We wish to thank our farmer cooperators for their support and we hope 1948 will see even more progress on the road to soil conservation. Goals for 1948: We would like to get at least 200 new farm plans developed and applied and could do so very easily if we had enough Soil Conservation Service technicians available. Form SCD-12 (Rev. 12-10-42) Annual report of educational activities District: West Pottawattamie. Headquarters of district governing body, Council Bluffs, Iowa. The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Dan McKeon, of Connecticut. STATEMENT OF DANIEL MCKEON, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, FAIRFIELD COUNTY SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AND PRESIDENT, CONNECTICUT ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS Mr. McKEON. My name is Daniel McKeon. I am a dairy farmer from Ridgefield, Conn. I am chairman of the board of supervisors of the Fairfield County Soil Conservation District, and president of the Connecticut Association of Soil Conservation Districts. My farm of 175 acres has been planned by the technical staff of the Soil Conservation Service office located in my district. In order to carry out soil-conservation practices on my farm, stone walls had to be removed and diversion ditches had to be constructed with heavy equipment furnished by the State through the district under the supervision of Soil Conservation Service technicians. Every county, except one, in the State of Connecticut has been organized in a soil-conservation district. The State advisory committee has been organized under the terms of the enabling act passed in 1944, and an initial appropriation of $35,000 was allocated by the State of Connecticut to provide funds for the State advisory committee for the State director of conservation and for the purchase of heavy equipment to carry out soil-conservation practices in the districts. The equipment is allocated to each district according to its needs. This machinery is hired by the farmers at rates fixed by the district which allow the cost to be amortized. This amortization charge is returned by the district to the State to be placed in a revolving fund for the purchase of new equipment to establish conservation practices on more farms. At present there are in operation on the land in Connecticut, four bulldozers, one road grader, one brush-breaking plow, all supplied by the State. There have been delays in securing this type of equipment and there are several unfilled orders for additional equipment. The State appropriation for soil conservation for the period July 1, 1947, to June 30, 1949, is $36,805 of which, it is estimated, 28.8 percent, or $10,580 will be spent for the State committee and 71.2 percent or $26,225 for directly assisting districts. We have made a good start in soil conservation in Connecticut due to the cooperation of the State government and the Soil Conservation Service with the district supervisors. However, we need more technicians to meet the demands from farmers for farm plans and for technical assistance in carrying out soil-conservation practices. The regional organization of the Soil Conservation Service made it possible, once the State enabling act was passed in Connecticut, to organize the districts very rapidly and to secure technical assistance of a proven high standard. It is my understanding that the Extension Service of my State is committed to an education program, and does not care to administer an action program such as that carried out by our soil-conservation districts, and I have been advised that the Extension Service in the State of Massachusetts also agrees with this position. The Connecticut Farm Bureau at its annual meeting in Hartford on November 18, 1947 passed the following resolution: With full knowledge and appreciation that the agricultural soils constitute a valuable and vital resource to the people of the State of Connecticut and the Nation, and the continued intensive farming of these soils without careful application of soil conservation would lead to a serious problem of soil deterioration; therefore, we commend the program of soil-conservation districts in our State, and further, recommend that sufficient Federal funds be appropriated to the Soil Conservation Service to provide technical and other assistance to adequately assist the soil-conservation district program in keeping with growing local interest. I want to thank the committee for this privilege to appear before you today. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much, Mr. McKeon. STATEMENT OF GEORGE R. HEIDRICH, FOR THE EASTERN PANHANDLE SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Mr. HEIDRICH. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am George R. Heidrich of Charles Town, W. Va. My sole income is from operating my general livestock farm producing hogs, lambs, turkeys, beef, and apples. I am from the Eastern Panhandle Soil Conservation District of West Virginia and am speaking for the elected supervisors and for myself. We feel that the conservation of what remains of our soil is of such great importance to our Nation that it should be considered as one of the paramount problems of our time. Not only as an agricultural problem, but one that will have the effect of a life or death decision on our Nation in the years not so very far ahead. We, as farmers, say this. Fortunately, the soil-conservation movement has won the understanding and the approval of most people, and has become quite popular. It is quite free of any suspicion of using this popularity for any other purpose than to further true soil conservation. There is an awareness of this popularity among other agricultural agencies that are not primarily concerned with soil conservation, and an effort is being made to make use of this popularity by combining those agencies with the district movement. The Cooley and Hill bills sought to allow the Extension Service to take over the use of the Soil Conservation Service in the States. The Production and Marketing Administrationa at their 1947 national meeting have recommended that the Soil Conservation Service work in the counties through the county committees instead of the district supervisors. We farmers who are trying to help other farmers to preserve their soils are very sure in our minds that no other agency of any description that has other than soil conservation as their main objective should have any measure of control over our work. Soil conservation is of sufficient importance to be kept from being a secondary consideration of any other agency. We would like to call the committee's attention to a very misleading arrangement. The Production and Marketing Administration now issues money and materials to farmers for fulfilling conservation practices according to their ideas of conservation. There are two things wrong with this: 1. People think that the large appropriation for this purpose is part of the Soil Conservation Service appropriation, which is not so; and 2. A farmer receiving these PMA payments may be absolutely ignoring every other phase of conservation management. As a suggested remedy for this problem we think that either all such payments be either known by any other name than soil-conservation payments, or that the soil-conservation district supervisors be held responsible for certifying that such individual payments be justified by the farmer's performance in taking care of his land. If the Congress sees fit to support true conservation by protecting us from outside interference and by making a just appropriation for technical assistance, the elected soil-conservation district governing farmers will pledge their loyal service. We support the principles of the Jensen bill. Gentlemen I thank you. Mr. ANDRESEN. Thank you very much. Since we have about 12 or 13 witnesses left, I request the witnesses to speed up the reading of their statements. We want to get them all in before we have to adjourn. Our next witness is Mr. A. N. Chamness of California. STATEMENT OF ALBERT N. CHAMNESS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS; VICE PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA STATE DISTRICT ASSOCIATION; PRESIDENT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY DISTRICT ASSOCIATION Mr. CHAMNESS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am delighted to have this opportunity this morning to bring you greetings from California, but I cannot bring our sunshine. Mr. ANDRESEN. Thank you. You may proceed, Mr. Chamness. Mr. CHAMNESS. I am Albert N. Chamness, of San Diego County, Calif. I live on and operate a ranch of 126 acres, 70 of which is in bearing citrus orchard. I have been a ranch owner for 30 years in California and 17 years where I now live. My average production of citrus fruit is 20,000 boxes per year. What I have to say will be the viewpoint of a dirt farmer as I see the work of the Soil Conservation Service in southern California. With the help of farmer friends, we organized the San Marcos, Richland-Twin Oaks soil-conservation district 7 years ago. This was the third district to be organized in California and the first in San Diego County. We now have in our county 10 working districts with a total of about 1,250,000 acres. Two new districts are being formed, and annexation to already organized districts totals 180,000 acres. I am president of our local district, president of San Diego County District Association, vice president and director of California State District Association, also a director in the National Association of Soil Conservation Districts. During the past year in California, 2,900 farmers made application for soil conservation farm plans. These plans covered 495,000 acres. A good beginning has been made, but it is only a start in the big job of saving the soil resources of our State. However, the processes of soil erosion and water waste are moving at a faster rate than the forces of soil conservation. The work is being retarded because we do not have trained technical men enough to plan the work. In southern California we have a very large acreage of rolling hill country, formerly used for pasture land, but which is now developed into citrus and avocado orchards that are selling at from three to five thousand dollars per acre, developed acreage. Much of the success of this development is due to the planning of the Soil Conservation Service in strip farming, contour planting of orchards, and new irrigation methods to avoid erosion and conserve water. Our hill lands are some of our warmest lands for fruit culture. We, the farmers of the United States, want to keep the Soil Conservation Service clear and clean of all political influence. Our desire |