the agency in those days was noted for developing state-of-the-art technological innovation in conservation related disciplines. They knew how to work on the land with farmers and ranchers, and many of them had a farm background and spoke the language. They, and the US led the world in dealing with soil erosion. We also led the world in soil science.
Right on their heels were those that came on board in the 1950’s and 1960’s. While some of the founders were still there, this group also contained world renowned scientists, engineers, soil scientists, agronomists, range scientists, and experts in many other disciplines, and were mentored and trained by the founders. And the advances in innovative conservation technology continued. Just one example is the development of rainfall-runoff relationships in ungauged watersheds, watershed hydrology. This innovative work originated in SCS and was recognized world-wide. Once again most of these eminent scientists had farm backgrounds. This is my peer group as I started in 1953 and retired in 1994. And like you I take great pride in having worked with some of the greatest conservationists in the world during that time.
The next grouping, I would make contains the folks you are talking about, those that came in the 1970’s and 1980’s. And while I would agree with you that there were, and still are, some outstanding conservationists in this period, I also see this period as the start of the decline of SCS and its technical superiority. Starting with the 1985 Farm Bill, the agency began to lose its technical excellence in many disciplines, and its concentration on providing the best science-based technical assistance to our nation’s producers, and instead became corrupted by chasing money much like ASCS or what is now FSA. The notion of conservation technical assistance being the bedrock of SCS was being lost as we chased Farm Bill money. It was also in this time period that we started noticing fewer and fewer young people coming on board with farm backgrounds. And while many of those were very bright and well educated people, many could not communicate with producers, and in fact some were reluctant to do so. Working in the field with a farmer or rancher, on the land, started giving way to sharing information by computers. Personal communication was reduced.
In the 1990’s and 2000’s that decline has continued. SCS became NRCS in 1994. And I believe NRCS no longer works hard at the development of conservation technological innovation. In fact, some technical strengths the old SCS had, have virtually disappeared. I know many today will disagree with me, but one example of that technical loss is in my field of engineering. Where SCS once was recognized for its engineering expertise, now it does not even have the engineers it needs to carry our its mission. And development of innovative technology has stopped. And I would say you are doing an excellent job in that regard. I believe most really innovative conservation technology is being produced in the private sector today. Even ARS, USDA’s leading scientific agency, has seen its abilities eroded. Today many conservation districts no longer work closely with NRCS at all, or have a resident DC, but work closely with their state’s land grant institution. That is the case with my Northern Virginia SWCD.
There are a number of reasons these changes have occurred, some of them being political. That won’t change.
Anyway, I meant this in fun, and I think and hope you know I appreciate your work. And I have no doubt that you worked with some great people as you were starting. But in my humble opinion they were not the greatest generation. That group, from probably the 1930’s to 1970 is gone, as is the agency they started. As sad as that is, it was a privilege to have witnessed and been part of it. Keep it up.