ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

In my book it cant be anybody else but the Soil Conservation Service.

I am going to leave it go there. We have got to do something to leave it as it is, boys. That is a lot of money.

Mr. PETERSON. I made this observation, I believe, in my general statement, Mr. Horan, that I felt that the technical competences of our technical conservation agency should be fully utilized in program formulation. That doesn't mean that that agency necessarily by itself is to do all the field administration, but I think that the competency of that agency should be fully utilized in putting together conservation programs, whether administered by CSS, ACP, ACS, or somebody else.

LAND RESOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. HORAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to close here with a reference, if I may, to what I think is a rather fine part of Mr. Williams' report. I would like to read it. It isn't long, so I will read it:

It is reassuring to be able to report that the United States for the moment is also in a favored position in terms of the land resources of the various nations. If our 1,904 million acres of land, in the continental United States, we have 407 million acres of cropland, 700 million acres of nonforested pastures and grazing land, 606 million acres of forest and woodland, and 189 million acres in deserts or devoted to special purposes-towns and cities and other miscellaneous nonagricultural uses.

That sounds like, and is, a truly rich heritage,

Right now it is producing surpluses for us.

We have been blessed with a goodly inheritance of fertile lands. We also are fortunate that some of our early leaders had the foresight to warn us of the dangers of land waste, and to launch movements which have given us by now a quarter of a century of advanced experience in the science and practice of soil and water conservation. But even in the United States we have not much land to spare.

That fits in with soil conservation.

The pro rata figure, related to 1950 population, was 3.2 acres of cropland per person.

Of course we all know that is much, much higher than in other parts of the world.

Projecting this to 1975, when we shall likely see a national population of 228 million people, the figure will be only 2.1 acres per person, even though we may be able to add to our farm plant some 20 million cropland acres by that date. I personally have other figures that I developed in 1951. We can add 42 million acres, by both reclamation and drainage. We have new pumps now. We have new facilities. We are reaching higher benches than we did. That figure is subject to weighing, of course.

But by the year 2000, still allowing for another 20-million-acre cropland increase, your share and mine of the Nation's cropland can only be a little more than 12 acres per person.

We will be approaching the conditions in some of the countries where famines are common.

This is not to suggest that by the year 2000 we shall be going hungry. We are making very great strides in the techniques of soil and water management. Research workers, soil scientists, soil-conservation technicians, and conservationminded farmers and ranchers have proved that the right use and treatment of all the right land can induce it to produce much more than we ever before thought possible.

"THE FIFTH PLATE"

I have here my only remaining copy of an interesting bulletin. I have used this a lot. It is the pamphlet called The Fifth Plate, put out by the Production and Marketing Administration in December

1951.

One of the interesting things here is that they project in 1951 the population of the United States. They had a figure, I believe, of 190 million people by 1975. Apparently, you can't just project what the baby crop will be. I think it approaches something like 4 million a year now. Isn't that correct?

Mr. PETERSON. Between 3 and 4, I believe.

Mr. HORAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have this pamphlet brought up to date. It is 7 or 8 years old now.

I would like to read from this page to show you how interesting this is. This is out of date. The day is not far off when we won't have these surpluses plague us. There are some commodities which are right now in undersupply.

Mr. WHITTEN. We have run out of money already. The farmers have.

Mr. HORAN. I know. This projects to 1975. In the case of milk, we will have to have the 1950 production, and the production of Wisconsin, Michigan, and New York.

In pork, added to the 1950 production we will have to add the pig crops of Nebraska and Iowa. Beef and veal we will have to have the 1950 cow numbers and, in addition, the present production of Minnesota, Texas, and Oklahoma. I though it was a very, very good pamphlet.

Mr. WHITTEN. I remember my colleague from Washington making very effective use of that in 2 or 3 presentations of this bill to the Congress. I do think it is well worthy of the attention of the department.

I would suggest that it be taken up with Dr. Shaw, who I think would have charge of it. We will ask that they report to us as to what would be involved to bring it down to date.

Mr. HORAN. I would like to turn this over to Secretary Peterson, if I may.

Mr. PETERSON. We have library copies over there, Mr. Horan. Mr. ANDERSEN. Mr. Horan, if you will permit me, I think your idea is very fine in relation to this particular pamphlet. I, too, was impressed with that. I hope, Mr. Peterson, something can be done. Mr. PETERSON. Do I understand now, Mr. Chairman, that the committee wishes us to report to the committee what would be involved in bringing this up to date?

Mr. WHITTEN. Yes. Not a formal report. You can advise us. We would need to know what time it would take, what is involved, and what could be done about it.

Mr. ANDERSEN. May I ask one question, Mr. Horan ?

Mr. HORAN. Yes.

Mr. ANDERSEN. In your presentation you said that certain figures would need weighing. You had reference to the 20 million acres of new land?

Mr. HORAN. I had reference to the figures I read from this book, which indicated that down in Mississippi, Louisiana, some of the other

Southern States, there were considerable acres that could be drained. I believe the figure was around 20 million. It was considerable, anyhow.

Mr. ANDERSEN. The point I want to bring out, on the other hand, however, we have to weigh land that is going out of production due to the expansion of our cities and villages, industrial areas, roads and highways, et cetera ; do we not?

Mr. HORAN. Yes. Of course the intent of what we have before us now is to retain those lands. I think we will probably make some headway in that direction.

I would rather take the outlook of reclaiming, through soil-conservation practices and the $714 million we are spending this year, to bring it back to life. Then I would like to have a better figure on the reclamation possibilities from the Bureau of Reclamation. They can supply it.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Horan, I believe the 40 million plus acres that you referred to is an approximation of the total potential that could be economically brought into agricultural use, whereas the 20 million acres to which I had reference in my statement had a time date of up to the year 2000.

In other words, we were assuming that perhaps as much as 20 million of the total 40 plus million, if necessary, could come into production.

I think the figure of 40 plus million acres involving possibilities of clearing of good agricultural land, drainage, reclamation, et cetera, is an approximate figure that so far as I know is good as anything else.

Mr. HORAN. This is not a new subject. It is a matter of bringing it up to date.

Mr. ANDERSEN. We have been discussing here the total amount of money in the budget for everything approximating conservation in any way. We have ACP, we have the conservation reserve, and we have the soil conservation operations, and amounting as Mr. Horan has said, to approximately $740 million. I haven't checked that figure. We must remember this: That the amount put in the budget for this coming year for the soil bank, for the conservation reserve section, has a distinct and separate purpose from soil conservation operations, and conservation in general, because we are temporarily for a few years. trying to take good average producing lands out of production. At the same time we are trying to protect the land which is being taken out of production, putting a cover crop over it so that the soil will not suffer. I don't think we can really charge against conservation work in this budget the amount as put in the budget for the conservation reserve, Mr. Chairman. I think that is a separate and different entity.

Mr. WHITTEN. In connection with this discussion, which has gone into many aspects of this overall problem, we haven't given as much attention in my judgment as we intended to the Great Plains conservation program.

GREAT PLAINS CONSERVATION PROGRAM

I would like a statement as to how this program differs from ACP and conservation reserve. I would like a comparison of the cost-shar

ing practices for each program. I would like to compare the percentages of participation by the Federal Government for the three programs.

In connection with the Great Plains program, I would like to have the number of counties participating, how many employees are involved in this matter, and what part of the $10 million for 1958 has been obligated.

(The information requested is as follows:)

The Great Plains conservation program (Public Law 1021, 84th Cong.), seeks to establish a greater stability of agriculture in the Great Plains' portion of the 10 Great Plains States through a stepped-up program of soil and water conservation. It envisions lasting benefits through needed changes in land use, proper treatment of such lands, and greater coordination of Department of Agriculture conservation effort in this vast area.

The following material is furnished. in response to specific questions asked to be answered in the record:

1. How does this program differ from ACP and conservation reserve?

(a) The Great Plains conservation program provides for the development of a complete, basic conservation plan for the producer's entire operating unit whereas the ACP is offered to farmers as individual practices on an annual basis. (b) The Great Plains conservation program is a step-by-step process for making uninterrupted, long-term adjustments in land use, cropping practice, and treatment of cultivated and rangeland with proper combinations of practices. (c) Long-term assurance is provided the individual producer of needed financial aid through cost-sharing contracts to carry out a complete soil and water conservation program for the entire farm or ranch.

(d) The cost-share assistance under the Great Plains conservation program is limited to nonrecurring or permanent types of conservation practices whereas ACP uses some of its cost-share funds for recurring annual types of practices. (e) The Great Plains conservation program seeks to coordinate the contributions from all programs in plans of operations and thus secure maximum benefits to the producers.

(f) The Great Plains conservation program provides for the grazing of lands in the changed use at any time consistent with good management.

(g) There are no rental-type payments made under the Great Plains conservation program.

(h) The conservation reserve program differs from the Great Plains conservation program in that the former provides annual rental payments to participants for lands removed from production. Production control is achieved in that lands under contract cannot be used for producing crops for market.

2. How do cost-sharing practices compare with other programs?

The Great Plains conservation program practices listed below are especially designed for use in proper combinations for planning and carrying out complete plans of operations for producers. They are nonrecurring types of practices. Actually GP-25 is a procedure for including a practice in a county which appears on the Great Plains conservation program list but which is not selected by a State. GP-26 is also a procedure for the clearance of a new practice for use in a county but which does not appear upon either the national or a State list. Other types of practices sometimes referred to as temporary or recurring annual practices, even though essential to complete plans of operations, are not cost-shared in the Great Plains conservation program.

(1) GP-1 (A–2)—Initial establishment of a permanent vegetative cover as a part of an improved cropping system or as a needed land-use adjustment.-This conservation practice is applicable only to land which should be established in permanent vegetative cover for protection against wind or water erosion, and to cropland which, as a part of a needed land-use adjustment, is being shifted to permanent protective vegetative cover as a part of establishing improved cropping system rather than as a part of a regular cropping system. Federal cost-sharing may be approved for constructing fences where fences are necessary to protect the seeded area and only for the extent necessary to fence that area. Federal cost-sharing for fences shall be limited to permanent fences, excluding boundary and road fences.

(2) GP-2 (A-6)—Initial establishment of field strip-cropping to protect soil from wind or water erosion.-The crop stubble or crop residue must be left standing over winter, or a winter cover crop established, or necessary protective tillage operations carried out, on acreage devoted to row crops.

(3) GP-3 (A-5)—Initial establishment of contour strip-cropping to protect soil from wind or water erosion.-All cultural operations must be performed as nearly as practicable on the contour. The crop stubble or crop residue must be left standing over winter, or a winter cover crop established, or necessary protective tillage operations carried out, on acreage devoted to row crops. Where permanent sod waterways are needed for the disposal of excess water they should be planned in combination with this conservation practice.

(4) GP-4 (E-2)—Initial establishment of contour farming operations on nonterraced land to protect soil from wind or water erosion.—All cultural operations must be performed as nearly as practicable on the contour. The crop stubble or crop residue must be left standing over winter, or a winter cover crop established, or necessary protective tillage operations carried out, on acreage devoted to row crops. When permanent sod waterways are needed for the disposal of excess water they should be planned in combination with this conservation practice.

(5) GP-5 (B-2)—Improvement of vegetative cover on rangeland by artificial reseeding for soil protection.-The area seeded must not be grazed before the stand is established.

(6) GP-6 (A-8)—Initial establishment of a stand of trees or shrubs on farm or ranch lands for windbreaks, shelterbelts, erosion control, or other purposes to protect farm or ranch land from wind or water erosion. This conservation practice will usually involve the use of adapted shrubs and trees in combinations that produce agricultural benefits such as protecting soil from wind and water erosion, protecting farm buildings and feed lots, stabilizing gullies and other critical silt and runoff source areas, building soil or improving wildlife habitat. No Federal cost-sharing will be allowed for planting orchard trees, or for plantings for ornamental purposes. If shrubs are used, those that benefit wildlife should be given preference whenever practicable. Plantings must be protected from fire and grazing. Federal cost-sharing for fencing shall be limited to permanent fences needed to protect the planted area from grazing, excluding boundary and road fences.

(7) GP-7 (C−1)—Initial establishment of permanent sod waterways to dispose of excess water without causing erosion.

(8) GP-8 (C-4)—Constructing terraces to detain or control the flow of water and check soil erosion.-Necessary protective outlets or waterways must be provided. Costs of construction may include necessary leveling and filling to permit installation of an effective system.

(9) GP-9 (C-5)-Constructing diversion terraces, ditches or dikes to intercept runoff and divert excess water to protected outlets.-Necessary protective outlets or waterways must be provided. Costs of construction may include necessary levelling and filling to permit installation of an effective system. (10) GP-10 (B-4)—Furrowing, chiseling, ripping, scarifying, pitting, or listing noncrop grazing land to prevent soil loss, retard runoff, and improve water penetration.-The operation must be performed as nearly as practicable on the contour.

(11) CP-11 (C-6)—Constructing erosion control, detention, or sediment retention dams to prevent or heal gullying or to retard or reduce runoff of water. (12) CP-12 (C-7)—Constructing channel lining, chutes, drop spillways, pipe drops, drop inlets or similar structures for the protection of outlets and water channels that dispose of excess water.

(13) GP-13 (C-8)—Streambank or shore protection, channel clearance, enlargement or realinement, or construction of floodways, levees, or dikes, to prerent erosion or flood damage to farmland. This conservation practice shall not be approved in cases where there is any likelihood that it will create an erosion or flood hazard to other adjacent land or where its primary purpose is to bring new land into agricultural production.

(14) GP-14 (C-16)-Constructing spreader ditches or dikes to divert and spread water to prevent erosion, to permit beneficial use of runoff, or to replenish ground water supply.

(15) GP-15 (C-12)—Reorganizing irrigation systems to conserve water and prevent erosion. This conservation practice must be carried out in accordance with a reorganization plan approved by the responsible technician. No Federal

21494-58-pt. 328

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »