Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement, and I thank you and the committee for this opportunity. I have two reprints from National Wildlife's Conservation News which I would like to have appear in the record.

Mr. WHITTEN. Those will be included in the record at this point. (The above-mentioned documents follow :)

[From National Wildlife Federation's Conservation News, August 15, 1957]

FEDERATION LAUNCHES $20,000 WETLANDS PROJECT

The board of directors of the National Wildlife Federation, meeting in Washington, D. C., August 3 and 4, set up a special fund of $20,000 for a 2-year educational program on the soil bank and on the importance of conserving water and wetlands wildlife through the curtailment of unwise drainage.

Executive Director Ernest Swift of the federation announced the following resolution had been adopted:

“Be it resolved, That the National Wildlife Federation budget and appropriate $20,000 to be expended during the next 24 months to promote the use of the soil bank and small watersheds programs, to curtail wetlands drainage where it is detrimental to the long-range economy of an area through the lowering of the water tables, and to cooperate with all agencies and organizations in an educational program to promote sound conservation practices which will redound to the economic and recreational welfare of the Nation; that the sum appropriated shall be expended under the direction and with the approval of the executive director of the National Wildlife Federation and the executive committee of the National Wildlife Federation.”

Swift said that before initiation of the new project he will seek the suggestions of State wildlife agencies and other conservation groups.

The federation was among the early advocates of soil-bank legislation. It has supported the program, now in its second year, but federation leaders have expressed the belief its potential for the conservation of soil, water, and wildlife has not been appreciated by the public or fully utilized by the farmers.

"We are also gravely concerned about the continued destruction of valuable resources through the unwise drainage of natural marshlands,” Swift stated. "We wish to encourage farmers and agricultural agencies as well as conservationists to study the dangers involved in Federal subsidies that encourage drainage in areas threatened by water shortages and recurring drought."

Swift recalled that in 1955, the National Wildlife Federation conducted its annual National Wildlife Week observance on the theme of "Save America's Wetlands." The new allocation of funds, he said, will permit vigorous resumption of one of the federation's important programs.

[From National Wildlife Federation's Conservation News, January 1, 1958]

SOIL BANK YIELDS SOME REAL CONSERVATION GAINS

Conservationists supported enactment of soil-bank legislation in 1956 with high hopes. Here at last seemed a sensible approach to the problem of surplus crops. Here was a program that would restore grass and timber and wildlife cover to eroding lands that have been ripped up and denuded during the feverish agricultural expansion of the war years. Here was a device to help heal the cancerous Dust Bowl, restore moisture to the subsoils, and perhaps reverse the dangerous trend in the semiarid, prairie-pothole region.

After a year and half of experience, there is considerable disillusionment with the program-but more than there should be. Now that the 1957 record is complete it is apparent there have been significant conservation accomplishments-particularly under the conservation reserve part of the program.

It should be kept in mind that Congress divided the soil bank into two parts. One, called the acreage reserve, provided temporary set-aside of croplands formerly devoted to the so-called basic-commodity or price-support crops corn, wheat, cotton, etc. The retirement was on a year-to-year basis. A field allowed to lie idle under the acreage reserve 1 year could be planted again the following year, and no particular conservation treatment was required.

The other part is called the conservation reserve. Here croplands are diverted under contract with the Government for periods ranging from 3 to 10 years. Trees, grass, wildlife cover, or water-storage practices must be installed on the land.

The Soil Bank Act became law May 28, 1956, and at first all the emphasis was on the acreage reserve. Some politicians pushed it as a means of putting money in the farmer's pocket before election day. Federal, State, and county administrators paid little attention to the conservation reserve. There are reliable reports of instances where county ASC committees refused even to discuss the conservation reserve with inquiring farmers. Some administrators at first seemed even to resent the wildlife provisions, which were written into the law by conservation-minded Congressmen.

ACREAGE-RESERVE ABUSES WIDELY PUBLICIZED

Occasional abuses under the acreage reserve received widespread publicity, tended to give a black eye to the whole soil-bank program. In the words of H. R. "Bud" Morgan of Bismarck, N. Dak., former North Dakota game commissioner and now heading up the National Wildlife Federation activities in soil-bank cooperation:

"There is no doubt that the acreage-reserve program has been the object of abuse and even fraud. These abuses can be charged to politicians and land operators. In 1956 payments were made to some land operators who had not signed acreage-reserve contracts and who had not in fact reduced their acreage of surplus crops seeded. The excuse given was that they were not producing such crops; the real reason was an act of God-drought.

"Under bludgeoning by politicians in both parties, acreage-reserve funds became relief moneys rather than payments to carry out the provisions of the program * * * In the eyes of the public it amounted to a kind of fraud."

The conservation reserve is a different story. It has been subject to some abuses which, generally speaking, are being corrected as new regulations are written. In the main, however, it suffered from a lack of promotion and public understanding during the first year.

GOOD RECORD IN DUST BOWL

Despite its early neglect, a study of the conservation reserve to date shows some important conservation accomplishments. For example take the Great Plains region (which includes the Southwest Dust Bowl) of the 10 StatesMontana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico. The Budget Bureau, presenting administration testimony to the Senate Appropriations Committee last spring, declared that "some 11 to 14 million acres of the land now cropped * ** in these States * cannot be cultivated continuously without producing serious problems of wind erosion ***”

To date a total of 4,474,925 acres of this potential "blow land” in the Great Plains has been signed up under the conservation reserve. It takes a while to get new vegetation started, but by the end of this year, according to Department of Agriculture estimates, new grass and shelterbelt plantings will have been established on 2,254,421 of these acres. In New Mexico alone, 27 percent of the croplands went into the conservation reserve. Here is a conservation achievement to cheer about.

At the end of the 1957 sign-up period last April 15, a total of 6,730,340 acres had been contracted in the conservation reserve for the Nation as a whole. In relation to the total cropland acreage of 460 million acres (based on the 1954 cropland census) this is a tiny percentage. The percentage devoted to the three authorized wildlife practices-wildlife cover plantings, water and marsh management, and fish ponds—was even smaller. But in view of the general lack of effective promotion, the results are still encouraging.

From the standpoint of wildlife conservation, the restoration of 7 million acres to trees, grass, or other permanent cover amounts to a significant gain7 million acres of new habitat in the overfarmed regions of America where a lack of cover is 1 of the principal factors limiting farm-game populations.

NEW EMPHASIS ON CONVERSATION RESERVE

The Department of Agriculture is putting new reserve during the current signup period for 1958.

emphasis on the conservation Some of the regulations have

been amended to encourage greater participation in the wildlife practices. One important change now permits a State wildlife agency or private conservation organization to help farmers install wildlife practices without requiring the value of such help to be deducted from the cost share paid by the Federal Government.

At the same time more and more State game departments are swinging the very considerable sales force of their organizations into the campaign to inform farmers about the conservation reserve and the opportunities under it to create new wildlife habitat while conserving soil and water. New educational leaflets are being printed and distributed, by both the United States Department of Agriculture and State agencies. These efforts are bound to pay off.

Washington observers expect Congress to consider a variety of major proposals designed to overhaul the Federal farm programs during the coming session. The Department of Agriculture itself may recommend ending the acreage reserve after 1959 but at the same time may recommend beefing up the longrange conservation reserve with more liberal cost sharing and higher rental payments.

There may be proposals in Congress to discontinue the whole soil bank, including the conservation reserve. The Nation's great army of citizen conservationists are expected to oppose any such move; they will unquestionably support legislation to strengthen the conservation reserve. As the federation's Bud Morgan has written:

"Sometimes those who do not operate land are inclined to be critical of even a sound national policy such as is established by the conservation-reserve part of the Soil Bank Act. They tend ot forget the importance of agriculture to each of us. They refuse to look into the future in an effort to visualize the need for fertile soils which will produce the needs of their children's children. They do not stop to realize the rapidity with which we are increasing our population. It is estimated that 40 million additional Americans will have to be fed within the next 13 years.

"The soils are our only true real estate. Unless we begin to practice soil conservation in fact as well as in name, where will fertile lands be found to produce future needs? The conservation reserve is exactly what the name implies. It is a program designed to 'bank' fertility in lands until the day when it is needed to produce food and fibers.

"The nonfarmer is receiving more than future food insurance, however. The millions of Americans who depend on hunting and fishing for health-restoring recreation will soon be enjoying some direct benefits from the conservation. reserve."

Mr. ANDERSEN. Now, Mr. Callison, I want to ask you a question. Mr. CALLISON. Yes, Mr. Andersen.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Mr. Callison, you spoke on a very touchy subject as far as Minnesota and North Dakota and South Dakota are concerned when you spoke about the ACP drainage subsidies, the continued destruction of waterfowl nesting areas, and so forth.

Mr. CALLISON. I realize that.

Mr. ANDERSEN. In my opinion, you do the Service a disservice on that, and I say that in regard to the Federal Wildlife Service.

I will give you an example. We have a 50,000-acre watershed program in Minnesota known as the Ten-Mile Creek watershed in Yellow Medicine and Lac qui Parle Counties in Minnesota.

Due to the stubborn opposition of the wildlife people, due to the fact that they would not bend at all, your people have succeeded in destroying a very fine watershed-protection program for that area.

The farmers have decided reluctantly that they will go the judicial ditch route now, that they will drain every acre of that 50,000 acres, and they will forego the $1 million Federal aid.

And why? Just because the wildlife people were so adamant that they refused to agree to a comprise which the soil-conservation people thought was splendid, which I as their Congressman thought was splendid, and everybody else thought was splendid except your wild

life people, and that compromise was to set aside several thousand acres of the worst potholed region of that particular 50,000 acres with the agreement that the drainage ditches would not come up to that point.

But, no, your people had to have all or nothing; and, consequently, you got nothing. As far as I am concerned, I think you people are very shortsighted in fighting as you do the best interests of the farmers in my area.

I wanted to call to your attention, Mr. Callison, the fact that the rights of many farmers to farm the land which they have farmed for generations, and the outlets at which drainage areas silted up due to the erosion of the soil through generations-that is no cause for wildlife people to come in and tell them that they have no right to open up that particular drainage area and recover that good land again for agriculture.

You have in northern Minnesota great opportunities up in Mr. Marshall's district-we saw that situation just the other year. There are these thousands upon thousands of acres there that the wildlife people could get in and really do a job, but, no, they have to come in here and do untold damage to the farmers in my area and North Dakota and South Dakota, and, frankly, we are getting tired of it. I am glad to see you people advocating as strongly as you do, the conservation reserve.

I do not find anything in your statement today to take exception to, except that I think you people are absolutely wrong in your so-called wetland theory.

Why in the name of commonsense do you not go up into northern Minnesota where there are hundreds of thousands of acres of suitable land to develop into duck-breeding sites by the expenditure of very little money?

Why not concentrate what little money we have to spend up there instead of coming down in the great agricultural areas in southwestern Minnesota and pretending that you are "holier than thou" and forcing us to abandon a wonderful watershed program?

I am disgusted with the attitude taken by some of your people, and I am personally going to be very frank about it. I am starting to be very frank about it in these hearings, and I am telling you, Mr. Callison, you are not doing any good by eliminating a large group of Congressmen who were for you and are still for a good part of your program, but in relation to these lands, you cannot see the forest over there because of a few trees in front of you.

I am speaking now of the attitude of the Federal Wildlife Service in Minnesota in relation to this project, and I hope that for the good of everybody that you will be one of these people who will be instrumental in telling them that it might be well for them to get to examining their line of thinking because I, as one of the Members of Congress, am going to fight it all the way down the line, all through the appropriations, unless they can see the good of this.

There is 50,000 acres going the judicial ditch route just because of the shortsightedness of the wildlife people getting in there and fighting that project, whereas they could have had a sizable portion of the wet acres put aside which we were really willing to compromise on, plus a great many new pits and ponds, but no, they wanted the whole 50,000 acres or nothing.

That is all, Mr. Chairman, and I want to make it plain, Mr. Chairman, that I am not taking issue with the balance of it. The rest of your statement meets with my approval, Mr. Callison.

Mr. CALLISON. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. ANDERSEN. I am pleased with what you have said about the conservation reserve, and I hope you will perhaps induce certain people in your organization to look into the problem.

Mr. CALLISON. I appreciate your speaking as you did, because that development in the Ten-Mile Creek area just came to my attention about 10 days or so ago while I was attending the wildlife convention in St. Louis.

Mr. ANDERSEN. It is unfortunate, and if we have too many of these it is certainly not going to help the progress in this field.

Mr. CALLISON. We all want to get together.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Thank you. We are willing to compromise, but the Federal Wildlife Service said "No."

They were adamant, and as a consequence and as a result they get nothing and the farmer gets hurt to the extent that in so worthy an area they are done out of $1 million that they should have had.

The opposition is forcing them-is forcing the drainage through the very last pothole of that area because there is no other thing for those farmers to do but to take care of the property which has belonged to them for years.

Mr. CALLISON. That is a result that I am sure a great many people are going to regret.

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Callison, rather than getting into this argument over in western Minnesota, in a place where you are getting on rather uncertain ground as far as telling how farmers themselves shall operate their farms, what can we do to interest the Fish and Wildlife Service to come over into areas in my district to give assistance to the many problems we have in perpetuating fish and wildlife?

The Forest Service has been anxious that the Fish and Wildlife people develop some conservation and recreation there. While there has been some work done, there is room for so much more that the surface has hardly been scratched.

Mr. CALLISON. You are from the part of Minnesota where the national forest is the Superior National Forest?

Mr. MARSHALL. No, the Chippewa National Forest, and we have some of the finest lakes in Minnesota in my district.

We have a large resort area where the resort people want to develop the tourist trade, and they are desirous to have things done which would encourage people to come there.

What can we do to bring this about?

Mr. CALLISON. We hope that soon there will be presented to Congress, and I guess it will not come before this subcommittee any more, since it is a Forest Service matter, a part of that agency.

Part 2 of their operation outdoors, which has been a program for developing wildlife habitating areas has been under the State conservation departments; the reason why the wildlife agencies have been so concerned about drainage from the prairie regions is because by far that is the most productive habitat for waterfowl production. You get many more ducks per acre in that type of country than