Water-control gate at Bear River Refuge. 



cooperation of State conservation directors, and 

 active participation by many sportsmen's groups 

 lii'ought astonishing results. Land negotiators, 

 surveyors, engineers, draftsmen, biologists, and 

 other skilled help were hastily recruited. Surveys 

 and negotiations for lands went forward at a dizzy 

 pace. Buildings, dikes, dams, and other structures 

 were rushed to the construction stage. Many were 

 aided by WPA labor, others through the use of 

 workers in the Civilian Conservation Corps. 

 Between duly 1. 1934, and March 31, 1935, some 

 653,000 acres of land were optioned in time for 

 letting construction contracts amounting to $892,- 

 ( 



Chautauqua Refuge in Illinois, Seney in Michi- 

 gan, Squaw ('reek in Missouri, Arrowwood, Des 

 Lacs. Lost wood, and Upper and Lower Souris 

 Refuges in North Dakota, and Sand Lake, La- 

 creek, and Waubay in South Dakota, all came into 

 being. Several areas were expanded by the addi- 

 tion of suitable lands. By June 30, 1935, 22 CCC 

 camps were working on refuges where land pur- 

 chase had gone forward far enough to warrant 

 development. 



By the end of L935, White Liver Refuge in 

 Arkansas, Sacramento in California. Delta, La- 

 cassine, and Sabine in Louisiana, Mud and Rice 

 Lakes in Minnesota, Medicine and Red Rock Lakes 

 in Montana. Valentine in Nebraska, Mattamuskeet 

 in North Carolina. Muleshoe in Texas, Turnbull 



in Washington, and the Great P Ranch as an 

 adjunct to Lake Malheur in Oregon, all fell into 

 place on the national refuge map. 



Later, Darling, with the aid of Senator Norbeck 

 of South Dakota and other ardent conservation- 

 ists in Congress, obtained another $6 million for 

 the waterfowl restoration program. 



By the end of 1937, acquisition was in progress 

 on 62 different refuges, old and new; construction 

 of dikes, dams, and other facilities was proceeding 

 on the newly purchased areas as rapidly as title 

 passed to the Government. In the important 

 breeding areas of North Dakota and Montana, 

 landowners were cooperating wholeheartedly by 

 granting perpetual easements for the flooding of 

 their dried-up potholes, with the Government pro- 

 viding labor to construct dams designed to catch 

 and hold the waters which were bound to return 

 with a change in the water cycle. 



During those years, increasing CCC. WPA, and 

 other relief labor was available for the develop- 

 ment program, but there was a dire shortage of 

 Federal funds for the purchase of supplies and 

 materia] to take advantage of the abundant supply 

 of relief labor. Here the Duck Stamp funds were 

 used to great advantage for purchasing fencing 

 material, steel, cement, water-control gates, and 

 other necessary items. These funds, though small 

 in amount, became the key to the use of relief 

 labor for the development of the thousands of 

 acres of lands purchased with other funds. 

 During succeeding years, as WPA workers re- 

 turned to private industry and CCC camps were 

 disbanded, the Duck Stamp funds and the all- 

 too-inadequate regular annual appropriations be- 

 came the sole source of support for the waterfowl 

 refuge program. 



Duck Stamp receipts in those early years, how- 

 ever, were only a drop in the bucket compared with 

 the emergency funds that Darling was able to 

 obtain. In the fiscal year 1935, Duck Stamp 

 receipts were $635,000; the next year they dropped 

 to $448,000. In 1937 they rose to $604,000, and 

 in 1938 to $783,000. It was not until 1939 that 

 they hit the $1 million mark. Had it been neces- 

 sary to depend entirely on such funds for land 

 purchase, (lie Service's waterfowl refuges would 

 be far short of the present 3 1 j million acres. 



As a part of the relief endeavor during the 

 early thirl ies. the Government embarked on a pur- 

 chase program to retire submarginal lands in 



