port for policies having been advanced by the big wheels of the organization.

We further recommend that REA in all its phases-power production, transmission, and distribution-be given strong bipartisan support. We believe it has been the greatest single factor in raising our farm living standard and increasing the farmers' production.

Food is as important as planes and guns in national defense. Why does not the Government stockpile it as well as arms?

And why should not the Government bear the expense of carrying this surplus as they do for armament? Why charge it to the farm program? It is insurance for everyone-let everyone carry the load. A surplus food supply is not a national disaster, as some would have us believe, but a blessing, as the millions who are starving today would certainly testify.

We feel that the farmers have done a good job during times of war and peace of feeding our people and our allies and have contributed much to our national vielfare.

We think we should have the opportunity of maintaining a standard of living equal to that of other segments of American society.

I thank you.

Mr. HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Schooling.

The next witness is Mr. R. Edward Baur, of the National Association of Soil Conservation District Commissioners, of Winterset, Iowa.

STATEMENT OF R. EDWARD BAUR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS, OF WINTERSET, IOWA

Mr. BAUR. Gentlemen, I am a livestock farmer located 25 miles southwest of Des Moines. I have asked to make a statement before your Agriculture Committee because (1) of my personal interest in our national agriculture program, and (2) of my responsibility to the soil-conservation districts of the upper Mississippi area that elected me director of the National Association of Soil Conservation Districts. A sound, workable farm program must achieve a balance between three things:

1. The productive capacity of the American farmer.

2. Our national food and food-reserve needs.

3. The ability of the land to continue to produce for successive generations.

By our productive capacity I mean the American know-how in farming; this is a combination of farmer initiative, technical information labor, equipment with livestock capital and land. This makes the world's greatest agriculture-producing unit.

Our food needs are fairly constant. But working people eat more than unemployed. We have had food reserves by reason of surpluses. Probably surpluses are temporary, as they disappear in a short time. The balance between our capacity to produce and our food needs has caused most of our problems in agriculture to date.

These problems are real. The Government has some responsibility to encourage the production of food. It has a measure of responsibility to farmers that they are not forced out of business because they have done too good a job of producing.

Our genuine concern, however, is for the third point. Can the land be expected to go on producing forever without continued emphasis on soil conservation? Our record of 50,000 acres loss of cropland in 50 years is a poor one. It has not stopped.

There should be more emphasis on soil conservation, not less. Yet Under Secretary Morse says soil conservation is out of date. To add to the confusion, Assistant Secretary Coke says soil conservation is just another farming practice.

This might all be forgotten if Secretary Benson had not forgotten himself to mention soil conservation just once in his recent booklet, Strengthening American Agriculture Through Research and Education.

He said recently, "The basic long-range needs of American agriculture are to produce more efficiently, to reduce costs, to improve quality, and to expand markets."

I ask you, What has strengthened American agriculture more than the soil-conservation district and the soil-conservation practices that have been put on the land through its influence?

This is the present system that has brought more progress in conservation farming in the past 10 years than in 50 years before. People are using these soil-conservation technicians loaned to these districts by the Federal Government. They like this service, showing them on their own farm how to make this shift to conservation farming. They have asked for no change.

Yet what happens? Someone again in the Department of Agriculture figures out this service can be increased by taking away from the Soil Conservation Service assistance to the farmer.

The last session of Congress asked that a study be made of regional offices of the Soil Conservation Service and a report presented. So far as I know such a study has not been made to date.

The reorganization plan for the Department of Agriculture strips the Soil Conservation Service of 343 conservation specialists in the fields of biology, agronomy, geology, forestry and engineering, to name a few, along with 7 regional offices.

They will be replaced by 1 engineering and 1' utility conservationist per State, which will be a shortage of close to 240 specialists in the field of soil conservation.

It has been estimated that about 3,000 people will be moved before this reorganization will be completely ended.

Dr. Hugh Bennett, former Chief of the SCS, said it will wreck completely the Soil Conservation Service to districts as we know the soil types, wind erosion and the growing number of small watersheds all cross State lines.

There will be 48 separate land policies to do with these problems. Another part of this reorganization move indicates that soil conservation districts which have spent 2 years coordinating their conservation program with that of the Production and Marketing Administration under Memo 1278 will now be destroyed.

The cooperation and standardization of soil conservation that has been accomplished will be lost and we will have more confusion while more soil will be washed away.

The Department of Agriculture asks that there be a separation now of the agriculture conservation program, and the districts' program.

None of my farmer friends I am sure have asked for this separation which will mean a lowering of the standards in soil conservation.

We will get less soil conservation for our ACP dollar, too, because it will not be checked by a district technician in the proposed reorganization.

I ask you what possible excuse can there be for a change in our present successful soil conservation district program of accomplish

ment.

Earl Coke is not kidding any of us. You simply can't take appropriations and trained people away from a program and have a better one. I want to add that the people on the land are satisfied with the present balanced cooperating system. It would be much more appropriate for Secretary Benson to join the districts and ask for more appropriations for the soil conservation districts along with appropriations for research and extension.

We cannot minimize the importance of soil conservation districts. We do need research and help and education and we need also a strong action agency on the land.

There is a good balance in this assistance to districts now. Let's not go overboard and throw out an agency that has a strong record of accomplishment in helping farmers save their soil.

American agriculture has immediate problems like surpluses, loss of markets and a severe price squeeze.

Let's be realistic and concentrate our energies on these problems. There are 1,500,000 satisfied cooperators in the soil conservation district program. Let me emphasize again they have not asked for any change in this program.

In closing, I want to say these cooperators will view with alarm the splitting of the Soil Conservation Service into 48 pieces.

It cannot possibly be expected to give the same assistance to farmers in carrying out a program that is basic to the well-being of America and the world.

Some of the farmers are still selling part of their topsoil each year by their methods of farming. Conservation farming has proven that this is not necessary at all, and soil conservation districts are pointing to the way that we can use our land and be able to keep it, too. Mr. HOEVEN. Thank you.

May I have a moment to present my colleague, Paul Cunningham, of Des Moines, in whose district this hearing is being held today. The next witness will be Mr. Wayne Pritchard of the Iowa Chapter, Soil Conservation Society of America.

STATEMENT OF WAYNE PRITCHARD, IOWA CHAPTER OF SOIL CONSERVATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA

Mr. PRITCHARD. The Iowa Chapter of the Soil Conservation Society of America appreciates the invitation it received from Congressman Hoeven to testify on matters relating to soil and water conservation problems in Iowa.

The State of Iowa includes only 1.87 percent of the total area of the United States but here we have 25.6 percent of the Nation's No. 1 agricultural land.

We continue, for many reasons, to lose the productivity of this land and as soil is a basic natural resource, we believe that steps taken to

conserve Iowa soils will strengthen the real stockpile of our defense in any world conflict and thereby strengthen the basis of our country as we have known it.

To strengthen Iowa and our Nation, we believe it is essential that a national land policy be developed and supported by the people. Various segments of Government have announced certain objectives relating to land but from the time the homesteaders came to this section until the present we have not had a land policy goal clearly defined. We believe such a goal on policy should simply be "That all land should be used in a manner which will insure its continued and permanent maximum productivity." With this few will disagree-we need national leadership in that direction.

I would say that such a policy visualizes as the ultimate goal in good land use, the application of a sound soil- and water-conservation program, voluntary if you please, on every farm, ranch, forest, and watershed throughout the country. To accomplish this, it will take cooperative leadership of all concerned with the care of our land.

Inadequate knowledge, appreciation, acceptance, incentive, understanding and an element of confusion remain as obstacles to the fuller application of proper land use principles.

For example, considerable damage to soils occurs each year on one farm while across the fence stability exists. That is the problem we have to solve.

The Soil Conservation Society, by reason of its viewpoints and highly varied complexion of membership, is in a unique position to recognize the importance of soil and water programs and to work with others in overcoming this deficiency.

The conservation of soil and water by the efforts of the individual landowners and operators is the most important step that can be made to the carrying out of a land policy.

Locally and democratically organized groups of landowners and users are the best known vehicles to date for carrying out soil and water-conservation programs for it is the farmer who must "do the

work."

Any workable method requires the joint and cooperative efforts of Federal, State, and local governments-soil conservation districts organized under State law are excellent mediums through which to channel cooperation in this important work.

A national land policy should be established and understood as the first step in a far-reaching program of land use. It will guide the

way.

There has been such a policy developed and I am filing that with your secretary.

Thank you very much.

(The document referred to is as follows:)

A POLICY FOR RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES

PREAMBLE

We, the members of the Natural Resources Council of America, in order to provide the means for a high standard of living in a healthful environment, present the following fundamental policy for the use of our basic resources of soil, water, plants, and animals, so as to maintain them through the years and prevent their waste and depletion.

To attain these objectives, we recommend the following policy :

INVENTORIES OF RENEWABLE RESOURCES

1. Adequate and continuing inventories of the renewable natural resources of the Nation are needed to determine their condition, productivity, and potential use in relation to human needs and should be supported as a guide to the proper utilization and treatment of these resources.

SCIENTIFIC CONSERVATION PLAN

2. The orderly development and application of a comprehensive scientific conservation plan for every farm, ranch, small watershed, and other operating unit of the Nation's land and water are imperative, and can best be achieved through the efforts of locally controlled groups.

Natural resource developments, including flood control, irrigation, and dam construction, are practically and ecologically most adequate when undertaken in relation to, or in conjunction with, upstream watershed programs.

POLICY OF USE

3. A sound policy includes the conservation, development, and proper utilization of renewable natural resources for: (a) sustained and improved agricultural production without waste, (b) protection and sustained-yield management of forest lands, (c) prevention of erosion, protection of streams from excessive siltation, and flood control to safeguard land from destructive overflow, (d) protection of community and industrial water supplies, (e) maintenance of underground water sources, (f) development and stabilization of irrigation and drainage as needed for sound land use, (g) maintenance of maximum fish and wildlife resources, (h) preservation and proper utilization of areas best suited for needed recreational, esthetic, cultural, and ecological purposes, and (i) protection and revegetation, where necessary, of grasslands suited to range utilization.

RESPONSIBILITY OF LAND OWNERSHIP

4. Good management, public interest, and human welfare require that all landowners, public or private, care for soil and water under their control in a manner that will insure that future generations may derive from them full enjoyment and benefit. Landowners have no moral right to abuse their lands.

PRESERVATION OF SPECIAL AREAS

5. A sufficient number of examples of every type of natural area should be preserved and kept perpetually as inviolate natural and wilderness areas for their scientific, educational, and esthetic values. These should include examples of vegetation types and areas providing habitat for rare plants and animals. Public lands dedicated to special recreational and conservation purposes-parks, monuments, wilderness and primitive areas, wildlife refuges, and similar landsshould not be used for any purpose alien to the primary purposes of the area.

EFFICIENT RESOURCE ADMINISTRATION

6. All public service should be conducted efficiently to avoid unnecessary burden on the taxpaying public. Any overlapping functions of the several governmental agencies concerned with the administration of natural resources should be eliminated and all operations should be coordinated.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN CONSERVATION

7. Local, county, and State responsibility in regional and basinwide programs. involving the use and development of soil, water, and the living resources, must include full participation in the planning, financing, management, and other phases of such programs.

NATIONAL NEED VERSUS POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY

8. Power developments, flood-control projects, irrigation and drainage activ. ities, and similar developments, planned and constructed largely at Federal expense, which materially change or influence existing natural resources and