ranchers would make $20 million of payments to the Soil Conservation Service for technical assistance; and

Whereas a survey of the 70 North Dakota soil conservation districts indicates neither the district nor their cooperators can afford to supply the technical assistance costs under such a proposal: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the North Dakota Association of Soil Conservation Districts Board of Directors, on behalf of our 70 districts, 240 soil conservation district supervisors, and the 36,000 farmer-rancher cooperators, at a board of directors meeting in Bismark, N. Dak., March 2, 1955, That we oppose both the proposed cut in appropriations to the Soil Conservation Service and the revolving fund principle; and be it further

Resolved, That the North Dakota Association of Soil Conservation Districts urge the Congress of the United States to kill the revolving fund and fully support the budget request of the National Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts made at their 1965 annual meeting held in Portland, Oreg., February 7-11, 1965; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be directed to the North Dakota congressional delegation, the Governor of North Dakota, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, the Director of the Budget Bureau, and the chairmen of the House and Senate Subcommittees on Agricultural Appropriations.

RESOLUTION BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NORTH DAKOTA ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS REGARDING CUT IN ACP APPROPRIATIONS

Whereas the Budget Bureau is proposing a cut of $100 million in the agricultural conservation program; and

Whereas all citizens of the Nation benefit from the farmers and ranchers protection and development of our national agricultural resources including the conservation of soil and water; and

Whereas North Dakota economy is primarily from agriculture and the burden of establishing the needed conservation practices will fall on the small family farm and they cannot finance all the costs of such work;

Therefore, the North Dakota Association of Soil Conservation Districts believe the agricultural conservation program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture encourages, assists, and gives individual farmers an incentive, through sharing the cost of applying these needed conservation measures, to proceed in the work of conserving of natural resources which are of benefit, not only to the public in our State, but to the Nation as whole: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the North Dakota Association of Soil Conservation Districts board of directors at their meeting in Bismarck, N. Dak., March 2, 1965, That we oppose the proposed $100 million budget reduction in the advance authorization for the agricultural conservation program in 1966 and we further ask the Congress of the United States to maintain the ACP authorization at the 1965 level in order to maintain, rather than curtail, progress in conservation; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be directed to the North Dakota congressional delegation, the Governor of North Dakota, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, the Director of the Budget Bureau, and the chairman of the House and Senate Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations.

Thirty-ninth Legislative Assembly, State of North Dakota, begun and held at the capitol in the city of Bismarck, on Tuesday, the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-five

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION W-1

(Committee on Delayed Bills)

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION opposing proposed charges by the Federal Government for technical assistance to landowners in the field of soil and water conservation

Whereas the Bureau of the Budget has proposed that soil conservation districts charge farmers, ranchers, and other landowners up to 50 percent of the cost of technical assistance furnished to help design, lay out, and install soil and water conservation practices on their land; and

Whereas 70 locally governed soil conservation districts in North Dakota which cover the total land area have over a period of years made a most valuable contribution to the agricultural welfare of the state; and

Whereas the burden of such payments to the Federal Government will fall heaviest on our family farms and small operators; and

Whereas such assessment of payment to the Federal Government will discourage the application of soil and water conservation measures on land so vital to the strength and welfare of North Dakota and the Nation; and

Whereas requiring farmers and ranchers to pay the Federal Government for such services would place an added drain on the resources of rural America and force more people off the land; and

Whereas the Federal Government has for some 30 years provided technical help to owners and operators of privately owned lands because it is in the total public interest, and because one of the most urgent national needs is to protect and improve soil and water resources on the privately owned and operated land of America: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of North Dakota (the Senate concurring therein), That the Legislative Assembly of the State of North Dakota vigorously opposes any reduction in the Federal participation in such program and the adoption by the Congress of the United States of any system of charging farmers and ranchers for technical help for the application of soil and water conservation work on the privately owned and operated lands in North Dakota and the Nation; and be it further

Resolved, That this resolution be sent to each member of the North Dakota congressional delegation, the President of the United States Senate, and the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.

ARTHUR A. LINK,

Speaker of the House. DONNELL HAUGEN, Chief Clerk of the House. CHARLES TIGHE,

President of the Senate. GERALD LHTAER. Secretary of the Senate.

STATEMENT BY HON. WALLACE BENNETT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE

OF UTAH

Senator HOLLAND. I have also received a statement from Senator Wallace Bennett of Utah relative to the Soil Conservation Service. I ask that Senator Bennett's statement be made a part of the record at this point.

AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS BILL

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss several items in the Agriculture appropriations bill which I feel merit special consideration.

At high issue this year are two proposals which will affect the future of conservation efforts on America's privately owned lands. I refer to the Budget Bureau's proposals to cut back allocations to conservation activities of the Soil Conservation Service and the Agriculture conservation program.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS

First, I would like to express to the committee my concern over the sudden proposed decrease of support of our national soil and water conservation program as carried out by the Soil Conservation Service. The program since its inception has received bipartisan support. Congress by its legislation broadening the program in the last 30 years-has never shown an intent to make it a low-priority

program.

In Utah, where water is of prime importance, the program has demonstrated what a sound soil and water conservation program, through soil conservation districts, means to the welfare and economy of a community. Its value has been recognized and supported by the State and local governments. Private organizations have also joined with their support. Contributions-financial and otherhave increased from year to year. But so also have the demands on our land and water resources-in Utah as well as the rest of the Nation.

I understand that nationally there are nearly 2 million district cooperators, operating about 649 million acres, and yet technical assistance has been available to prepare only about 11⁄2 million basic conservation plans for about 475 million acres. An analysis made by the National Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts of the backlog of needed technical assistance from the Soil Conservation Service shows that over 1,500 additional man-years are needed to keep up. These are important reasons why I am disturbed that the Federal Government is proposing to withdraw part of its contributions to this FederalState-local partnership that has proved so beneficial to our Nation.

I urge that the budget for Soil Conservation Service assistance to soil conservation districts be increased to $115,040,000 to take care of the backlog and to give assistance to the 25 new districts expected during the year. I also want to record my opposition to the proposed revolving fund and the $20 million cut in SCS funds that would accompany it. This would only lead to a slowing down of conservation efforts throughout the country. I do not believe this is in the public interest.

If we are going to help the low-income farmer-if we are going to provide economic opportunity in rural areas-if we are going to decrease siltation and pollution of our streams, reservoirs, and harbors-if we are going to beautify the landscape of America-if we are going to prevent flood damages—if we are going to make more efficient use of water-how can we possibly curtail the soil and water conservation program?

Farmers and ranchers have already willingly spent far more than the Federal Government on soil and water conservation. But it is impossible for them to do the job alone. Nor should they be asked to do so when we are all beneficiaries— farm and nonfarm, city and country, and those in between who enjoy direct, primary benefits when the job is done, and who lose when the job is not done. I think it is ironical that this committee should be holding hearings on the curtailment of water conservation programs during the very week that new flood damage reports pour in from the Midwest where the Mississippi is on its worst flooding spree in history.

I would like to include at this point two tables which illustrate the amount of time and money spent in Utah each year on conservation practices. The lion's share in both cases is provided by the farmers and ranchers themselves. The planning and direction provided by the Soil Conservation Service technicians provides these cooperators with a blueprint to proceed with the application of conservation measures, either on their own or with cost-sharing assistance from the Agriculture conservation program, where otherwise these practices would often be neglected or postponed for lack of funds. If technical services are reduced, conservation activities will decline by a proportionately larger percentage.

I would also like to include as part of my testimony two editorials on the proposed Soil Conservation Service budget. One is from the April 1965 issue of the Utah Farmer and the other from the March 28, 1965, Salt Lake Tribune. They reflect the concern of the people of Utah-and I am sure across the Nationin the country's soil and water conservation program.

TECHNICAL TIME SPENT BY UTAH FARMERS AND RANCHERS COMPARED TO TIME SPENT BY SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE TECHNICIANS IN APPLYING A REPRESENTATIVE GROUP OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES

1 Represents time that would have to be done by engineering technician of Soil Conservation Service if not done by farmers or ranchers. For example, in land leveling the farmer stakes his field on a grid system and uses the leveling rod and Soil Conservation Service technician takes the elevations with an engineering level.

* Acre-hour.

The amount of $6 million is spent on conservation in Utah each year. Of this amount, $560,000 goes for technical assistance from Soil Conservation Service for applying practices; $1 million goes for ACP cost sharing; $4 to $5 million is spent by farmers and ranchers.

Approximately $103,000 in donated time and expenses are contributed each year by district supervisors in getting conservation on the land.

More than $150,000 is value of technical time spent by farmers and ranchers and irrigation companies to install conservation practices. This represents time that would have to be done by SCS technicians if not done by farmers or ranchers. With one-half as much technical help from SCS:

1. Amount of conservation applied will decline by more than 50 percent. 2. Quality of work done will decline.

Public benefits accrue from conservation practices over and above benefits to individual farmers and ranchers. These benefits include flood prevention benefits in excess of $500,000 annually to cities, towns, irrigated farms, and irrigation systems and other improvements.

[From the Salt Lake Tribune, Mar. 28, 1965]

CONSERVATION FATE COULD PROVE COSTLY

Congress should carefully scrutinize the Budget Bureau's recommended reduction of $20 million in the appropriation for the U.S. Soil Conservation Service for the next fiscal year.

The proposed trim is linked with a plan to charge farmers and ranchers cooperating in soil conservation districts up to 50 percent of the cost of technical assistance received in soil and water rehabilitation programs. Payments would be credited to a special revolving fund to finance future technical aid for landowners and operators.

On the face of it, charging for a service seems reasonable, even though the plan departs abruptly from the policy of the Soil Conservation Service for the last 30 years. Recreation users of public lands are being charged for the privilege beginning this year. Legislation is proposed for user charges for inspection of poultry, grading of wheat and other crops, certain border inspections of private vessels and aircraft and to create a revolving fund for the Rural Electrification Administration. Such charges presumably are to be gaged somewhat on ability to pay. Many low-income farm families could not afford the added expense.

46-950-65-pt. 2-17

In Utah, at least three-fourths of the payments under the ACP are for water conservation practices, and most of the remainder are for the establishment, improvement, or protection of conservation cover primarily related to the protection of range and pasture land. In a normal year about 6,000 Utah farmers participate in ACP.

The State of Utah leads all other States in the number of farms and the amount of ACP cost sharing which is used through pooling agreement (community benefit) practices to meet problems that extend beyond the boundaries of a single farm. The effectiveness of working cooperatively for the common good is demonstrated clearly in watershed protection programs where ACP assistance has enabled farmers to install and apply erosion control structures and land treatment measures. In Utah there are 15 watershed programs in 12 counties which benefit from ACP. In 1964, 493 farms received ACP cost sharing of $183,953 in these watersheds.

The total amount available for the State of Utah under the 1965 ACP of $220 million is $1,377,000. Under a $120 million program, this amount would be reduced by $641,000 for a total of $736,000. To reduce severely funds for the ACP cost-sharing program would mean a severe cutback in conservation practices which are essential to the public interest and which farmers and ranchers could not carry out to the desired extent from their own resources. Utah and the Nation cannot afford such a cutback. I urge the committee to appropriate funds to continue this valuable program at its present level.

M'INTIRE-STENNIS COOPERATIVE FORESTRY RESEARCH PROGRAM

The fiscal year 1966 budget contains a $1 million increase in funds for the McIntire-Stennis cooperative forestry research program, which would double the funds for this program to $2 million. I strongly endorse the acceleration of this successful new program.

The McIntyre-Stennis program has two principal purposes: (1) the accomplishment of urgently needed research in a variety of forestry fields, and (2) training of graduate students to meet the increasing need for forest scientists. The broad program of research it provides is conducted at State colleges and universities. În 1965 Utah received a little over $15,000 of McIntyre-Stennis funds for forestry research at Utah State University in Logan. If the increase in 1966 is granted, Utah will receive about $28,000, which will place the program on a much firmer footing, and provide resources for training of much needed forestry research

talent.

A new forestry-zoology building at Utah State Univesity was dedicated on February 20 of this year. The new building, whose laboratory facilities are among the finest anywhere, houses the forestry research program at that institution.

There is great need for increased forestry research in Utah, particularly in the areas of watershed management, forest recreation, and forest utilization. Approximately 92 percent of the land surface of the State is nontillable wildlands, supplying water, range forage, timber products, and recreation opportunity. Utah's economy is dependent upon the most judicious management and use of her watersheds for the production of the maximum amount of high quality water. The increased demand for outdoor recreation has introduced problems in management of forests. And Utah's vast acreage of low value timber demands that new uses be developed for this resource.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to present my views.

Senator HOLLAND. The next witness is Mr. A. Harold Peterson, executive director of the National REA Telephone Association. Is Mr. Peterson here? Will you testify, or do you have witnesses with you?