ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Mr. PETERSON. We are receiving reports of the same attitudes that you indicate. At the beginning the 5 percent transfer arrangements were highly beneficial in improving the cooperative relations between ASC committees, Soil Conservation Service technicians, and soil conservation district governing bodies. We believe that such transfers have resulted in more productive conservation investments of both the farmers' and the Government's funds. We believe it is important that such technical servicing be continued and strengthened where necessary. Recently, however, we, too, have heard reports that these county-by-county arrangements are becoming a source of irritation to relationships at the local level. I am of the opinion that these county-by-county arrangements are becoming more of a hinderance than a help to cooperative relationships at the county level, and that a more efficient manner of financing technical services to the ACP should be explored.

Mr. ANDERSEN. We have also had reports that it is costing too much money to keep the records and work out these transfers in every county throughout the Nation. Would you say these handling costs are excessive?

Mr. PETERSON. At the present time the ACP funds are transferred under terms of county-by-county agreements which on an annual basis require frequent amendments. This approach is time consuming and costly. The estimated annual cost of negotiating, revising, amending, and accounting in connection with some 2,791 agreements, to the Soil Conservation Service alone, is in excess of $175,000. In addition to the funds transferred, there are 377 counties utilizing ACP funds where no transfers are now being made. The estimated cost to the conservation operations funds of the Soil Conservation Service for servicing the ACP, not covered by transferred funds, is approximately $4,400,000 per year.

Mr. ANDERSEN. What would be wrong with making these funds directly available to SCS and requiring of them that they do the job? Would we have better cooperation and would that in any way reduce the overhead costs and the demand on the time of scarce engineering personnel who now have to keep all these clerical records?

Mr. PETERSON. It seems to us in the Department of Agriculture. that it would be practical and in the interest of more efficient program operations to provide for lump-sum State level transfers of such funds from the State ASC committees to the Soil Conservation Service. By so doing we could reduce overhead costs and improve working relationships in the field. We believe this could be done without detracting from any essential prerogatives of functions of the county ASC committees.

Mr. ANDERSEN. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I might say this: Mr. Peterson, I would even go so far this year as to recommend a reduction, if absolutely necessary, in the conservation reserve in order to help balance the books toward bringing the ACP program back to the $250 million status, which this subcommittee very strongly feels it should be. I feel that perhaps we might show good judgment in going just a trifle slow in the conservation reserve until we get some of the wrinkles ironed out of it, and if that means taking some money out of the $450 million estimate there, and repairing the damage done to an ACP program by putting ACP back to $250 million, I just have the feeling that perhaps that might be the best thing to do.

I am only expressing that as my personal opinion, Mr. Peterson. I hope that we will have such an operation of the conservation reserve in the coming year as to give to the Congress a feeling of confidence all the way through that it is the thing that Mr. Marshall and I hoped it would be, and that is something very beneficial to agriculture. Then we can proceed from there, Mr. Marshall.

Mr. PETERSON. I understand, Mr. Andersen, that you have the Soil Bank Division coming before this committee for interrogation with respect to its budget.

Mr. ANDERSEN. That is correct. I am simply making this a matter of record to emphasize my feeling that, first, ÁČP should not be practically decimated by reducing it from $250 million to $125 million, because I am inclined to agree with my chairman in his statement, which he often makes-I have heard him make it so often-to the effect that perhaps we receive more real conservation through ACP, dollar for dollar, than we receive from any other source, with the possible exception of the work done by the soil-conservation technicians. I would have to give them first place, of course. That is all,

Mr. Chairman.

ATTITUDE OF STATE COMMITTEES ON PROPOSED REDUCED PRACTICES

Mr. WHITTEN. Did I understand you, in connection with these recommendations for practices that these have not yet gone to the States that would be specially affected?

Mr. PETERSON. No; they have not.

Mr. WHITTEN. Would there be any way for you to take this up with the State committees where these practices are important, as to what their attitude would be, and advise us within a reasonable time? I would like for you to get us some information.

Mr. PETERSON. We will be glad to try to get an appraisal from our State committees. I assume we have to write to the State ASC chairman.

Mr. KOGER. We are getting for the record the amount of funds that went into these practices.

Mr. WHITTEN. This is a State committee attitude. If you could insist that we have it in our hands next Monday, it would be early enough.

Mr. PETERSON. We will get that for you.

(The information subsequently supplied may be found in the appendix at the end of this volume.)

IMPORTANCE OF ACP

Mr. MARSHALL. There were some remarks made a moment ago that I cannot concur with. It seems to me the agricultural conservation program in its importance stands on its own feet. While it works with other existing programs, personally, I do not feel it is put in a position of being a second program to those programs when we talk in terms of it being complementary. I say that because, in my observation, the agricultural conservation program, as such, is available in all of the counties in the United States. Many of those counties do not have Soil Conservation Service districts; many of those counties do not have other facilities that are set up in the Agriculture Department to assist them. But in all these counties

where there are farmers they make use of the agricultural conservation

program.

There were a few other things I have observed about this program which I think are a little unique. No payment is made to a farmer unless he does something on that land to earn these practice payments that are recognized as conservation. In other words, this is putting conservation right on the land.

One other observation I would like to make about this program. This is a program in the Department of Agriculture that helps the small, little farmer. He is the one who can take advantage of it, and so often does. He is the one who needs the assistance. He is the one who has the hand labor and family labor to put these practices into effect. Ofttimes this program, to him, in carrying on the conservation on his land is an extremely valuable part of his farm program. All of these practices, as has been pointed out by you, Mr. Secretary, a moment ago, carry at least 50 percent or more of the cost on the part of the farmer himself. I again repeat, they are not paid for until they are put into effect, so that here you are paying for actual conservation on the land. In my estimation, you are getting more conservation for each dollar that you spend on this program than any other conservation program we have in the Department of Agriculture. Mr. PETERSON. I think that is a matter of judgment, Mr. Marshall. When I said I hoped it would be complementary to other conservation programs, it seems to me we have a group of things that are conservation or conservation related. The farmer, to successfully do these practices to which you refer, needs, it seems to me, an understanding of how he can do them most effectively. He does not do just one practice. That does not overcome his problem under most circumstances. He uses a combination of practices to meet particular soil- and waterconservation problems as they may exist on his farm.

Mr. MARSHALL. I realize it may be just a question of verbiage. I would say the other programs are complementary to this program. That is the way I would word it.

Mr. PETERSON. Apparently, we start from different points on the compass to get to the same place.

Mr. MARSHALL. That is all.

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Secretary, we wish to thank you again. All of us have the same problems. We will see what we can do about this. Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, very

much.

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1958.

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

WITNESSES

ERVIN L. PETERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
D. A. WILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATOR, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
G. E. YOUNG, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, SOIL CONSERVATION
SERVICE

C. E. KELLOGG, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, SOIL SURVEY, SOIL
CONSERVATION SERVICE

W. R. VanDERSAL, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, MANAGEMENT, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

CYRIL LUKER, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, GREAT PLAINS CONSERVATION PROGRAM, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

C. B. BROWN, DIRECTOR, PLANNING DIVISION, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

C. H. DORNY, DIRECTOR, BUDGET AND FINANCE DIVISION, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

L. E. LYMAN, CHIEF, BUDGET BRANCH, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

PAUL M. KOGER, ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM SERVICE

W. T. MURPHY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FLOOD PREVENTION AND RIVER BASIN PROGRAMS, FOREST SERVICE

CHARLES C. BARNARD, DIRECTOR, BUDGET AND STATISTICS DIVISION, FARMERS' HOME ADMINISTRATION

CHARLES L. GRANT, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND BUDGET OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. WHITTEN. Gentlemen, we have before us the Soil Conservation Service. In connection with that appropriation I would like to insert pages 175 to 199 of the justifications at this point. (The pages referred to are as follows:)

PURPOSE STATEMENT

The Soil Conservation Service was established by the act of April 27, 1935 (16 U. S. C. 590a-590f). It assists soil conservation districts and other cooperators in bringing about physical adjustments in land use that will conserve soil and water resources, provide for agricultural production on a sustained basis, and reduce damage by floods and sedimentation. The Service also develops and carries out special drainage, irrigation, flood prevention, and watershed protection activities in cooperation with soil conservation districts, watershed groups, and other Federal and State agencies having related responsibilities.

CONSERVATION OPERATIONS PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

The Service provides technical and other assistance to soil conservation districts and other cooperators in the 48 States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, in helping farmers and ranchers carry out locally adapted soil and water conservation programs. As of June 30, 1957, farmers and ranchers had organized 2,770 conservation districts. The assistance furnished by the Service includes:

(a) Soil surveys to provide physical land facts needed to determine the use capabilities and conservation treatment needs of each acre of farm and ranch land, and the publishing of soil survey reports and maps which are useful also to other Federal and State agencies and the public in the development of special land-use programs and for other purposes.

(b) Technical help to farmers and ranchers in developing and applying conservation plans which provide for the best possible use by the farmer or rancher of his land, labor, equipment, and financial resources;

[ocr errors]

(c) The grant (at no cost to the Service) of some special types of equipment not readily available to the farmer but needed to establish certain conservation practices;

(d) Field-scale trials of promising new species and strains of grasses, legumes, trees and shrubs and other plant materials to determine their suitability for soil and water conservation purposes, and cooperation with State and private organizations to promote adequate commercial production and distribution of plant materials useful for conservation land use and treatment measures. Limited amounts of plant materials needed for this purpose are produced at 17 plant materials centers;

(e) Stream-flow forecasts developed from snow surveys in the Western States to provide for efficient seasonal utilization of available water supplies for irrigation and other purposes.

WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

The Service has general responsibility for administration of the watershed protection program of the Department, and the formulation and development of its guiding principles and procedures. The program consists of—

(a) Making investigations and surveys of proposed small watershed projects and working with local sponsoring organizations in the preparation of project work plans;

(b) Cooperating with States and other local public agencies in the installation of works of improvement designed to reduce erosion, floodwater, and sediment damage, and further the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water;

(c) Making loans (by the Farmers' Home Administration) to local organizations to finance the local share of the costs of carrying out works of improvement; and

(d) Cooperating with other Federal, State, and local public agencies in making investigations and surveys of the watersheds of rivers and other waterways for the development of coordinated water resources programs. In cooperation with soil conservation districts and other local groups and organizations, the Soil Conservation Service provides accelerated technical assistance to farmers and ranchers in these small watersheds in the planning and application of soil and water conservation practices and technical and financial assistance in the planning and installation of water management and erosion control measures such as diversion ditches and dikes, waterflow retarding structures, debris and desilting basins, stream channel improvements, floodways, gully-control structures, roadside stabilization measures, etc. The Forest Service participates, generally by cooperating with State foresters, in planning and providing intensified fire protection and certain technical forestry assistance to landowners in applying forest and woodland improvement measures on nonFederal lands and by installing measures on lands under its administration. The Agricultural Research Service furnishes assistance in the assembly, correlation, and analysis of economic data needed in the planning phases of the program. The Farmers' Home Administration makes loans to local sponsors to finance their share of costs of the small-watershed projects. The Weather Bureau and Geological Survey provide assistance in gathering and analyzing hydrologic data. The Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Indian Affairs participate in the planning and installation of works of improvement on lands under their jurisdiction.

The Agricultural Research Service, Forest Service, and the Soil Conservation Service cooperate with other Federal, State, and local public agencies in making surveys and investigations of the watersheds of rivers and other waterways for the development of coordinated water resources programs.

FLOOD PREVENTION PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

Pursuant to the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936, as amended and supplemented, and under policies established by the Secretary, the Service has general responsibility for administration of the flood prevention program of the Department, and the formulation and development of its guiding principles and procedures. Since the passage of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 566, 83d Congress) the program is limited to the planning and installation in the 11 authorized watersheds of watershed improvement measures primarily for flood prevention.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »