CONTENTS American Watershed Council, Inc.. Anderson, Don, chairman, water management committee, National Association of Soil Conservation Districts, Honey Creek, Iowa.. Davis, Waters, representing the National Association of Soil Con- 78 Elting, Erwin C., Office of Experiment Stations, United States De- 54 67 Embrey, Webb, representing the chamber of commerce, St. Joseph, Farmer, J. W., Eureka, Kans., representing Greenwood County Soil Ferguson, C. M., Director of Extension Service, United States De- Ferguson, T. W., director, Yadkin-Pee Dee Soil Conservation and 279 59 Graham, J. T., president, Yadkin-Pee Dee Soil Conservation and Hill, Irving, president, Lawrence Paper Co., Lawrence, Kans.. Hunter, Hon. A. Oakley, a Representative in Congress from the State Kaylor, Joseph F., representing the Association of State Foresters___ 142 242 141 145 1 243 95 241 Lynn, John C., legislative director, American Farm Bureau Federa- 108 McArdle, Richard E., Chief, Forest Service, United States Depart- 209 McConnell, Bright, secretary-treasurer, Savannah River Soil Con- 139 McConnell, Raymond A., Jr., editor, Lincoln (Nebr.) Journal_ 134 97 Parker, Frank W., Bureau of Plant Industry, United States Depart- Page Riley, George D., representing national legislative committee, Amer- Rohrer, Mrs. Harold, representing Clark's Creek Watershed_ Sanders, J. T., legislative counsel, The National Grange.. 280 277 14, 37, 159 120 231 Scrivner, Hon. Errett P., & Representative in Congress from the State Seaton, Hon. Fred, publisher, Hastings (Nebr.) Tribune.. Smith, Anthony W., assistant general counsel, Congress of Industrial Smith, Truett, representing the East Fork Association, Wylie, Tex.. 150 292 Strunk, Harry D., president, Republican Valley Conservation Asso- 155 Triggs. Matt, assistant legislative director, American Farm Bureau 112 Woodbury, Howard K., Olivet, Kans., representing Upper Marais Tuttle, W. B., chairman, San Antonio River Authority, San Antonio, Williams, D. A., chief, agricultural conservation program, United Additional data presented to the committee by- 287 Chamber of Commerce of the United States, letter of May 6, 1953, to 240 Ramskill, George E., letter of May 11, 1953, to Hon. Clifford R. Hope Sanders, J. T.: The Administration of Planning and Development of Sport Fishing Institute, letter of May 6, 1953, to Hon. Clifford R. Hope 192 259 Williams, D. A., Chief, Agricultural Conservation Program, United States Department of Agriculture: Estimated amounts needed, as of January 1, 1950, of selected permanent-type conservation practices-Ohio (tabulation).... Number of farms on which conservation measures performed 199 Floodwater retarding structure No. 15 in Sandstone Creek subwater- shed, Washita River watershed, Oklahoma.......... Floodwater-retarding structure in Mortenson subwatershed of Little Little Tallahatchie River above Sardis Dam, Miss., before treatment.. Little Tallahatchie River above Sardis Dam, Miss., after channel im- The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:05 a. m., in room 1310, House Office Building, Representative Clifford Hope (chairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Hope (chairman), Andresen, Hoeven, Simpson, Dague, Harvey, Lovre, Belcher, McIntire, Golden, King, Wampler, Poage, Grant, Gathings, Albert, Wheeler, Thompson, Jones. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. I think all of you who are present are aware of the fact that these committee hearings have been called to review the general subject of conservation programs and see what has been accomplished-and a great deal has been accomplished; we all know that. Also to see what the failures have been, if any, and what we can do and should do to meet the problems that are still ahead of us. We want to explore particularly the program that relates to watersheds in which some progress has been made and in which there is a great deal of interest throughout the country. In fact this is a matter on which I think the country generally is perhaps ahead of us here in Washington. We want to explore all of those things. And we hope that as a result of these hearings, it will be possible for us to expand the program, accelerate it where it needs to be accelerated, and fit it in as far as possible with other natural-resource programs and with our agricultural programs generally. The Chair has prepared a statement outlining some of the things that we hope to accomplish through these hearings. If there is no objection, the Chair would like to make that a part of the hearing, and open the hearings with that statement. I will not read it at this time. If there is no objection, it will be placed in the record as the opening statement of these hearings. (Statement of Hon. Clifford R. Hope, chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, at the opening of the hearing on soil conservation and watershed programs, is as follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFFORD R. HOPE, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, AT THE OPENING OF THE HEARING ON SOIL CONSERVATION AND WATERSHED PROGRAMS For many generations, at least as far back as the time of George Washington, individual American farmers and students of agriculture have recognized the value of using their land so as to preserve and maintain its fertility.、 For many years, too, it has been recognized that, in addition to sound land use, certain protective measures and practices might be necessary to prevent the dissipation and destruction of the very topsoil itself through improper land use and resulting erosion. As long as we had a frontier, however, as long as there were new lands to be brought into cultivation when old farms wore out or washed away, the urgency and importance of soil conservation was not apparent to the Nation as a whole. Thus, it was not until 1928 that Congress first gave formal recognition to this problem and accepted, on the part of the Nation itself, some share of responsibility for preserving for the future the farmlands, ranges, and forests that combine to form our greatest natural resource. In the 1928 act making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture funds were appropriated, for the first time, specifically for research into soil erosion and methods of preventing it. Since then our progress has been rapid. We have not only carried on research into the causes and prevention of erosion, but have enlisted millions of the Nation's farmers in active programs to put the results of this research into action. Since the start of organized soil-conservation activities through the agencies of the Department of Agriculture, almost 2500 soil-conservation districts, organized under State laws, have come into existence. Eighty-four percent of the Nation's farm and ranch lands and 4 out of every 5 farmers and ranchers are now within a soil-conservation district. In 1952, accomplishments under the SCS program throughout the Nation were substantially greater in every line of activity than in any previous year. During the same year, the Forest Service and the cooperative extension service were making available to farmers vital information that is making sound conservation practices a regular part of their farming operation. In 1951, there were 2,357,000 farms, comprising more than 648 million acres, participating in the agricultural conservation program under the PMA. In a little more than 20 years, our progress in organized conservation has indeed been impressive. But as we start now to reappraise this progress and consider it in terms of the need that lies ahead, I think we should focus our attention on the reverse side of the charts. Four out of 5 farmers and ranchers live within soil conservation districts and yet only 1 out of every 5 is now actively participating in the SCS program as a cooperator. The Extension Service, the Forest Service, and the State and Federal experiment stations have made available to farmers a wealth of information on how to make their farming and forestry operations more profitable to themselves by sound conservation management. But how many farmers today are getting the utmost in profit and productivity out of their soil and woodlands? The agricultural conservation program has been in operation for many years. Through it farmers have received financial assistance in instituting conservation measures designed not only to prevent dissipation of the topsoil but to increase the productivity of their land. These programs have been designed to offer a positive inducement to farmers to institute sound conservation farming. So it is rather surprising to find that in 1951 only 43 percent of the Nation's farmers were taking advantage of the help offered by the agricultural conservation program, and that the farmland included comprised only 52 percent of the total. What does this nonparticipation mean in terms of national welfare? Does it mean that we are not getting the conservation job done? Does it mean that our organized efforts must be accelerated, or made more attractive, or redirected? To what extent are those not participating in organized soil-conservation programs nevertheless doing the necessary conservation job on a purely voluntary, individual basis? Is it necessary and practical that organized conservation should cover 100 percent of the farms and farmlands of the Nation? If it is, what can and should we do; what is our responsibility as a Nation, to bring this about? There is another and extremely important aspect of the conservation job ahead on which I hope we can make some constructive progress in the course of these hearings; that is, the relationship of overall conservation to the control of floods and the supply of water. Only in the past few years have we as a Nation awakened to the full realization that there is an innate relationship between soil conservation and the kind of control over the movement of water which will at one and the same time diminish the destructive floods that periodically sweep down our river valleys, and hold the water where it can be most useful for agricultural, domestic, industrial, and recreational purposes. 5 |