cost sharing will be allowed for cleaning a ditch, or for structures installed for crossings, or for other structures primarily for the convenience of the producer signatory to the contract, or for portable pipe. No Federal cost sharing will be allowed for reorganizing an irrigation system if the primary purpose of the reorganization is to bring additional land under irrigation, or for reorganizing a system for land which was not in use during at least 2 of the last 5 years.

(16) GP-16 (C-13)—Leveling land for more efficient use of irrigation water and to prevent erosion.-No Federal cost sharing will be allowed for floating or restoration of grade. The leveling operation must be carried out in accordance with the plan of operations which shall also provide that temporary cover or a crop will be seeded on the land in the same growing season in which the leveling was done. The leveling plan shall be based on an adequate soil survey. Νο Federal cost sharing will be allowed for leveling land if the primary purpose of the leveling is to bring into agricultural production land which was not devoted to the production of cultivated crops or crops normally seeded for hay or pasture in the area during at least 2 of the last 5 years.

(17) GP-17 (C-14)-Constructing, enlarging, deepening, or lining dams, pits, or ponds for irrigation water. The purpose of this conservation practice is to conserve agricultural water or to provide water necessary for the conservation of soil resources. Federal cost sharing in excess of $2,500 will not be made for any structure installed under this conservation practice. No Federal cost sharing will be allowed for constructing or lining dams, pits, or ponds, the primary purpose of which is to bring into agricultural production land which was not devoted to the production of cultivated crops or crops normally seeded for hay or pasture in the area during at least 2 of the last 5 years.

(18) GP-18 (C-15)—Lining irrigation ditches to prevent erosion and loss of water by seepage-This conservation practice is limited to ditches that are properly located and constructed as a part of an existing irrigation system.

(19) GP-19 (B-5)—Constructing wells for livestock water as a means of protecting vegetative cover-The wells must be at locations which will bring about the desired protection of vegetative cover through proper distribution of grazing or better grassland management. Adequate storage facilities must be provided. Pumping equipment must be installed, except for artesian wells. No Federal cost sharing will be allowed for wells constructed primarily for the use of headquarters, or for costs other than for constructing or deepening wells and for water storage facilities.

(20) GP-20 (B-6)—Developing springs and seeps for livestock water as a means of protecing vegetative cover-The springs or seeps must be at locations which will bring about the desired protection of vegetative cover through proper distribution of grazing or better grassland management.

(21) GP-21 (B-7)-Constructing, enlarging, deepening, or scaling dams, pits, or ponds as a means of protecting vegetative cover-The dams, pits, or ponds must be at locations which will bring about the desired protection of vegetative cover through proper distribution of grazing or better grassland management.

(22) GP-22 (B-8)—Installing pipelines for livestock water as a means of protecting vegetative cover-The pipelines must dleiver water to locations which will bring about the desired protection of vegetative cover through proper distribution of grazing or better grassland management.

(23) GP-23 (B-3)-Controlling competitive shrubs to permit growth of adequate desirable vegetative cover for soil protection on range or pasture land—On areas where it is determined that the control of competive shrubs will reduce the vegetative cover to such an extent as to induce erosion, the conservation practice will not be approved unless followed by seeding or other approved erosion control conservation measures.

(24) GP-24 (B–9)—Constructing permanent fences as a means of protecting vegetative cover.-This conservation practice may be approved only where fencing will contribute to better distribution of livestock and seasonal use of the forage. Fences between pasture and other land will not qualify for Federal cost sharing.

(25) GP-25 (F-1)-Special conservation practices.-Consistent with the principles set forth in this program, the designated SCS technician and the chairman of the county ASC committee may recommend to the State conservationist

and the chairman of the State ASC committee conservation practices included in the Great Plains conservation program practice list for which there is need locally on a substantial number of operating units but which are not selected for use in the Great Plains State. Such conservation practices, when recommended by the State conservationist and the chairman of the State ASC committee, shall be submitted by the State conservationist to the Administrator, SCS, for review and recommendation of both the Administrator, SCS, and the Administrator, ACPS, prior to transmittal by the Administrator, ACPS, to the Secretary for approval.

(26) GP-26 (F-2)—Designated county conservation practices.-Consistent with the principles set forth in this program, any conservation practice not included in the Great Plains conservation program practice list but which is needed to meet particular conservation problems in a designated county shall, with the recommendation of the Administrator, SCS, and the Administrator, ACPS, be submitted by the Administrator, ACPS, to the Secretary for approval. Such approval may be given only only the recommendation of the State conservationist and the chairman of the State ASC committee and the designated SCS technician and the chairman of the county ASC committee, and upon their finding (a) that the conservation problem exists on a substantial number of operating units in the designated county, (b) that the conservation practices listed in this program will not provide adequate treatment of the problem, (c) that the proposed conservation practice will adequately meet the problem, (d) that the proposed conservation practice would not be performed to the extent needed without Federal cost sharing, (e) that the proposed conservation practice will provide the most enduring solution to the problem practicably attainable under existing circumstances, (f) that the proposed conservation practice is one on which the offering of financial assistance is fully justified as being appropriate and in the public interest, and (g) that the proposed conservation practice meets the standards and requirements of comparable conservation practices in this program. Costs will not be shared under this conservation practice for elements of performance for which cost sharing is specifically precluded by the wording of a similar conservation practice or elsewhere in this program.

3. Compare percentages of participation by Federal Government for three programs

About 30 percent of the practices cost shared in the Great Plains conservation program are at a rate for the Federal Government of 50 percent; about 30 percent at a rate of 80 percent for the Federal Government; and about 40 percent at variable rates between 50 and 80 percent for the Federal Government.

The practices which are generally cost shared at the higher rate are those associated with changing lands from poor to proper use such as seeding grass. Those with lower cost-share rates are generally for practices with higher unit costs such as terracing land, etc.

Information from the agricultural conservation program indicates that the Great Plains conservation program rates for cost sharing are, as a whole, higher than rates for ACP. Average cost data upon which rates are based for both programs would require a great deal more refinement before an accurate comparison could be made of the two rates. It should be noted that the chairmen of the State and county agricultural stabilization and conservation committees participate in the development and approval of the cost-share rates established for the Great Plains conservation program.

Practices which are installed on conservation reserve acreages are cost shared at a rate of 80 percent for the Government.

4. How many counties participating? Where?

The following list of 243 participating counties shows the distribution by States. In addition, an estimated total of 50 counties will be recommended for designation on April 1, 1958, as authorized to participate in the program. Each new request for county designation is submitted to the Secretary quarterly. There remains a total of 129 counties not yet recommended by the States for inclusion under the program.

5. How many producers participating?

There are 1,341 producers in the following stages of participation:

Although the program was formally launched on August 21, 1957, it was first made available to producers about December 1, 1957. Actual work with producers has been underway only about 3 months.

6. How many employees?

The regular work unit staffs of the Soil Conservation Service in the Great Plains area are assigned to work on this program, some on a part-time basis and others on a full-time basis. A total of 249 average annual positions are budgeted for 1958 and 248 average annual positions for 1959 in the Soil Conservation Service.

7. How much of $10 million for 1958 have you obligated?

As of February 28, 1958, a total of $1,331,000 of Great Plains funds had been obligated, of which about $800,000 was obligated in January and February. The first cost-sharing contracts were signed in North Dakota and Texas on December 19, 1957. Since the middle of January the rate of producer participation in the

program has increased to the point where interest is great enough to obligate by June 30, 1958, all Great Plains funds available this fiscal year.

Mr. WHITTEN. We all welcome the opportunity to discuss these problems with you folks in the Department. We recognize that you have your problems and know that you have just as deep an interest in soil conservation activities as does this committee.

We also know that you have your problems of trying to live within an overall budget, just as we will be doing our best, from necessity, to try to live within budgets. We have much in common. We appreciate the courteous way that you always deal with us in this committee.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Mr. Chairman, may I say that I only wish that every agency of government was operated as satisfactorily as this Soil Conservation Service. That is my personal opinion.

Mr. PETERSON. We thank both of you for your personal remarks, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Andersen.

MONDAY, MARCH 3, 1958.

COMMODITY STABILIZATION SERVICE

WITNESSES

MARVIN L. McLAIN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE WALTER C. BERGER, ADMINISTRATOR, COMMODITY STABILIZATION SERVICE

CLARENCE L. MILLER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, COMMODITY STABILIZATION SERVICE

FRANCIS C. DANIELS, GENERAL SALES MANAGER, COMMODITY STABILIZATION SERVICE

CLARENCE D. PALMBY, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, PRICE SUPPORT COMMODITY STABILIZATION SERVICE

H. LAURENCE MANWARING, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, PRODUCTION ADJUSTMENT, COMMODITY STABILIZATION SERVICE

F. R. MCGREGOR, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, OPERATIONS, COMMODITY STABILIZATION SERVICE

R. P. BEACH, ASSISTANT DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, OPERATIONS, COMMODITY STABILIZATION SERVICE

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

Mr. WHITTEN. Gentlemen, the committee will come to order.

We are glad to have with us today Mr. McLain, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, together with his associates from the Commodity Stabilization Service.

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS

Before proceeding further, we would like to have included in the record at this point page 187 of the justifications.

(Material referred to is as follows:)