California also furthers the conservation program by the appropriation of $30,000 a year to match Federal funds in a cooperative plant materials center.

This center is extremely important since it is responsible for development of improved grasses and legumes needed in the application of conservation practices in our State.

The center was previously supported entirely by the Soil Conservation Service and was listed as one of the nurseries to be abandoned several years ago when the Service was reorganized. Because of its proven benefits to the conservation effort, the legislature acted to maintain its activities. Increased costs of operations this year have resulted in our requesting that this item be increased to $35,000. The legislature has made an annual recurring appropriation of $100,000 available to the State soil conservation commission for making grants to soil conservation districts for conservation projects.

The commission is now considering the types of projects on which this money, which becomes available July 1of this year, could best be used.

We feel that this appropriation will help materially in the soil and water conservation program in California, particularly since there is a real possibility that the present legislature will increase the amount of this fund to half a million dollars.

To recap the above expenditures, which I think make my point 1 that the State of California is cooperating with the Federal Government to the extent that amounts to a true joint effort; last fiscal year we had $130,706 for support of the State's interest in this program.

The estimated expenditure for the current budget year is $366,710. The proposed budget for the next fiscal year, which is now being considered by the legislators, amounts to $609,947.

Notwithstanding the contribution that the State has made to supplement the national program, we feel that, as stated in point No. 2, these combined efforts are still not adequate in view of the urgency of the need for technical assistance.

California soil conservation district directors, interested legislators, and personnel of the State soil conservation commission and division, who have talked with leaders in other parts of the country, find this is something of a national problem that boils down to the fact that the Soil Conservation Service does not have sufficient personnel to do the job.

I recognize thoroughly that the National Congress, like the Legislature in California, has a critical money problem. However, in California the increase in population and industrial development has created a situation that threatens the balance between the amount of productive land and the needs of the population. Therefore, it is more important than ever that we do everyhing possible in soil conservation districts to protect and improve productivity of the remaining agricultural lands.

California soil conservation districts are ready and willing to continue the excellent leadership in this program, but they do need additional technical help from the Soil Conservation Service, and, as indicated above, we believe that this statement is true of all States throughout the Nation.

Now, as to the third point mentioned in my opening remarks: For the past several years, the Congress has seen fit to include funds in the Soil Conservation Service appropriation for assistance to the new soil conservation districts which are expected to be formed during the next fiscal year.

We note with dismay that there is no provision in the 1959 budget for immediate technical assistance to new soil-conservation districts by the Soil Conservation Service.

It is very important to California that this item again be included in the Soil Conservation Service appropriation. Only 55 percent of our State is covered with soil-conservation districts. Our staff is working with organized districts, but much of their time is spent assisting in the formation of new districts.

The failure to provide for additional staff for new districts will result in new districts not receiving technical assistance as they are formed, and we believe that this will be a great deterrent to the formation of new districts.

In California the formation of a soil-conservation district takes a great deal of local leadership on the part of the farmers and ranchers interested in forming the district.

We feel that the remainder of California will be included within soil-conservation districts much more rapidly if funds are available to provide technical assistance to them as soon as they are organized. We admit that in the past soil-conservation districts were not formed as rapidly as they should have been.

We can attribute this to many reasons-opposition from some wellintentioned State groups, lack of knowledge on the part of farm leaders concerning the true purpose of soil-conservation districts, and the fact that our soil and erosion problems are not so violent, but just as insidious, as in other parts of the country.

But the fact is, we have now overcome most of these objections and are on our way. We are basing our State budget requests on an estimated 20 new soil-conservation districts a year for the next 4 years.

We urge you to provide funds for technical assistance from the Soil Conservation Service for new districts. This would help California and all other States that are not completely covered by soil conservation districts in their organization programs.

In closing, I am sure that all people in California interested in this important soil-and-water conservation program will agree with me when I say that we appreciate very much the excellent assistance the Soil Conservation Service has given to our State through the resources which your committee has been instrumental in providing.

I hope I have made it clear to you that this appreciation is being expressed through California's appropriations which are being made to further the work of this important soil-and-water-conservation program.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to meet with you. If there are any questions you would like to ask me, I shall be happy to attempt to answer them.

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Darsey, there is one point I want to mention. That is about the funds for new soil-conservation districts. The committee is very much interested in the Soil Conservation Service, but I would not want to leave the impression that, in the absence of an

22911- 58-pt. 5- 18

amount earmarked for new districts, the new districts would be without technical personnel. As we all know, we do not identify a sepa rate appropriation for new districts.

In the absence of an increase in the total amount for the SCS, they are required to furnish personnel to the new districts. It would just come at the expense of a reduction in the personnel available for old districts.

I say this just to keep it straight. Yet this committee has been the one that has made the effort to see that the appropriations do meet the needs for the new districts. But I would like the record to show that it is not a separate item that has to be maintained for new districts to get new personnel.

Mr. DARSEY. I certainly did not want to argue with you, Mr. Chairman; but it has been my understanding that in recent years there has been what we called a planned item for new districts. It was my understanding that last year this amounted to something like $17,000. Mr. WHITTEN. I do not mean to argue with you because the facts are there, and can be ascertained. We are just trying to discuss it from a technical viewpoint.

What money has been provided has been suggested by this committee and has fought itself in through the Congress against the recommendation of the Budget Bureau.

Mr. DARSEY. Yes, I know.

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Darsey, we appreciate your statement. As you know, this committee does not have any money. We just have to recommend it to the Appropriations Committee and to the Congress.

As a result, our problems are great, and we are glad to have your statement supporting the SCS. It is demonstrated that the SCS together with the ACP program has helped millions and millions of farmers.

I think this is much more sound than the conservation reserve which benefits only about 60,000 people. To have any question about which program should stay, I think there is no question but what the one that benefits the most people should be kept.

We are glad to have your statement. Are there any questions?

Mr. ANDERSEN. I would like to make just one statement, Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. Darsey, you will be glad to know that the administration on yesterday did send a request to the Congress-a supplemental request to increase the budget for small watersheds from $14 million to $24 million, and flood control by several million dollars.

I think the fight which this subcommittee in the various arguments it has put up before the officials the past 2 months in our discussions here has been largely responsible for that change in attitude on the part of the administration.

Even while we have been sitting here holding hearings for these 2 months, I feel that we have accomplished quite a bit in this subcommittee, and as far as I am concerned, I think $25 million is the minimum level at which we should hold the small-watershed program throughout America.

Mr. WHITTEN. May I interject, if the gentleman will yield, I do not think there is any question but what the Department officials understood the attitude of this committee and could foresee that if the budget did not come in with an amount for this, we were going to take that action.

We developed in this program that if they had recaptured all the reserves in the watershed program as was recommended by the Bureau of the Budget, that they could have entered into no new contracts.

In other words, under the law, they cannot enter into a new contract until they have the money on hand. That would cause at best a 6 months' lag, which would have slowed down the work considerably. I am glad to see that the budget has put something in there, because the committee has a terrible job any time we put in something that is not in the budget.

We are pleased to have you before us again.

Mr. DARSEY. Thank you, sir.

(The following was submitted later for the record:)

RESOLUTION No. 58-331

IN THE MATTER OF URGING FEDERAL APPROPRIATION FOR CONTINUING ADEQUATE TECHNICAL SERVICES TO SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS

Whereas the California State Soil Conservation Commission has assisted in the formation of 147 soil conservation districts in California; and

Whereas the California Legislature has generously given financial assistance to further the district program in California; and

Whereas the technical assistance now available to soil conservation districts is inadequate; and

Whereas the Soil Conservation Service is doing everything possible for districts within its limited facilities; and

Whereas this limited assistance cannot meet the needs of soil conservation districts: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the California State Soil Conservation Commission urgently request that the Appropriations Committee, House of Representatives, increase the appropriation to the Soil Conservation Service to include assistance to new districts and increase technical services to those already organized.

I, Arthur L. Darsey, secretary of the State soil conservation commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 58-331, adopted at a meeting of the State soil conservation commission duly called and held at Sacramento, Calif., on the 11th day of March 1958, at the hour of 10 a. m., and that said resolution is in full force and unrevoked. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 11th day of March 1958. ARTHUR L. DARSEY, Secretary.

TRINITY RIVER WATERSHED

WITNESS

HON. FRITZ LANHAM, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. WHITTEN. We are pleased to have with us the Honorable Fritz Lanham, with whom many of us served in the Congress, who left one of the outstanding records, in my judgment, in the Congress, and who is continuing his interest in agriculture.

That interest in agriculture, with emphasis on conservation particularly, has continued through many years. We are always pleased to see you, Mr. Lanham.

Mr. ANDERSEN. I would like to join in those comments with reference to Mr. Lanham. There are very few people who have come before this subcommittee whom we welcome so pleasantly because there are so few men who know so much about the subject.

Mr. LANHAM. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, I am certainly most grateful for those very gracious statements.

That high respect and esteem I certainly reciprocate 100 percent with reference to each and every one of you. I am quite aware of the fact that the members of this subcommittee, perhaps more than others of our governmental representatives, realize that the conservation of soil and water and the prevention of floods is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, domestic problem that we have; and members of this committee have not only expressed their interest in these problems for many years but have rendered some very outstanding service in an effort to get them solved.

I, as one recognizing the importance of these problems, am most appreciative of what you have done. You are familiar with the necessity for remedial action from the standpoint of our subwatersheds and tributaries, and at times they present some pretty perplexing problems.

I wish to speak specifically about the 11 orginal watersheds, and I wish to speak about the Trinity watershed in particular, which is much the largest of the 11 watersheds originally selected by the Department of Agriculture for treatment as being watersheds presenting typical problems.

I think it was thought at that time that the work to be done on these original 11 watersheds selected by the Department of Agriculture for treatment would be examples of what the Government with the cooperation of local interests could accomplish.

Before speaking of the present lamentable status of these 11 watershed districts originally selected, I should like to call your attention to some of the things which the Trinity Improvement Association, which I have the privilege of representing, and various local interests have accomplished at their own expense in meeting these problems. The Trinity Improvement Association, I might add, is a nonprofit organization, devoted to the development and the progressive improvement of the Trinity River in Texas and its vast and resourceful watershed.

The Trinity Improvement Association and the local interests have built a great many reservoirs and levees up and down the river, all entirely at their own expense.

As a matter of fact, they have devoted more to this particular purpose you now have under consideration than has the Federal Government; and the last statement I saw with reference to the contributions of this Trinity district with reference to the operation of these 11 watershed districts were over 40 percent of the total contributions of the entire group.

I do not believe you can find anywhere in the United States a watershed district to parallel our contribution to such work.

Now let us look at the present status of this matter. These 11 watersheds, of course, were supposed to be completed by now. think that the lamentable status that exists is a sad commentary on the performance of those in charge of the administration of this program. If it had been under the administration of the gentlemen of this committee, I am sure the report would be much more favorable. And, while the work lags, of course, our soil is being depleted and our waterways impaired by sedimentation.

Mr. WHITTEN. May I interrupt you there. This committee took strong exception to the Budget Bureau's recommendations on these