It is not the purpose of this memorandum to recite the damage caused to municipalities and private property along the Mohawk River below the mouth of the Schoharie.

Suffice it to say that the Schoharie River is one of the principal tributaries of the Mohawk and the sudden rises in the Schoharie have been the cause of tremendous property loss along the Mohawk. Thus, any improvement in floodcontrol conditions and new stream regulations on the Schoharie inures directly to the benefit of the thickly populated portion of the Mohawk Valley and, at the same time, of course, will remove flood conditions and prevent further damage to property along the Schoharie itself, thereby serving a twofold purpose. The damages caused by the floods in the Schoharie Valley consist principally of the washing away and destruction of large areas of its rich, alluvial flatlands and damage to highways and bridges and property along the river. Not only do these floods wash away large areas of the valley floor topsoil but they also cover other areas, sometimes to a depth of several feet, with large boulders, rocks, gravel, sand, and debris.

The meandering course of the Schoharie River through the Fulton Flats and the inherent danger spots which threaten large areas are graphically shown on the serial map NY286-5917, Corps of Engineers, United States Army, Schoharie quadrangle.

This is essentially an engineering question which must be considered in its entirety and the groups concerned and here represented are not equipped either by experience, knowledge, or finances to cope with the problem. Any control work constructed on an individual basis may adversely affect properties above, below, or across the stream.

There are definite areas which can be protected by diking or levees. These areas are located along the Manorkill Stream in the town of Conesville, Schoharie County, certain points along the main Schoharie River in the towns of Fulton, Middleburg, Schoharie, and Esperance which can be pointed out to the Engineers and are desired by local interests. The authors believe, however, that a series of streamflow-regulating reservoirs or debris dams on the tributaries would be the best means of controlling these streams and the main river and the best means of preventing further flood damage. They would regulate the flow and do away with its flashy nature.

The cloudburst in Ulster, Greene, and Delaware Counties, Saturday, October 15, 1955, added to Schoharie River, already swollen by heavy rain, a tremendous volume of water which came into Schoharie County over Gilboa Reservoir Dam which was already filled to capacity.

At the peak of the flood stage, 6.3 feet of water was passing over Gilboa Reservoir Dam.

At flood stage the gage, situated at Middleburg Bridge, in the village of Middleburg, reads 12 feet. At the peak of the October 16, 1955, flood it registered 22 feet.

Interpreted on the ground, this flood extended from the base of the mountain at the Pindar Farm in Middleburg to the base of the mountain across the valley at the Joslyn Farm.

Within the corporate limits of the villages of Middleburg and Schoharie alone 160 families were evacuated by large trucks, motorboats, rowboats, and United States Army "ducks."

There was no loss of life.

Since the major farm crops were not harvested, the crop loss from the Gilboa Dam to Burtonville, near Esperance, was tremendous-farm equipment suffered severe damage and loss together with a great deal of damage to farm and home buildings.

The nature and estimated flood damage in dollars for the last four floods of record has been as follows:

Attached are several photographs showing flood conditions. The high watermarks can be pointed out on the ground, and gaging stations at Burtonville and formerly at Middleburg, will show some of the data required.

Local high water marks will be pointed out on the ground through the county highway department at Schoharie.

The CHAIRMAN. I also submit for the record a letter addressed to me, dated November 17, 1955, from Mr. Lewis M. Hardison who is president and general manager of Clark Seed Farms, Richford, N. Y. (The letter dated November 17, 1955, is as follows:)

I know you and your committee have a full schedule planned at Utica, so by letter I will make a few comments on the agricultural situation. You have a copy of my statement of March 29, 1954, to the Senate Agricultural Committee. Also, you have copies of Frank L. Clark's letter of August 8 and 12, 1955, to Secretary Benson, together with copies of other letters we have written.

The consumer under a planned economy is financially able to pay a fair price for agricultural products. Agriculture, we must agree, is in a mess and the reason is simple-just too much production. Those who object to high support prices do so because of the large Federal expenditures that have been necessary to maintain such prices and the buildup of surplus agricultural products in storage. No one should object to the farmers getting 100 percent or even 100 percent plus of parity if it is done without the excessive use of Federal funds. This is why we feel that an agricultural program of marketing agreements and strict production controls is the program that should be offered American farmers.

With potatoes, the goal would be to keep production somewhere near our requirements by the use of controls on all farmers growing potatoes. In years of heavy production, the off grades would be diverted to starch, livestock feed, and other products.

Agriculture must be made an integral part of our constantly growing economy. Our goal should be the maintenance of opportunities in agriculture comparable to those in other segments of our economy in terms of net earning and living standards. This not only helps our rural communities, but is in the national interest as well. It seems that our present Secretary of Agriculture does not recognize this theory. He believes in letting agriculture go back to free economy regardless of the consequences to the farmer. Under his program we sell our products in a free market, and buy the things we need at prices maintained by a planned economy. Agriculture is going into a depression while the rest of the economy prospers.

The public does not understand farm parity. We strongly recommend that the Department of Agriculture try to explain the true meaning of parity. Too many people think it is something political, or some special favor being given farmers. Wage contracts are adjusted upward as the cost of living advances. Farm parity remains the same, and farmers are receiving only a small percentage of what is considered their fair share of the economic pie.

In view of our apparent surplus of farmland, we recommend the discontinuance of reclamation projects and a closer control of potato imports. There is merit in a program of payment for diverted acreage, but it should be done in connection with a production control program. It should be required that all diverted acreage be used only for soil-building crops.

We feel that farmers need organizational help from Washington more than they need large expenditures of money. Some program must be devised to keep from producing these large surpluses year after year. We realize there is a great variation of opinions among farmers. In some way, the best of these ideas must be brought together into a sound agricultural program. We hope that you and your committee will devise such a program, or encourage the Department of Agriculture to do so. This program should be fully explained to the American farmers, and the farmers given an opportunity to decide on what course they choose to follow.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. Don Wickham, New York State Farm Bureau.

Give us your name in full and your occupation, please.

STATEMENT OF DON J. WICKHAM, PRESIDENT, NEW YORK STATE FARM BUREAU, HECTOR, N. Y.

Mr. WICKHAM. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is Don J. Wickham. I live at Hector, N. Y. I am a farmer and also president of the State farm bureau.

The CHAIRMAN. I notice that you have a written statement.

Mr. WICKHAM. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything new to add to what has been said this morning?

Mr. WICKHAM. Unfortunately, I was not very swift in getting here because of road conditions, so I just do not know what to tell you, whether I do or not. My statement is rather short.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, proceed.

Mr. WICKHAM. I would like to say this is not in my written presentation. I trust that in the months ahead we can at least take, shall I say, an economic look at what needs to be done and not get too emotional about it because of some of the events that are going to take place in the next 12 months. It seems to me that when we talk about price supports of any kind that we are only attacking one part of our problem, because, as anyone knows, in any business price is only one part, and we as farmers have to look, I think, at the whole picture and the end result that we are looking for is net income.

And, as you all well know, net income is made up of price times the amount that is sold, minus the cost. I bring this in at this point because it seems to me that we have had enough background in price supports to know that with high supports you get big production and inevitably because of that big production you have to resort to controls, which means then that you cut down in the number of units that you have to sell, and if you do not have the units price means very little. Of course, the thing that I think we as farmers today-I am not so sure we need more income-I think we need to look at it possibly from the other point of view that what we need is less cost. I think you can overprice commodities. I am not a dairy farmer, but I am sure that you can get the price of milk too high. You can get the price of anything too high. I do think we have to look at this thing from all of the angles.

We have an example in our dairy support program, I think, because during the last year we had a 55 percent decline in Government buying of butter, and butter inventories have dropped 60 percent in the last year.

Cow numbers on farms June 1 in the United States were 1.6 percent less than a year earlier and milk consumption during the past year increased more than 6 billion pounds.

You might attack that and say they are producing more. Of course, they are, but at least that is in the right direction.

The school lunch program is good and should be encouraged; additional funds for additional milk in the school lunch program serves a constructive purpose nutritionally and the program should be continued. It teaches good nutrition. I think it may even in many cases. just teach the use of the product itself.

Certainly, research in the utilization of farm products for other uses, such as the manufacture of starch from surplus potatoes, should be well financed by the Federal Government, for through such research answers to many problems may be found.

I think we have to-and of course you say that your Senate committee is on record to that effect-avoid such programs as the wheat program where farmers were not allowed to feed what they produced themselves.

I believe that the ASC payments should be confined to practices that have a long time value in the public interest and current appropriations would apear to be adequate to meet these needs.

Certainly, further reclamation of land by Government when Government is spending huge sums in efforts to improve farm income is unrealistic and should be halted until such time as the additional land is needed.

This is probably a little repetitious, but the serious problems affecting farmers has been decline in net farm income rather than decline in gross farm income. Decline in net farm income has resulted in large measure from high costs of production-especially high costs of the industrial products that enter into farm production. We get our net farm income by multiplying units sold times price minus costs. Government fixed prices which encourage production necessitate production control programs and marketing quotas which reduce the number of units that can be sold. Large Government holdings overshadow markets and depress market prices below high Government support prices. We cannot veto the law of supply and demand by Government price fixing unless we have the most rigid kind of Government control imaginable, which most farmers in New York State, in my opinion, are not ready to accept and do not want.

It seems to me, as I said in the beginning, we have to face this from a realistic point of view. I am glad that you Senators are out looking over the farm scene. I hope that you have found some things that will realy help, but I would again like to throw in the caution that I hope whatever is done that we look at it from a realistic point of view and keep the emotions as low as possible in doing the job.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Your statement will be made a part of the record at this point. (The prepared statement of Mr. Wickham is as follows:)

Great effort should be placed on the expansion of markets at home and abroad. Effective farmer-financed promotional programs can accomplish much in stimulating and increasing domestic consumption.

The Government's newly established policy in foreign trade of accepting the cuurencies of other countries in exchange for our agricultural products is sound and should be expanded. They cannot buy our products with dollars unless this country gives them the opportunity to earn the dollars by importing into this country their goods. We can use their currencies in purchasing strategic materials which are needed in this country.

Action by the 83d Congress in substituting flexible price supports for the high unsound mandatory 90 percent supports on the so-called basic crops was a move in the right direction. Even the flexible price supports on the basic commodities with all of the restrictions involved are so high that they stimulate production for Government in great excess of market needs. At best, this action in connection with price supports was a change only in direction. In my opinion it would be very unwise and unsound for Congress to abandon the flexible support principle by returning to the 90 percent of parity mandatory supports.

A more realistic support level on dairy products has resulted in a 55 percent decline in Government buying of butter and butter inventories have dropped 60

percent in the last year. Cow numbers on farms June 1 in the United States were 1.6 percent less than a year earlier and milk consumption during the past year increased more than 6 billion pounds.

During the past year butter consumption rose per capita and the consumption of oleomargarine declined accordingly. Per capita consumption of butter now exceeds per capita consumption of oleomargarine.

In 1954 egg prices dropped 23 percent, gross income dropped 19 percent and net income even more. The adjustments were rough for poultrymen but they were quickly made and the poultry and egg industries are now experiencing fairly good times.

Price supports have their place in agriculture but they should never be used in peacetime to stimulate production in great excess of market needs. They can serve their best function when used to guard against undue price depression resulting from seasonal or yearly overproduction of individual commodities.

The school-lunch program is good and should be encouraged. Additional funds for additional milk in the school-lunch program serves a constructive purpose nutritionally and the program should be continued.

Research in the utilization of farm products for other uses such as the manufacture of starch from surplus potatoes should be well financed by the Federal Government for through such research, answers to many problems may be found.

Prohibiting production of wheat on farms where all wheat grown is fed on the farms where grown to poultry and livestock is unsound and unreasonable and should be abandoned. The practice of limiting voting on the wheat program only to those who intend to grow 15 acres or more is undemocratic.

ASC practice payments should be confined to practices that have a longtime value in the public interest and current appropriations would appear to be adequate to meet these needs.

Further reclamation of land by Government when Government is spending huge sums in efforts to improve farm income is unrealistic and should be halted till such time as the additional land is needed.

The serious problem affecting farmers has been decline in net farm income rather than decline in gross farm income. Decline in net farm income has resulted in large measure from high costs of production-especially high costs of the industrial products that enter into farm production. We get our net farm income by multiplying units sold times price minus costs. Governmentfixed prices which encourage production necessitate production-control programs and marketing quotas which reduce the number of units that can be sold. Large Government holdings overshadow markets and depress market prices below high Government support prices. We cannot veto the law of supply and demand by Government price fixing unless we have the most rigid kind of Government control imaginable which most farmers in New York State, in my opinion, are not ready to accept and do not want.

The present program of flexible supports is working in the right direction and should be continued.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Robert H. Austin, president of the Upper Susquehanna Watershed Association, present?

(No response.)

We will next hear from Mr. Leon Korzeniewski. Give us your name in full and your occupation.

STATEMENT OF LEON KORZENIEWSKI, MORRISVILLE, N. Y.

Mr. KORZENIEWSKI. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Leon Korzeniewski. I am a dairy farmer in Madison County. I want to confine my remarks to the milk situation.

The dairy farmers in New York State under Federal regulation order No. 27 are confronted with the problem of constantly lower prices for their milk, in spite of higher prices charged to the consumer.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe your statement is devoted to State laws. I wonder if you could confine your statement to anything new on the national problem.