projects and pointed out the fact that the costs were going up and that we were missing the benefits which completion would bring. Yesterday, the President sent down an amended budget on the floodcontrol item.

Mr. LANHAM. I was going to refer to that.

Mr. WHITTEN. I was not sure that you had had a chance to have it called to your attention, and that was my reason for mentioning it. Mr. LANHAM. I am familiar with it and with the activities of this committee, and you gentlemen have done a most commendable job. It is unfortunate you have not had greater cooperation from those who should be helpful in solving these important problems.

Now, as a statement of expressed policy of the Department of Agriculture, on page 377 of the budget for the fiscal year 1957, this appears:

The aim of the Agriculture Department's flood prevention on watersheds is to prevent or reduce floodwater and sedimentation damage in upstream areas and to reduce sedimentation of river channels and reduce reservoirs.

Now, let's look at the present status, quite out of keeping with that announced policy. I have here the statement of the Department on flood prevention of these 11 authorized districts, dated February 5, 1928. I would ask that this be included in the record, except for the fact that it is already in the record along with a part of your hearings this year.

Mr. MARSHALL. It is already in the record as a part of the justifi

cations.

Mr. LANHAM. Now, bear in mind that it was contemplated that this work would be practically completed by now. I think 15 years was the estimate, originally. The program was started in 1944. Now, the present estimates of completion for the 11 watersheds vary greatly for instance, one is 54, and a fraction percent completed, and one is 47 and a fraction completed, 32 and a fraction completed, 31 and a fraction completed, and so on.

Note now that the percentage of completion on the Trinity is only 18 percent. If I recall correctly, that is no greater percentage of completion than they reported last year, which would indicate that in the last year they have made no progress whatever.

How long will it take to complete it? Here are their estimates: It is going to take them longer, with the exception of the one in Iowa, to complete the work on the Trinity than on any of the other 11, 23.4 years, whereas it was supposed to be completed now, and if they have done only 18 percent of the work in 14 years, you can easily see that our grandchildren will be lucky if they live to see the completion of that project.

Now, recognizing this serious situation, and the little progress that has been made, the President in his message of yesterday called attention to this and asked for an increase for the Soil Conservation Service of $10 million in watershed protection and $4,780,000 in flood prevention, and he says in his statement that the proposed increase for flood prevention is to permit the acceleration of work on the 11 original projects authorized under this program.

Let us hope, gentlemen, that some of that money will be used to get the Trinity operations nearer par in the matter of percentage of completion with the other 10 districts. It is a sad commentary that only 18 percent of that work has been done in 14 years. We have procured

the necessary easements and rights-of-way for great progress to be made in the Trinity district.

If we could get adequate funds, we could get very significant results. We understand, of course, that you gentlemen of the committee do not make the allocations to these projects and that you simply can consider a sum that is to be allotted by the Department of Agriculture.

We know and appreciate the great interest you have shown in this work. The statement has been made by the Department that we are going to increase probably up to 100 the various watersheds to be treated-I think there are 60 now.

If they are going to have the same history which the original 11 have had, which are supposed to be examples of commendable performance, why, it is terrible to contemplate what little progress we are going to make with just a little piecemeal work here and there all over the Nation.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Mr. Lanham, what would you hold out as a reasonable program for these 11 watersheds?

Mr. LANHAM. Of course, from their own statement, they said it is going to take a long time. I can offer suggestions for better

progress.

Mr. ANDERSEN. I think you are entirely correct in arguing that the progress has been entirely too slow on these 11 watersheds.

Mr. LANHAM. That is correct.

Mr. ANDERSEN. And I think Congress should do something drastic toward accelerating that program.

Mr. LANHAM. Of course, it takes money, but the program is vitally important. The President has come along now and asked for more money. I do not know just what the soil-conservation people or the Department of Agriculture people have to say to the Budget Bureau when they go before it, but they ought to realize the importance of the service they have got to render and try to get enough money to get us ahead.

Mr. MARSHALL. I think this ought to be definitely pointed out; that this committee has very definitely tried to give as much impetus as we could to this program.

Mr. LANHAM. I know that. This committee has rendered a wonderful service and, with reference to the things that they have tried to get accomplished, I could hold forth at great length. Now that we are giving money to foreign governments to carry on work of this kind, surely from the domestic angle, we should not lag so greatly in completing the work on the 11 original watersheds that were supposed to set an example of what this country can do with the cooperation of the local people.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Yesterday or day before, I brought out in this subcommittee that today we are faced with an unemployment problem, and I suggested that perhaps one of the best places in the United States to utilize additional employment at this time was to enlarge the entire watershed and flood-prevention programs.

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Lanham, we are delighted to have you with us. We are always glad to see you every year. As you know, we value your judgment and also, as you know, you have the friendship of every member on this subcommittee.

Mr. LANHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I always look forward to such opportunities to meet with you.

AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM

WITNESS

M. A. HESTER, BELEWS CREEK, N. C.

Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Hester, we are pleased to have you with us at this time. You may proceed.

If you desire, you may insert your statement in the record at this point, and high point it as you desire.

Mr. HESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to get this statement in the record here. (The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF M. A. HESTER ON BEHALF OF THE AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION

PROGRAM

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your committee in behalf of the agricultural conservation program. My name is M. A. Hester from Belews Creek, N. C. I have farmed in Forsyth County for myself for 52 years. As a farmer I have maintained an active interest in farm organizations and the agricultural agencies serving the farmers. At the present time I am not on the county ASC Committee, but I have served 14 years as a county ASC committeeman and 6 years as a community committeeman. The work of the Soil Conservation Service in my county is very familiar to me, since I have served as chairman of the Tri-creek District Supervisors for 10 or more years. I have also served on the committee for the Farmers' Home Administration in my county. My work with the Farm Bureau includes having served as president of the county Farm Bureau and I am at present a member of the executive committee of the North Carolina Farm Bureau. Now, I want to talk about the value of the agricultural conservation program. This program is a matter of concern to all segments of our population, in that it assures us a bountiful supply of food and fiber for this and future generations. The need for conservation farming has never been as urgent as it is today, since the health, wealth, and security of our Nation depend directly on our soil resources. All of us are concerned with building and maintaining soil fertility. The agricultural conservation program attacks soil and water problems down where they start-on the individual farms of the Nation. Farmers all over North Carolina have been helped by the program, and in my home community, Belews Creek, the program has reached and improved about every farm in the community. However, our needs are much greater than the conservation practices carried out under the program or what the farmer has done on his own.

Farms in North Carolina are small and the farmer's economic status does not permit him to bear the entire cost of carrying out needed conservation practices. When a practice is not included in the county agricultural conservation program the practice is not carried out in the needed volume.

I remember in my county, when the winter cover crop practice was restricted, not many farmers carried out this much-needed practice, but when it was again included in the program a large number of farmers seeded winter cover crops. From my experience I have found out that the farmers do not carry out needed conservation practices just because they are needed. It takes some financial help to encourage farmers to do conservation work. From past records we find that the amount of conservation work done has varied with the amount of costsharing available. For example, when we had an appropriation of $500 million, we had in North Carolina three times the number of farmers participating in the ACP over the number participating in the present program. We also had in our State over 650,000 acres of farmland treated with limestone, and when the appropriation was cut we only had a little over 200,000 acres treated. Requests from farmers for assistance in carrying out needed practices which would not be carried out to the extent needed without ACP cost-sharing is double and sometimes triple the amount of funds available in counties.

When I was a county committeeman in Forsyth County we always had to reduce farmers' requests, sometimes as much as half, since our money was never

sufficient to give assistance for all farmers' requests. I had a pretty good idea the county committee this year were not approving near all the requests the farmers made. I want in and discussed this with Mrs. Marshall, our county manager. She told me the county committee was having a difficult job deciding how much cost-share and which farms needed practices approved most. She informed me that total requests since January had amounted to $41,999 and the committee had only been able to approve $26,084. You can see that approvals only amount to 62 percent of the requests. Then I wondered how this compared with the requests in North Carolina. Mrs. Marshall said she would try to get this information for me. I would like to place in the record a tabulation by counties showing the amount requested by farmers and the limited approvals that the county committee could give. It is noted that requests in North Carolina were about twice as much as could be approved. This, gentlemen, in my opinion fully justifies an appropriation of $500 million. You will find anywhere you go, I believe, that when the appropriation is cut, the amount of conservation work carried out is also reduced.

Ever since I have been farming, I have worked with the county extension agent. I built terraces by plowing them out with a team and have always practiced conservation farming on my little farm which contains 125 acres, with 41 acres cropland and 26 acres pasture. I carried out all the conservation praetices I could to build up the productivity and conserve the soil. Times were tight in the early thirties and the productivity on farms all around went down. thus depleting the soil. Then the agricultural conservation program was put into action and farmers started to build back their soil. Many people, including my county agent, have asked me how I could raise and educate a family of nine children and at the same time build up my farm. I was able to do this and take care of my land only because of the assistance allowed me through the agricultural conservation program.

All of the conservation practices we have tried have been good. But from my experience, in the rolling land of Piedmont, N. C., I do believe that the establishing of a vegetative sod on the land and maintaining the sod is the best practice. This has done more to conserve and build the soil than any other practice and acts in many different ways. A well-established cover will prevent wind or water erosion. This cover will also hold the water on the soil where it falls preventing runoff and raising the level of the local water table.

Not only are permanent cover crops important to the conservation effort in North Carolina and in the Southeast, but also summer and winter cover crops. These are important to us because of our system of farming, high rainfall, the fact that we have been farming our land longer than any other area of the United States, and our humid areas. Our farms are small and the farmer has to use all available land for the production of crops which limits the rotations that he can follow. Therefore, he can only carry out conservation measures during off seasons for the production of crops. I inquired as to how much of the State allocation of ACP funds were used for establishing and improving vegetative cover and learned that this amount was 50 to 65 percent of the total State ACP allocation of funds. I also ask them for the percent funds used for land-use adjustment. This amounted to only 25 to 28 percent of the State ACP funds. Of course, this does not reflect a true picture of what has been done, since farmers have been able to plant a lot of trees at their own expense and used the small amount of ACP funds for other practices.

There are fewer and fewer people on the farm and more mouths to feed all the time. Unless the soil is kept in production, food can become inadequate to meet the needs of the people. Therefore, it behooves the Federal Government to work closely with farmers to build up the soil so that the land will be in condition to produce needed food. Conserving the soil is just as beneficial to the man off the farm, if not more so, than it is to the farmer. Conservation farming is more than just good farming.

It is plain to me that the agricultural conservation job must be done, if America is to meet its future needs. I respectfully request that the amount authorized for the 1959 agricultural conservation program be not less than $500 million. Also that 1959 ACP practices be the same as approved for the 1958 ACP with provision for assisting the farmers in maintaining practices already established. Through the ACP, the Nation is helping guarantee that its future seeds will be met by sharing with farmers the cost of conservation now.

Value of farmers' requests and value of approvals given by county committees for spring practices, 1958 ACP

Mr. HESTER. My name is M. A. Hester. I am from Forsyth County, and I am a farmer. That has been my vocational life-a farmer. And I am here in the interest of one thing, and that is the ACP program.

I have been connected with the agricultural agencies or working with the agricultural agencies. I was a farmer for approximately 40 years, first with the extension, using their services, and then with the triple A, and then with the soil conservation, and Farmers Home Administration.

I am also a member of the North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, and a member of the State board and have been for several years, and our people are vitally concerned about our program because of the fact that the recommendations that have been made for cutting the appropriations in half from $250 million to $125 million.