priation requested and the $250 million authorized for the 1956 program. Proposed changes in appropriation language: I would like to call your attention specifically to one of the changes which is proposed in the appropriation language. This is suggested language which would permit the allotment of up to 1 percent of any county's allocation to agencies other than the SCS, which are qualified to furnish technical services. Many of the conservation measures for which cost-sharing assistance is offered require technical determinations in order for the farmer to successfully carry them out. This need has been recognized by the Congress for several years and provision has been made for transferring funds to the SCS for that purpose. The SCS is the primary source for obtaining technical conservation assistance, and it is expected that such services will continue to be obtained from SCS on at least as extensive a basis if not greater than in past years. There is need, however, for technical services which might be supplied by State and other agencies if funds to defray the cost of those services are available. The Secretary has assigned the responsibility for the technical phases of forestry practices to the Forest Service. The assistance currently provided for forestry practices is obtained from forestry employees of State or other local public agencies and to a limited extent by the Federal Forest Service. There are some other situations where the only source from which the needed technical assistance may be obtained is from a State or local governmental agency. For example, county engineers or technicians of irrigation and drainage districts, may in some cases be the only source available. At present the Congress has authorized (through applicable appropriation acts) the transfer of up to 5 percent of a county's allocation to the SCS for technical services. It is not proposed to lessen the responsibility of SCS in providing technical assistance for ACP or to reduce the amount of needed funds transferred to them. Rather our purpose is to obtain specific approval of the Congress to broaden the assistance to include other agencies when needed. If the proposed changes are adopted, some additional funds would be used for technical assistance to farmers. While the additional amount would be limited to 1 percent of each county allocation, the total additional amount used would be substantially less than 1 percent of the national total, because many counties would require no transfer other than to the SCS. The decision as to whether any funds would be transferred to other agencies would be made by the county and State committes concerned. There would be no differnece in the method of determining transfers to the SCS and to other agencies. In closing I would like to welcome any suggestions of the committee to make further improvements in the program and to make it as simple and easily understood as possible. Mr. Paul Koger, who has recently been made Administrator of the Agricultural Conservation Program Service, together with Mr. Fred Ritchie, Deputy Administrator, and other members of the ACPS staff, are here with me today. I would like now to ask Mr. Koger to review with you the steps we have taken to make the program more effective and more adaptable to local conditions. STATMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR FOR AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM Mr. WHITTEN. Do you have any general statement on this program, Mr. Koger, which you desire to make? Mr. KOGER. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. The 1956 agricultural conservation program is operating under substantially the same general program principles which were used in the development and operation of the 1954-55 programs. However, a number of modifications in details of operation have been made which are intended to more nearly meet the problems of farmers as they face the 1956 crop year. REASONS FOR PROGRAM CHANGES In order to discuss the changes that have been made in the program since 1953, it is well to recall some of the problems of the program that existed in the years immediately preceding that time. In studying the problems of that time, particular attention was given to the discussions of this committee. In several instances the committee pointed out serious problems, one of the major ones being that ACP assistance was continued year after year for some practices which had been carried out on the same farm long enough for them to have become a well-established part of the farming system of that farm. It was felt in many quarters that this was tending to use ACP funds for supplementing income rather than for getting additional needed conservatoin. The Department agreed with some of this criticism and believed that neither the long-time interest of farmers nor the public interest in soil and water conservation expressed through the program was being served as fully as it should be. Extensive study had been given to many of these problems over a period of several years, and in 1953 the 1954 program was developed on a basis intended (insofar as practicable) to correct them. To that end the first step was to develop and clearly set forth the program objectives or principles. Most of these were not new but added emphasis was given by clearly stating them in a separate section of the National Bulletin, together with some new ones. These principles as contained in section 1 of the 1954 National Bulletin were as follows: SECTION 1. GENERAL PROGRAM PRINCIPLES. The 1954 national agricultural conservation program has been developed and is to be carried out on the basis of the following general principles: 1. The national program contains broad authorities to help meet the varied conservation problems of the Nation. State and county committees and participating agencies shall design a program for each State and county. Such programs should include any additional limitations and restrictions necessary for the maximum conservation accomplishment in the area. The programs should be confined to the conservation practices on which Federal cost sharing is most needed in order to achieve the maximum conservation benefit in the State or county. 2. The State and county programs should be designed to encourage those conservation practices which provide the most enduring conservation benefits practicably attainable in 1954 on the lands where they are to be applied. 3. Costs will be shared with a farmer or rancher only on satisfactorily performed conservation practices for which Federal costsharing was requested by the farmer or rancher before the conservation work was begun. 4. Costs should be shared only on practices which it is believed farmers would not carry out to the needed extent without program assistance. Generally, practices that have become a part of regular farming operations on a particular farm or ranch should not be eligible for cost sharing. 5. The rates of cost sharing in a county or State are to be the minimum required to result in substantially increased performance of needed practices within the limits prescribed in this National Bulletin. 6. The purpose of the program is to help achieve additional conservation on the land. Such of the available funds that cannot be wisely utilized for this purpose will be returned to the Public Treasury. 7. If the Federal Government shares the cost of the initial application of conservation practices which farmers and ranchers otherwise would not perform but which are essential to the national interest, the farmers and ranchers should assume responsibility for the upkeep and maintenance of those practices. The application of these principles resulted in distinct changes in the programs in many areas. At this point I would like to discuss first the major changes in specific program provisions made for the 1954 program, and second to review with you the experience gained from 2 years' operation, including the modifications made since 1954. CHANGES MADE FOR 1954 1. Cost sharing generally was limited to the initial establishment of a conservation practice. The application of this principle was to mean that beginning with 1955, cost sharing would not be given for a practice carried out on the same land on which it had been carried out during a prior year. This feature was not retroactive and did not. apply to practices carried out prior to the 1954 program. 2. Related measures that had been treated as individual or independent practices prior to 1954 but which were all necessary and interdependent steps in solving a conservation problem were put together and all required to be carried out to be eligible for cost-sharing. This is the so-called package-practice approach. 3. Emphasis was placed on performance of the longer lasting conservation measures, and practices were designed and encouragement given to channel more assistance into them. 4. Assistance was continued for annual and recurring types of conservation practices, but less emphasis was placed on them than under prior-year programs. 5. Cost sharing was limited to those practices for which it was requested by the farmer before the work on the practice was begun. 6. Practice approvals to farmers were made for a definite amount of performance and for a definite amount of assistance. No factoring-on or pro rata increases in payment from otherwise unused funds were permitted. 7. Greater emphasis was given to the utilization of information in any conservation farm plan which had been developed for the farm, so as to better bring ACP cost sharing to bear on critical and more urgent conservation problems. 8. Rates of cost sharing were authorized at about 50 percent of the average total cost of the complete practice. Formerly, rates, although some higher, had been based only on certain individual parts of the practice, usually parts with higher out-of-pocket costs. Labor, use of equipment, and other costs were considered in determining rates for 1954. 9. Procedures were devised to more effectively utilize available funds. Approvals of cost sharing for individual practices were given for limited periods to permit funds obligated for practices that were not performed to be reallocated to other practices or other farms. 10. More emphasis was placed on the development of local conservation practices to meet problems peculiar to a local area. 11. Soil tests for use of minerals were required where adequate facilities for such tests were available. 12. Efforts were expanded to use local suppliers of conservation materials rather than Government purchase and delivery. CHANGES SINCE 1954 Changes that have been made since 1954 have been pointed almost entirely toward the more effective application of the general program principles as set forth for 1954. Modifications have been made in the language of those principles to point up the desirability of eliminating from county programs practices which have become routine and to make it clear that ACP cost sharing is not to be used for bringing new land into production. Those modifications were made in principles 4 and 6 which now read as follows: (4) Costs should be shared only on practices which it is believed farmers or ranchers would not carry out to the needed extent without program assistance. Generally, practices that have become a part of regular farming operations in a particular county should not be eligible for cost sharing. Individual farmers or ranchers should be encouraged to utilize cost sharing for only those practices which have not become a part of regular farming operations on their farms or ranches. (6) The purpose of the program is to help achieve additional conservation on land now in agricultural production rather than to bring more land into agricultural production. Such of the available funds that cannot be wisely utilized for this purpose will be returned to the Public Treasury. I should like now to review with you our experience in the operation of the 1954 and 1955 programs, and the modifications that we made as they will apply in 1956: 1. The initial-establishment concept was aimed at increasing conservation by channeling more funds into getting new conservation work. The application of this principle simply means helping a farmer treat a particular problem on a particular field and then moving on to another problem, another field, or to another farmer. The application of that principle has provoked a great deal of comment. Many persons defend it, many others condemn it. Pilot studies indicate that some farmers will maintain and continue sound conservation practices after cost sharing has been discontinued, others will not. Farmers' actions in this respect seem to be closely dependent on whether the practice has been incorporated into a system of farming where returns from maintaining it are evident. Many of our State and county committees feel that for some needed practices allowing cost sharing only once is not sufficient time to permit the farmer to realize the full benefits that will accrue from them. For other practices they feel that the short-time gains received are not sufficient to induce farmers to continue them without aid. The problems posed are real and the resolution of them can greatly affect the future strength of the program. However, we are convinced that the concept of using limited funds to help more farmers get started on conservation systems is sound. Its application may have to be modified as problems are analyzed. Certainly it may not be an equally successful policy in all years especially years in which farmers' net incomes vary greatly. What a farmer can and will continue to do in a period of high returns from farming are more than the public reasonably can expect him to do without cost sharing in a period of adverse returns in relation to costs. 2. Prior to 1954 cost sharing for seeds, phosphate, potash, lime, etc., had been offered as separate practices. Such related operations necessary for carrying out a complete conservation job were combined into single package practices for 1954. There has been substantial acceptance of the objectives which prompted this concept but we reached too far in 1954. Complete practices often require more than one program year for effective establishment and some are too expensive for the average farmer to finance in one crop season. The intent of this policy-to protect both the farmer and the general public against ineffective and therefore expensive halfway measures—is still our objective. However, the objective can be retained and still make our practice packages fit local recommendations and farm finances a bit more realistically. Therefore, we are permitting more variation, especially in the time required for installation, based on local findings and recommendations. 3. In moving toward the more enduring types of conservation practices, we moved also toward the more expensive measures. Many of the practices call for considerable cash outlay for off-farm services. And many of them do not show any quick increase in farm income. As a result many farmers with great need for such practices have been deterred from carrying them out. For 1956, provision has been made by which the State group may increase the cost-share rate above 50 percent of the cost for long-lasting practices from which returns to the farmer are remote. 4. There is heartening evidence of the growing acceptance of the concept expressed before this committee in hearings on our 1954 program to the effect that no one has an inherent right to any exact portion of the funds available for conservation. Many committeemen are doing an excellent job of channeling funds into those practices that would not be accomplished by farmers with their own resources. Many counties and States have established local provisions to more effectively direct approvals to the more enduring practices. 5. We have worked toward a broader understanding and a more effective use of pooling agreements in carrying out conservation measures having community benefits. This has resulted in increased interest in organizing community efforts to accomplish projects which individuals are unable to do alone. The action taken by Congress last year raising the payment limit to individuals for such community practices makes the use of pooling agreements more practical for many needed practices. 6. States were permitted a great deal of latitude in developing operating methods for 1956. And several came up with constructive ideas for the more effective use of program funds. All methods in use provide for the approval of cost sharing only on the basis of the farmer's prior request (except for emergency practices, such as in the Dust Bowl). And most State procedures specify that approvals shall |