ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call attention to one aspect of conservation work in which I think we may not have kept a proper balance.

A great deal of public funds has been devoted to reclaiming land in advanced stages of soil erosion. I think that is fine, and we will certainly need that land some day, but we must not overlook the fact that much of our better soils need conservation treatment to keep them productive.

While we need to treat the badly eroded soils, we need more to take steps to prevent our better soils from losing their fertility through erosion. Most of the farmers in our State cannot do this to the extent needed without ACP help.

Gentlemen, I think a slowdown in conservation practices I have had to make on my farm in the past several years accurately illustrates what will happen to conservation work on most farms in our section of the Nation if ACP funds are reduced.

Several times recently my county committee has not had enough ACP money to approve all the conservation practices I needed to do and requested.

The result was the conservation work was not done, because without ACP cost sharing, I just wasn't financially able to do all the practices my land needed. I believe a majority of farmers in my area will have to retrench in their conservation effort the same way if ACP help is reduced.

Another thing I would like to say before I conclude is that I consider it essential that ACP continue to be administered by farmerelected ASC community and county committees.

This way, we can be assured the programs will be developed to fit local problems in practical ways and local administration will be carried out with full consideration of farmers' problems.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, ACP has caused to be carried out in my area a tremendous amount of conservation work that otherwise would not have been done. It has been a very worthwhile program for the farmers of my county and for our soils. We are very appreciative of it. Much has been done, but much more remains yet to be done. I hope you will work for continuing the money for the agricultural conservation program on at least the same level as provided for 1958. In closing my statement, I want to thank the committee for hearing me.

Mr. ANDERSEN. It seems to me, from listening to this testimony this afternoon, that the big thing about this program is that, by giving this comparatively little assistance, when we think of agriculture as a whole and the benefit to the Nation, we are helping to preserve for generations to come the good of this soil.

Mr. BEANE. Yes. I wish that this had been adopted a long time ago, because I inherited my family's farm that had been farmed for generations. They got it originally from the Indians, and they did not believe in fertilizer. I remember when the land made over a bale of cotton without any fertilizing, and I remember when I was a boy we had a dickens of a time persuading my grandmother to use even 100 pounds of fertilizer, and it was impossible to get through any Government group or anything like that. They had not seen the need of it and did not think it would be necessary, but when it comes

to my generation to take over a farm like that, it is somewhat a losing proposition from the start.

Mr. WHITTEN. Along with your mentioning our type of area, I, as you know, grew up in the hilly district of Tallahatchie. I suppose 95 percent of that land in that county is that type of land that you have referred to. I suppose if you drag a plow over a hilly area, and it rains, you have a gully. Our type of rainfall is such that it is a terrific problem to control that.

I do not mean to add to the fine statement you have made, but, if there is any section where we have reason to appreciate the value of a national interest in seeing that the land is taken care of and improved for the benefit of all, we have that kind of a section.

Mr. BEANE. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITTEN. I remember 20 years ago, what the conditions were, and I am sure you do, too, and the great improvement is unbelievable. If the Nation knew how much personal hardship and how much money had been invested by you and others who actually farm the land, they would realize how very small this Federal amount is, percentagewise. as compared to the amount that each individual farmer has had to invest.

Mr. BEANE. Sometimes we go to our ACP office with our requests. and they turn us down because they just do not have the money available. I know, in my home county of Union, we have had in 1956 $91,000; that was our allotment for the county; $25,000 of that had come from other counties that had not required it, that had not used up their money. That was a good increase, but we still had $126,000 requested for; 90 percent of this, I would say, was for vegetative cover. Mr. ANDERSEN. You would say, Mr. Beane, that we should keep the level of this appropriation at the $250 million figure?

Mr. BEANE. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDERSEN. And keep that as sort of a minimum for years to come?

Mr. BEANE. Yes, sir. I would.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Because, after all, that is just the price of one battleship, and I think this is a better investment-for instance, we saw the old battleship Wisconsin go into mothballs just recently, and that represents the amount of money, $250 million, which could much better go into the conservation of our land as a Nation.

Mr. BEANE. I agree with

you, sir.

Mr. ANDERSEN. I have always said next to our children our soil is our most precious possession, and I still hold to that contention. Mr. BEANE. I agree with that, also, sir, most wholeheartedly. Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Beane, we certainly appreciate you and others coming here and testifying before this subcommittee on behalf of the ACP program.

As I have said earlier, this committee has a long record of support for this program. We have a long record of fighting for it in the Appropriations Committee and on the floor of the House. But the more statements such as yours and the more information we can carry to those we have to argue with, the better our chances are.

From the personal standpoint, I am glad to see you here from Union County. Just before I came back here, on the last night that I was home, I spoke to about 600 people in New Albany, at a meeting of the

rural-development association and another group, and it was one of the highlights of my time down there.

The folks have been wonderful to me down there all during the years, and, if any county deserves 10 percent or so credit extra, that county is entitled to it for the progress you have made in the last 10

or 20 years.

Everybody in the Nation should be proud of it, because you have made wonderful progress, and I know this program you are speaking for has been a very large factor in the progress.

It is a pleasure to see you.

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Beane, I want to say to you that we are just very much indebted to the people of your district for sending up such a fine representative, not only to represent your district in Mississippi, but we feel that he does a marvelous job of representing all the farmers all over the United States.

It is a pleasure to serve on this committee with such an able chairman, and we are indebted to you folks for sending him to the Con

gress.

Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join with my colleague, Mr. Marshall, in those remarks.

Mr. Beane, I have made this statement on the floor of the House and in other committee hearings, that the nicest thing that has happened to me since I came to Congress was the day I was assigned to the subcommittee under Chairman Jamie Whitten.

Mr. WHITTEN. I would just like to state for the record that your kind remarks, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Natcher, are certainly greatly appreciated by your chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Beane, for coming here today and giving us the benefit of your views.

Mr. BEANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. It was a pleasure and a privilege to be here, I assure you.

SOIL CONSERVATION SYSTEM

WITNESS

ARTHUR L. DARSEY, CHIEF, DIVISION OF SOIL CONSERVATION, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Darsey, we are glad to hear from you today. You may proceed as you wish.

Mr. DARSEY. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that I was very much impressed with your wisdom you exhibited at Lincoln, Nebr., about a year ago, and also Mr. Andersen.

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Darsey, I talked off the cuff; but if you talk off the cuff, you talk from your heart.

Mr. DARSEY. I enjoyed talking with you gentlemen. What I have to present today is really a report of what I was doing at that time, what we are doing in California. Shall I proceed?

Mr. WHITTEN. Yes, please do.

Mr. DARSEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Arthur L. Darsey. I am chief of the division of soil conservation in the California Department of Natural Resources. I wish to express the sincere appreciation of Dr. DeWitt Nelson, head

of that department, the California State Soil Conservation Commission, as well as myself, for this opportunity to meet with your committee.

In this testimony today, I would like to make three main points: first, I would like to show you how California is cooperating with the Federal Government in this soil and water conservation job to an extent that amounts to a true joint effort; second, point out that these combined effors are still not adequate in view of the urgency of the need for technical assistance; and, third, specifically to most earnestly urge restoration of the provision in the appropriation for assistance to new soil conservation district. This latter item is of great importance to us in California.

As to my first point above, California, we believe, is the first State to follow the pattern of the Federal Government in establishing an agency for soil conservation.

I remind you that the Congress established the Soil Conservation Service some 23 years ago. The good work this Service is doing has spread to almost every corner of our Nation, thanks to the support the Congress has given the Service through these many years.

About 4 years ago, leaders in soil and water conservation in California decided it was appropriate for the State to materially augment the Federal program for the conservation of its soil and water

resources.

As a result of this interest, the legislature enacted a law, signed by Gov. Goodwin J. Knight in June 1955, which established the division of soil conservation in the department of natural resources.

This legislation directs the chief of the division-and that is my title-among other duties, to assist in the formation, organization, and operation of soil conservation districts.

The State soil conservation commission-which is called a board or a committee in other States-we call it a commission-the policymaking board for the division, has established this function as top priority for division employees.

The 7 farmer members of the commission are appointed by the Governor for staggered 4-year terms, so that they do not all come in and go out at the same time.

The division of soil conservation, at the State level, has objectives very similar to those of the Soil Conservation Service at the national level.

In attaining these objectives, however, very serious thought was given to insure that there would be no duplication of the work of the Soil Conservation Service. Rather, the State's participation is designed to complement and supplement that program. It was the legislature's thinking that this could best be accomplished by the State taking leadership in advising and assisting soil conservation districts on nontechnical matters, which include: developing of districtwide comprehensive plans for soil and water conservation; promoting cooperators' interest in the district's program, extending district boundaries; encouraging the adoption of complete watershed development plans as neeeded; securing cooperation of other agencies; developing practical equipment management; preparing reports and publications; and explaining financial and fiscal procedures.

The above is now well under way in California as, with new money made available last year, we have hired additional personnel. We now have 10 men working in the field on this direct, nontechnical assistance to soil conservation districts in California.

Another item I think you will be interested in is the assistance which the legislation has authorized us to give in connection with your Public Law 566, the Small Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act.

By way of explanation, the State soil conservation commission, in addition to being the policymaking board for the division of soil conservation, is the Governor's designated representative in connection with the State's responsibility under Public Law 566.

The soil conservation commission and soil conservation districts in California have been somewhat dissatisfied with the slow progress being made on Public Law 566 projects.

This is due to California's complexity in geography, soils, climate, and crops, and their very complicated relationship with urban development, which requires more manpower to develop a watershed plan than is average throughout the Nation.

We understand and appreciate that the Soil Conservation Service has only one planning team in California. We understand that this is the maximum number of such in all States, and certainly we join with the other States in commending you gentlemen for your farsighted action in providing this nationwide assistance.

Recognizing the difficulty of planning and the slow progress being made on the total planning need in California, the legislature last year made a quarter of a million dollars available to the division of soil conservation to employ two watershed planning teams. These are to be completely integrated with the Federal team, so that all work done will be at the high standard acceptable to Congress and will carry complete Soil Conservation Service approval before it is submitted to Congress or to the Department for approval.

You are aware that some States have contributed to the planning of Public Law 566 projects by making moneys available to the Soil Conservation Service in their respective States.

In California this was not deemed practical due to the difference in Federal and State salaries. Of course, State salaries are influenced by living costs in California, which are considerably higher than the average cost of living throughout the United States.

Our State salaries are $100 to $200 a month higher than those for comparable jobs in the Federal service. Therefore, if the State had decided to transfer money to the Soil Conservation Service, the Service would have found recruiting these additional engineers very difficult. Even we in the division had some recruiting problems as State salaries are slightly lower than those of private industry in California.

California has made another contribution to the soil and water conservation program in the establishment some time ago of a $1 million revolving fund for loans to districts for the purchase of equipment for conservation use. This million dollar fund has been extremely helpful to soil conservation districts in getting their programs underway.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »