(The prepared statement of Dr. Nichols follows:)

I represent over 1,000 farm-landowner cooperators in our Marion-Cass Soil Conservation District.

The Marion-Cass Soil Conservation District was organized in 1945. Our district is in the Pine Belt of northeast Texas. During the war, in addition to the 9 major sawmills, 57 peckerwood sawmills, were also in operation. They assaulted our forests and demolished them. Practically everything big enough to make a 2 by 4, including the seed trees, was cut down and sent to both the regular and the black market. Numerous fires and heavy winter rains made a shambles of our once beautiful forests. Our croplands had also been destroyed. For a hundred years our farm had been planting cotton 1 year and corn the next. Even our agricultural leaders seemed to be interested in only one thing, more bushels per acre exploitation. Only rarely was conservation practiced. Our top soil was gone, and our agriculture, the backbone of our economy, was bankrupt. Our farmers had moved away from the land, into the cities and defense plants searching for security. Our country schools and churches were abandoned. Actually we had little left to conserve. Ours was a job of restoration of our soils.

Although our average annual rainfall was 45 inches, the water wells were going dry as the underground water tables fell. The heavy winter rains could not penetrate the soil where it fell, but instead, it washed away the remaining topsoil and added to the flood problem of the Sulphur, Red, and Mississippi Rivers. Our once ever-flowing springs and creeks dried up in the summertime and the crop failures were blamed on the drought. Road runners, rattlesnakes, armadillos, and other semiarid wildlife moved in on us. We had the makings of a desert in our once beautiful homeland. Our economy was sick. Our people were sick. And our farmers in desperation were turning to an everincreasing socialistic government which was gradually but surely taking away their liberty and freedom.

The Marion-Cass Soil Conservation District got a slow start. Most of the original appropriation was spent to buy machinery. The real philisophy and purpose of a truly great soil-conservation district was unknown to both the new supervisors and the cooperators. Some stock ponds and terraces were built but very little real soil-restoration work was done. We were still exploiting our land. A feeble effort was made to start reforestation.

Four years ago our district began to function as a real-conservation district. The board of supervisors made a survey. They found that we had 250,000 acres of land that was so badly eroded that it was uneconomical to attempt anything but the planting of pine seedlings on this land. We had another 250,000 acres of crop and pasture land that needed winter cover crops for restoration. A meeting was called to decide on a program of work. All agency people, including SCS technicians, forestry technicians, vocational agriculture teachers, county agents, PMA directors, chamber-of-coommerce leaders, bankers, civic-club officers, and leading farmers.

It was decided to concentrate all efforts on a forestry program for the first year. Everybody set out to sell pine seedlings. Fire prevention and hardwood control were stressed. A pine-tree fund was started. Contributions from sawmills, pulpwood mills, utilities, railroads, banks, business people, civic clubs, and cooperators were solicited. Incentive pine seedlings were offered to farmers who would buy seedlings. Newspapers and radio stations were quick to lend their support. School officials also helped in the educational effort. The first year 2 million seedlings were planted. This was more than had been planted in the 10-year period before.

The program for the next year was expanded. Forestry restoration and preservation remained our chief objective. Efforts were intensified to collect more funds and to show the people the economic values of a pine forest. During these years all agencies worked in complete harmony. All the agency representatives met with the board of supervisors in the regular monthly meetings. Often extra meetings were called, always with good attendance and intense interest and optimism. A unique slogan was adopted. At each meeting we reminded ourselves that "there is no limit to the amount of good a man or an agency can do, so long as they are not looking for the credit." We believe this is a good slogan for all soil-conservation districts to adopt. Human nature being what it is, it is only natural that petty jealousies sometimes cause friction and trouble in a program that includes a large number of people and organizations. We attribute the success of our program, in no small part, to the fact that we did have complete cooperation of the entire group.

The second year of this campaign we doubled the number of pine seedlings planted. Four million seedlings were planted. Farmers redoubled their efforts to prevent fires from destroying their new tree farms. More hardwood control was done as our people learned more about good forestry practices. The intensity of the educational campaign was stepped up with numerous publicity stunts. We had a queen's contest in the late summer, and crowned a queen of the forest, from a group of 36 beautiful girls. The football stadium was filled with interested spectators. Ten thousand circulars were dropped from an airplane one Saturday afternoon on all the towns in the district. These included 100 circulars good for 1,000 free seedlings to the lucky finder. Essay contests and poster contests were conducted in the schools, and the radio and newspapers were generous with their time and space.

The first little gleam of that green-eyed monster, jealousy, appeared in our meeting when we were planning for the queen's contest. Who would crown the queen? That hurdle was cleared easily when we decided to get a man from outside the district. He was a former district supervisor who was one of the men who had done most to start the program.

The forestry work was going so well that we decided to add another project. We started a campaign to "turn the district green" with winter cover crops. We had 250,000 acres that needed to be planted in Austria winter peas, vetch, and reseeding crimson clover. We had a smooth working organization and more cover crops were planted that fall than ever before.

Last year we added a third project in addition to the forestry and cover-crops program. We started some educational work on irrigation. Our terrain is such that most farmers can build small ponds with ease, to furnish enough water to irrigate small vegetable plots. A dozen irrigation systems have been installed. Despite the fact that the drought destroyed many of our 4 million trees planted 2 years ago, last year our cooperators were ready and willing to plant more trees. But we faced an insurmountable difficulty. Other districts in east Texas had heard of our success and despite the increased planting of our State nursery, we were able to get only 2 million seedlings. This year we put in our order early and we are planting 4 million trees again. Our cover-crop acreage has doubled and at least everybody in our district has heard of the Marion-Cass Soil Conservation District. Most of them know what the district is and what we are trying to do.

Our goals for the future are to restore the fertility of our soils, to restore our forests, and to conserve our water through the democratic processes of our local soil conservation district. We hope for help and not hindrance from all agencies of Government.

Our local people have learned to work out their own solution to our land and water problems by cooperating through our board of supervisors. We made a survey which easily demonstrated the problem. We found that 94 percent of our farmers were dependent upon off-the-farm income to survive. Most of our leaders in business and agriculture have now come to understand that our farm problems can best be solved by working through the soil conservation districts. And they now realize that we do have a farm problem. Our problem is one of soil and forest depletion. Our farmers and agricultural leaders in the past have failed to solve the problem. But now with a new spirit of cooperation, we look forward to the future with hope and high expectations.

Our district has now employed an executive secretary and our office is always open for service to the cooperators. If the secretary cannot give the information desired, he can quickly direct the farmer to the agency technician best qualified to answer the question and give direct help. Our farmers and ranchers are learning that our district office can help them to cut the redtape, formerly so despised, to a minimum. Our agency personnel can do their work more quickly and much better than formerly.

One of the greatest services our district has rendered to our farmers is to let them know the why and how of a soil conservation district. They are learning that they no longer have to depend upon a faraway Government in Washington to help them solve all their problems. Their own soil conservation district office is easy to reach and is ready and willing to listen with a sympathetic ear to their problems. More important, a solution to the problem is answered close to home. Our business leaders and farmers and Government agencies have watched this coordinated effort to solve a common problem with a critical eye. They have realized that there is strength in unity at the local level. Their generous contributions have proved their confidence. Last year, we invited our Congressman to meet with all the supervisors in his congressional district to discuss our prob

lems. This year he invited the same group to be his guests at a dinner to continue the discussion of our problems.

Our people are learning that they do not have to depend upon a great white father in faraway Washington. The Caesar complex, a dependence upon a central authority, is on the wane in the Marion-Cass Soil Conservation District. We the people think we know our problem. We think we know the answer to our problem. Only the restoration of the fertility of the soil will solve the farm problem. In the past we have tried to violate all the fundamental laws of ecology. Disease, pestilence, and poverty have followed. Our soils, our plants, our animals, and our people are sick. We are determined in the Marion-Cass Soil Conservation District to restore our soils, our health, and the freedom of our people. We believe that war itself is a search for fertile soil. With love in our hearts, confidence in our own people, and with faith in God, we will succeed in doing our part to save our native land from poverty, disease, slavery, and war. In conclusion we in the Marion-Cass Soil Conservation District believe that the farm problem can be solved only by the restoration of the fertility of the land. The technique for doing this varies in different regions. Specifically in our district this can and must be done by (1) reforestation and good forestry practices on about one-half of our lands; (2) planting winter cover crops on another 200,000 acres.

In the past our farm leaders in extension have educated our farmers only to exploit the land. They have taught them to use ever-increasing amounts of commercial fertilizer and poison insecticides. With reckless abandon, and no thought for the future, our farmers have been educated to make more bushels per acre regardless of the consequence. As a result our soils are ruined and our own agriculture is bankrupt.

We need a new type of educational effort, controlled and executed by our own soil conservation district supervisors. We have made a good start in the Marion-Cass Soil Conservation District. We need cooperation from Extension Service, not attempted domination. We believe that State and Federal funds should be channeled through the soil conservation district. We believe the local soil conservation district knows best how to handle their own problems. We believe the individual farmer should not be compelled to follow a set of plans devised in the Washington office of the United States Department of Agriculture. Far too often this type of plan is not only useless but positively detrimental in solving his own local problem. The farm program ought to be decentralized all the way down to the local SCD level.

We need more money for action. Too much of our research has been an effort to further exploit our land. Federal aid to help exploit our land more only makes our problem worse. We believe that a big portion of the money now wasted on research should be directed to the Soil Conservation Service, and the soil conservation districts for positive action. We already know how to solve our problem of restoration in the Marion-Cass SCD. We already have an educational program that is getting results.

We believe the new plan sponsored by the Farm Bureau has some good points. But we also believe it has in it a joker that will socialize agriculture. We believe the plan was conceived by the Extension Service and is being presented to Congress and the American public by their camouflaged front boy, the Farm Bureau. There is in it too much compulsion and not enough liberty for the American farmer. The new master plan, paraded under the name of a farm home development program by Extension, is too socialistic to be accepted by a liberty loving, God fearing, American farmer. We do not want to see the county agent become the little dictator on the local level. No such plan as this will ever receive the endorsement of the farm leaders in the Marion-Cass Soil Conservation District. The Farm Bureau is not the spokesman for the farmer in our district.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anybody else who has not been heard? Step forward and give your name in full for the record.

STATEMENT OF FRED T. RANEY, WELCH, TEX.

Mr. RANEY. I am Fred T. Raney from Dawson County. I have a copy of what I am going to say.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, sir.

Mr. RANEY. I am Fred T. Raney from Dawson County. My address is box 44, Welch, Tex.

I am presently engaged in farming both dry land and sprinkler irrigation. I am growing chiefly cotton and grain sorghum for market; I am farming both as a tenant and as a farm owner and also as a landlord.

I have never considered myself prosperous but I have accumulated what I have of this world's goods by dry land farming both in and out of Government controlled allotments, programs both in and out of drought conditions, and by the same token I am putting my capital assets back into my farming operations in the form of irrigation and other necessary equipment to combat drought conditions.

At the same time we are letting our farm machinery and other things run down, waiting for the time when the wide gap can be narrowed between what we can sell and what we should be buying to keep our farm machinery and our farm homes and our rural communities attractive to our farm boys and girls, the future farmers and homemakers of this country.

We are sincere in our belief and confidence in the future to the extent we want to leave or put back the fertility in our soil through the soil bank plan to insure as near as possible the future of this country and at the same time rid ourselves of all surplus commodities, which we are told are depressing our markets to the extent we are not able to maintain our standard of living.

Consequently, we are at odds with each other on allotment, price supports, imports and exports, trends, and hardship cases. We grasp at anything that sounds like it might improve our situation.

In the scramble we lose our ability or our initiative to think things out for our individual selves or individual farms. In fact, it ceases to be an individual problem; it gets to be a community problem, then a country problem, then the problem that we are faced with today.

The word "parity" confuses all consumers and most producers in its present form. We think we need a simplified formula that we can understand and that we can explain to our neighbor where he or she can understand what we mean when we say "parity."

How much of a four-row tractor will a bale of cotton buy; how many groceries will a ton of milo maize buy; how much wheat will it take to buy a loaf of bread or a sack of flour; how much cotton does it take to buy your wife a dress; how much wool will I have to sell to buy a suit of clothes?

Gentlemen, these sound like simple questions, and there should be simple answers, but there is no simple answer to these questions. Most people in this country deal with dollars or price tags, both with his or her income and his or her outgo, have a price tag that is not hard to know what they are receiving for their labors. They also know what a suit or a dress will cost in dollars and cents.

As farmers, we are dealing first with nature in all its forms, both good and bad; second, with agricultural commodities in all their raw forms of production, and many ways of harvesting in different parts of a big country, with many different types of soil, different amounts of rainfall, different amounts of sunshine or unfavorable crop-growing weather, destructive sandstorms, hail or windstorms-causing un

64440-56-pt. 4—29

known costs to arise in the form of having to replant at a late date or hoe an extra time or early insect control, late insect control. Unknown labor costs are always present. We have no way of knowing what tomorrow will bring or what our commodities will sell for at the market. These are some of the things that make parity, as a word, misleading. We favor a more simplified parity formula. I am not qualified to tell anybody how that formula should be written, but we should have something that at least we understand.

The land use capability to determine FHA loans, I understand, is coming into effect for another year, and I have left with the secretary a photostatic copy of an average of 93 FHA loans in Dawson County for your consideration as evidence of what has been done in the past, considering the drought and the other controversial conditions that existed.

The allotment program is controversial.

Inequities and human errors and Smith-Doxey grading service are causing us quite a bit of trouble in the cotton industry.

We want a more simplified, workable farm program.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, sir. Thank you ever so much. (Mr. Raney submitted the following analysis :)

LAMESA, TEX.

DEAR FRED: This is an analysis of an average of 93 FHA borrowers in 1954. We know this is a true picture of farming conditions in 1954. This year's, 1955, report is not out, but knowing conditions of expenses, it will not compare favorably.

If possible we'll forward to you a report of this nature from the State office including every county in the State.

Sincerely yours,

F. P. KING.

Farm and home business analysis, Dawson County, Tex.-Analysis of 93 FHA P. and S. borrowers in 1954

NOTE.

The above information compiled from records of the Farmers Home Administration, Dawson County, Tex.