grow potatoes because of the exceptionally good quality, growers' knowledge of the crop, and their accessibility to markets. Contrast this record with that of newcoming sections where quality is poor and growers are remotely removed from market. Many of these sections have diverted from other basic and nonbasic crops that they grow to more advantage.

Suffolk County's total assessed realty valuation amounts to more than $315 million, its farm valuation to more than $54 million, which, according to the Suffolk County Farm Bureau, is one-third greater than the combined value of all farms in North and South Dakota and Nevada. The average Long Island farm produces $135 per acre annually compared to State annual farm average of $21 per acre. Suffolk County is the third largest potato-producing county in the United States growing annually some 15 million bushels of excellent quality potatoes. Its dairy farms produce annually $4 million worth of milk, its duck farms $7 million worth of ducks, the broiler farms $4 million, and the sale of eggs and poultry reaches a total of $2 million.

The average Suffolk County farm is a family-size operation-the county goal in 1948 was 47,585 acres on 1,000 farms. The average value of this land is from $500 to $600 per acre and the minimum investment for machinery and equipment on the average size farm is at least $15,000.

On September 10, I wrote Governor Harriman of the seriousness of our Long Island potato situation. Perhaps as many as 400 of our 1,200 Long Island potato men are insolvent as of today. Since 1924 on cost accounts farms just over one-third of the years have shown a profit. With costs mounting by leaps and bounds our young farmers are faced with a dilemma and this year of all years with practical elimination—some of them have sold their entire crop and find less than one-third to pay their bills. Some are holding their entire crop. To break even they need $2 per hundreweight. The November 18 cash price is $0.54 a bushel for Cobblers and $0.69 for Katahdins. Older men who have borrowed for one reason or another find themselves in complete chaos, nearing the border line of insanity or self-destruction.

Under the so-called Benson plan for Long Island there is practically no help. We have no starch factory. Our nematode restrictions require stock feed to be shipped in paper bags. Even though our production has been cut, Maine for the third year in a row, with constantly increased production continues to get a good share of section 32 funds which, as I understand it, are supposed to be spread evenly to all areas, especially those cutting their acreage.

It is my firm belief that you men as lawmakers should give ear to this serious situation. As man to man and as I see the challenge, it will take the honest combined efforts of our National Potato Council, the State and national Departments of Agriculture and as many honest farmers as we can persuade to take part to solve this problem. It is a matter of economics. It is fundamental to our society to solve it. Time is of the essence. While much time and much money is being spent to solve our world problems we have one here at home with our potato farmers which in my estimation is second to none. You men on the Senate Agricultural Committee, one of the most powerful committees on earth, have within your grasp the great opportunity to lead us out of this threatened bondage into an era of equality with other businessmen, into an era when the farmer is not the forgotten man but right up at the front in peace as well as war. To that end may we all unite-Democrats and Republicans— to get the farmer an equal place in our great economy.

Number of farms: 1,010

Acres of cropland: 78,000

POTATO FARM INFORMATION

72.00

Average value per acre: $600 to $1,000

Average value farm equipment: $15,000

Detailed costs of growing acre potatoes on average Long Island farm, season 1955

Land rent__

18 bags seed potatoes at $4_. Cutting and handling 75 cents

$60.00 Digging and Rotobeating or

per bag__

13. 50

Acre cost of irrigation on average Long Island farms, season 1955

The committee will stand in recess until 1:15 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:45 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 1: 15 p. m. this day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order.

I submit a statement for the record by James P. Daniels, Mayor of Middleburg, N. Y., that was to be read by Mr. Grove Chris, supervisor, Schoharie County.

(The prepared statement of Mayor Daniels is as follows:)

This memorandum is submitted in accordance with a notice of public hearing to be held by the United States Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, in Utica, N. Y., November 19, 1955. It is submitted in behalf of Schoharie County, the Schoharie County Soil Conservation District, towns of Fulton, Middleburg, Schoharie, Esperance, Conesville, Gilboa, and Blenheim, the villages of Middleburg, Schoharie, and Esperance, all located in the county of Schoharie, State of New York.

The Schoharie watershed comprises an area of about 925 square miles, lying on the southerly side of the Mohawk River about 30 miles west of the Hudson River. The Schoharie River flows northerly through the center of Schoharie County and the Schoharie watershed and empties into the Mohawk a short distance west of the city of Amsterdam at Fort Hunter. The general topography of Schoharie County consists of a deep, rather narrow valley through which flows the Schoharie River and along which are located some very fertile, valuable flatlands classified as Barbour, silt loam, and sandy loam; the lower lands toward Esperance as Chagrin, silt loam and sandy loam.

This very valuable land has not in the past been put to its best use but in recent years a marked improvement has been made by more intensive dairy and truck farming. This is due to the recognition of the soil capability, improvement of our highways, and education of the farmers by the various farm agencies.

The valley is narrow and the mountains and hills on either side are comparatively steep so that the Schoharie River is known as an extremely flashy stream. The runoff is rapid. The valley floor at Schoharie, which is the county seat, is 611 feet above sea level, while the mountains reach to a height of over 3,000 feet. The general height of the highland area is about 2,000 feet. A number of fairly large tributary streams flow into the Schoharie from the east and the west. The watershed, generally speaking, is about 25 miles wide. The Schoharie River is approximately 75 miles long.

There are no dams or other artificial structures across the Schoharie River at any point except the Gilboa Dam, erected by the city of New York as a part of its water supply system at Gilboa, N. Y., about 50 miles upstream from the mouth of the river. This dam forms the Schoharie Reservoir, a body of water about 5 miles long, out of which the water is drawn through the Shandaken Tunnel into the Esopus Creek and thence through the Catskill aqueduct into the city of New York.

The Gilboa Dam, however, is of little help in checking floods because it is the practice of the city of New York to close the tunnel during periods of high water because of the turbidity of the water and the danger of increasing flood conditions in the area of Phoenecia, and so the entire streamflow of the Schoharie is thus permitted to flow in its natural channel, north, into the Mohawk. During the dry periods, when nearly all the water is diverted by the city of New York by the aforementioned dam and tunnels, the Schoharie streambed becomes overgrown with brush and trees which allows deposits of gravel and other debris to accumulate. These deposits, in time, entirely fill the streambed, in some sections, and result in the river jumping its banks and the cutting of new channels, spreading destruction upon the farmlands.

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

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. 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.