"Well, we think we ought to hold this opportunity out for them, they have never done it but they may do it in the future?" Why should we do that?

Mr. KOGER. That is something that I cannot answer for the Department.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I will say this, and then I am through: The Department does regard this as an important thing?

Mr. KOGER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I am sure you do. They regard the program as being one of such benefit to American agriculture that they would not want to eliminate it or dispose of it. You do feel that it is a sound program?

Mr. KOGER. Yes, I do.

Mr. ABERNETHY. That is all.

Mr. POAGE. If any State were to submit a plan that the Department would approve, is it not reasonable that they would submit that to this committee and in all probability get rather prompt action? In other words, it would not foreclose the right to come up here with that and submit it.

Mr. ABERNETHY. They seem to operate in the reverse. I have never heard of one from down in my State submitting a bill trying to take over the program.

Let me ask this question: Is the objection premised on the desire of the Extension Service to take over the administration of this program?

Mr. KOGER. I do not think so.

Mr. ABERNETHY. You don't think so?

Mr. KOGER. No, sir. I have no knowledge to that effect.

Mr. ABERNETHY. That is all.

Mr. McINTIRE. In relation to the States that have passed enabling legislation, is there any part of the administrative work of this program which comes under the jurisdiction of the enabling legislation in any one of those States?

Mr. KOGER. No, sir.

Mr. McINTIRE. Then it is different from the enabling legislation of the soil-conservation district, is it not?

Mr. KOGER. Yes.

Mr. McINTIRE. That program is administered at the Federal level and goes through the soil-conservation districts which are set up through the enabling legislation at the State level?

Mr. KOGER. The ACP program is administered through county ASC committees and State committees.

Mr. McINTIRE. But there is a difference between the ASC and the SCS programs where the States do have enabling legislation, and administratively you move through the vehicle of the soil-conservation districts which are State and not Federal?

Mr. KOGER. Yes, the ASC committee.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I have one other question.

As I understand the attitude of the Department, it has no objection to putting the program on a permanent basis, provided we retain at provision that would in the future permit the States to take it over?

Mr. KOGER. Providing that this committee would be satisfied with the review that is given each year by the Appropriations Committee.

In other words, we do not want to deprive the Congress of the right to review the program from time to time.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I do not recall any particular review we have had of the program in this committee. That has been a function of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. POAGE. Are there any further questions?

Mr. HAGEN. The only complaint of the ACP program which I have heard is that too much of the payments are made for what might be determined to be practices which go into production of annual crops, rather than having any long-range impact on true soil and water conservation.

Presently does the Secretary have enough authority to control the direction of these payments?

Mr. KOGER. Yes, I would think so. We have the legal division represented here.

STATEMENT OF W. K. SCHOONOVER, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. SCHOONOVER. Mr. Chairman, the Secretary has very broad authority. He can impose whatever conditions he thinks are necessary and appropriate to see that the program is carried out consistent with the purposes of the act. And any condition consistent with those purposes that he wants to put in the regulations, certainly it is within the legal authority he has.

Mr. HAGEN. To amplify that, for example, a lot of these payments go for putting fertilizer on an annual crop. It does not accomplish any long-range conservation or soil or water.

Mr. SCHOONOVER. I think perhaps the program people ought to answer that, but I do not believe that is correct. We would not pay for fertilizer for an annual crop. I expect Mr. Ritchie had better answer that.

STATEMENT OF F. A. RITCHIE, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION SERVICE

Mr. RITCHIE. Mr. Chairman:

As of now, sir, the only payment that is made for fertilizer is for that which is supplied in connection with the establishment of conservation cover. And generally that is for cover that occupies the land for some time.

There are some annual-type covers that have to be established in the summer or in the fall, but those are not crops to the extent that the farmer sells the product of that planting. Those are annual legumes and grass. They are planted to protect the land from wind or water erosion over the summer or the winter.

Most of the fertilizer applications are in connection with establishing long-term cover, long-term legumes, or grass seedings which bring about a change in the land use and keep it tied down for a long time.

Mr. HAGEN. I am glad to hear that.

Actually, the way these practices originate in given States is that the local State ASC committee makes a recommendation as to what they will make a payment on. It has to be counterapproved by the Secretary himself. Isn't that correct?

Mr. RITCHIE. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. HAGEN. The Secretary does have complete control of the program?

Mr. RITCHIE. Yes, sir; a national program is developed each year for the practices that the Department considers of sufficient merit to justify cost sharing.

From that program the State ASC committee, the State conservationist of the Soil Conservation Service and a representative of the Federal Forest Service in consultation with the other State and Federal agencies that are interested in conservation in the State develop a State program.

From that State program a similar group develops a program within each county.

So that the practices are controlled by the national office.
Mr. POAGE. Are there any further questions?

If not, we are very much obliged to you gentlemen.

The committee will take this bill under consideration. And we will pass to the next one.

Actually, the next bill is a bill that was introduced by Mr. McIntire, Mr. Avery, Mr. Weaver, and myself. But I see that Mr. Sikes has been waiting a long time. It is all right with you to pass on and take out of order Mr. Sikes' bill, H. R. 5497?

Mr. McINTIRE. Perfectly all right.

Mr. POAGE. We will hear from you, Mr. Sikes.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT L. F. SIKES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, that is very considerate and I do appreciate your thoughtfulness.

The chairman, and the committee of course, have been very much interested in the Watershed and Flood Prevention Act, and have contributed very substantially toward the success of that act.

And I am sure that you agree that it is highly important legislation. I have introduced H. R. 5497 which is an amendment to the Watershed and Flood Prevention Act which would enable the Federal Government to participate in financing projects of a recreational nature when those projects provide a major portion of the income of the immediate vicinity of the project.

In my district, and I am sure this also is true in many other districts, there are communities whose economic conditions are directly or indirectly based on recreational activities and the businesses which stem from those recreational activities.

I feel that these communities should not be discriminated against for their lack of other sources of income such as agriculture.

On the contrary, they should be given the same privilege of financial participation in the watershed program as other communities with economic factors whose development is assisted by Federal financing.

In connection with this, Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote from the Presidential Advisory Committee report on Water Resources Policy, dated December 22, 1955. Page 31 of that report reads as follows:

The committee has considered many cost-sharing proposals and has weighed carefully the elements of fairness to all concerned and precedents for sharing the cost of other programs.

Further, it gave due recognition to the types of benefits accruing to individuals, groups of individuals, local and State governments, and the Nation as a whole. It was unable to discover for all cases a completely equitable yet practicable procedure for cost sharing based solely on the principle of sharing costs in proportion to benefits.

The committee recommends, as a general policy, that all interests participate in the cost of projects in accordance with the measure of their benefits, and that the Federal Government assume the cost of that part of projects where the benefits are widely dispersed and represent substantial contributions to the general economic growth of the country or region, or to the national defense.

On page 32, the policy report states:

The committee believes that the enhancement or improvement of basic recreation facilities (provision for access, public health, safety, and protection) and fish and wildlife resources of less than national significance should be treated in accordance with the general cost-sharing procedure proposed herein. Those of national significance should be financed entirely by the Federal Government.

You see, gentlemen, the amendment that I am offering conforms with the recommendation of the President's Committee.

The amendment which I offer will have an important effect throughout the Nation, and I think would be of great benefit.

Quite frankly, my interest in it was activated by a situation which has arisen in my own district where we are seeking a watershed project for the Dead Lakes area which has long been famous for fresh-water sport fishing.

In recent years a low-water table has virtually destroyed that onceimportant industry which always has been the chief source of income for the residents of the area.

Now you go out to that area and you will find 10 to 20 boats a day on the huge lake which covers a substantial part of two counties. For comparison of better times there are pictures in existence taken from aircraft in the hyeday of this area which showed as many as a thousand boats on the lake.

Now the industry is virtually gone. An additional detriment to a constant water level in this area has been provided by the construction of the Jim Woodruff Dam on the Apalachicola River. The level of the river has considerable influence on the level of the water in the Dead Lakes and floodwaters which are impounded above the dam are not now available to help restore the needed water level in the Dead Lakes.

As an illustration of this, the average gage reading prior to the construction of the dam was 5.9 feet. Since the dam has been built the gage has fallen to an average of 3.1 feet.

A watershed project which would provide a Tumbler Dam for Dead Lakes and maintain a constant water level would be a comparatively inexpensive item. Because the lake has a narrow mouth the project would be built at an estimated cost of $150,000.

This is one type of recreational project that would benefit from this legislation. There are others which are equally important to their communities.

Now these projects cannot participate because the present law does not permit contributions by the Federal Government to the projects that are based principally on recreation. Obviously, recreation in many areas in the Nation is just as important a source of livelihood to

90172-57- -4

the people that live there as would be agriculture in other areas. However farmers also have an important stake in this amendment.

I trust that the amendment will be approved so that recreation when it provides the major source of income for an area can be placed on the same basis as those activities which are now authorized for Federal financial participation in watershed projects.

Of course, I will be glad to answer any questions the committee may wish to ask.

I would like to indicate the presence here of the representatives of the United States Department of Agriculture, representatives of the Florida State Game and Fresh Water Commission, and of the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service.

And Mr. Matthews, a member of your committee who is cosponsor of the important watershed amendments which Congress enacted in the last session, would like to be heard.

Mr. POAGE. Very well. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. D. R. (BILLY) MATTHEWS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE EIGHTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having this opportunity, immediately following my colleague's testimony, to say that I share his views.

I appreciate the excellent statement that he has made. And I certainly hope our committee will give favorable consideration to his bill.

I just wanted to make that statement. I have no particular questions to ask.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Sikes, it seems to me that there is a reference here to cost. Do you propose to have the Federal Government pay all of this cost?

Mr. SIKES. Not to pay all of the costs but to pay in the same proportion that they are now paying for agriculture and flood-control projects. There would be cases where the Government would pay all of the costs.

Mr. POAGE. Under a bill we passed last year it would provide that the Federal Government would pay all of the reclamation costs. Mr. SIKES. It is my belief that the Government would participate percentagewise in the same manner as it does at present.

Mr. JOHNSON. The cost of the dam is not now a part of that, is it? Mr. POAGE. Mr. Heimburger says he has that now.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. The amendment that the gentleman's bill would make is to a section of the bill which is amended by your bill. And the relevant provision now reads-section 4 of the act:

The Secretary shall require as a condition to providing Federal assistance for the installation of works of improvement that local organizations shailand then there is a (1), and here comes number (2)—

(2) assume such proportionate share of the cost of installing any works of improvement involving Federal assistance as may be determined by the Secretary to be equitable in consideration of anticipated benefits from such improvementsinvolving Federal assistance which is applicable to the agricultural phases of the conservation development and disposal of water.