Excerpt
PASSAGE of the Soil Conservation Act of 1935 (Public Law 46) set the P stage for tension and conflict in a number of states, including Missouri. For more than 25 years, implementation of Public Law 46 was opposed in Missouri. The opposition felt that a strong federal approach to soil conservation represented too much national intervention in the solution to state and local problems.
Opponents in Missouri to the federal ap-proach agreed that soil conservation was aproblem warranting social concern. Whatthey opposed was federal personnel work-ing directly with Missouri farmers. Thatrepresented to them a duplication of and infringement on the mission of the University of Missouri College of Agriculture and Extension Service.
The battle was long and sometimes bitter. A number of the state's agricultural leaders were involved. Strong personal feelings were generated that remain today. As a public issue, the conflict began in 1935 and ended in 1962.
Historical developments
Social concern …
Footnotes
Michael K. Childs is a former graduate research assistant, and J. C. Headley is a professor of agricultural economics at the University of Missouri, Columbia, 65211.
- Copyright 1982 by the Soil and Water Conservation Society
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.