Mr. STEELE. I think this will vary with the size and type of farm and the composition of the farm family. There are a good many places where there are opportunities to use this surplus family labor for recreational activities. For example, a recent study of vacation farms found that this was a profitable enterprise on certain types of farms, and did not interfere with other enterprises.

Mr. WHITTEN. That is right, but is that not the small farm? I am not saying that under present conditions it might not be sound in its own right. But I think it is separate and apart from commercial agriculture which is where we look for our food. I raise this deliberately because I expect to live in this country a long time myself, and I am not a farmer and I do not have any farm.

ESTIMATING LAND PRODUCTIVITY AND COSTS

Mr. KOFFSKY. Now may I have the next chart?

Current inadequacies in the national and interregional framework of analysis would be corrected with the proposed increase. But to carry out these studies of how river basin and watershed development mesh into national requirements, we must have adequate data on the economic productivity of land in alternative uses.

Fortunately, the recently completed USDA National Inventory of Conservation Needs provides the basic physical description of our land resources which will enable us to make estimates of productivity and economic returns for land in different farm uses.

In this inventory the soils of sample units in every county of the United States were surveyed by the Soil Conservation Service as indicated in chart 3. In cooperation with soil experts, the soils data which were originally compiled for conservation management purposes have been placed on punch cards and can be reanalyzed and grouped according to similar productivities and responses to technology.

(Chart 3 may be found on p. 1130.)

As shown in chart 4, the steps in the proposed procedure would be1. Soils will be grouped according to similar productivities and responses to technology within resource areas;

2. Yields will be estimated for each adapted crop for each soil group;

3. Production costs will be estimated for each adapted crop for each soil group;

4. The costs of supplying a unit of output will be calculated for each adapted crop for each soil group; and

5. These estimates of economic productivity will be used in analyzing the agricultural potentials of land resource areas and river basins as related to national requirements.

(Chart 4 may be found on p. 1131.)

The Department has this sample soils information for each county in the United States, and also the amount of acreage involved in each land use.

Mr. WHITTEN. Well, if you have all that we ought to give it to the Soil Conservation Service. They have asked us for a lot of additional money to get together that kind of information.

Mr. STEELE. These sample data are from the cooperative department conservation needs inventory. The soil surveys of the sample units were done by the Soil Conservation Service.

Mr. WHITTEN. As I understood, they have not completed their job. Mr. KOFFSKY. Yes. Now what we want to do is to work with the soils people to group these soils according to the physical characteristics that are important to productivity, and to add on the economic characteristics which would make this information more usable.

Mr. WHITTEN. Well, now in Maryland, have you considered the fact that they can cut the soil about an inch or two deep and roll up the Bermuda-grass and then bring it into Washington and sell it? Is that one of the economic factors that you considered?

Mr. KOFFSKY. That would be an economic factor.

Mr. WHITTEN. That is one of the main sources of income in some of the areas I know. You can buy a house with a readymade lawn, and all that.

Mr. KoFFSKY. That would be an economic factor.

But essentially what we want to do is to add to this soils information, which, as you see, has all been put on punchcards, the information relating to the ability of that land to produce different crops.

ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY OF LAND

Mr. WHITTEN. I am not being facetious, and maybe I am to a degree, too, but there is a purpose in my question. I take your map and I explain this and a fellow says "So what?" Then what do I say? Mr. KOFFSKY. Let me summarize.

The data on the economic productivity of land in alternative major uses is essential if commercial farmers-those that produce most of our food and fiber-are to adjust intelligently to the clear prospect that we will need much fewer acres of cropland in the years ahead, and if we are to mesh river basin and watershed development and regional land use adjustments with national requirements.

Also, the Department of Agriculture and its cooperating State and local organizations are faced with a tremendous job in guiding land use adjustments and rural area development to make the greatest contribution to the welfare of farm people.

The Water Resources Council has emphasized the urgent need for establishing a national framework of water and related land resource requirements and potentials to provide orientation for economic base studies as they are undertaken in various river basins. The council expects the Department of Agriculture to take the responsibility for analyses of agricultural requirements and potentials for each river basin and for the Nation. We must have data on the economic productivity of land in different uses in order to compare one basin with another and with national requirements.

As illustrated in chart 5, the national and regional framework of analysis along with the data on economic productivity would provide

1. Improved projections of national and regional land use requirements;

2. Information to guide land use policy:

3. Basic data for watershed planning and project evaluation; 4. Data for economic base studies of river basins; and

5. Guides for rural-urban land use shifts.

(Chart 5 may be found on p. 1131.)

Mr. WHITTEN. If there is somebody somewhere that wants that kind of information, you have got it. But now who is it that you think might want it?

Mr. KOFFSKY. It would provide information which the individual farmer could use in determining his place in a situation where there will be need for continuing large adjustments in the amount of land used for farm production. It has a distinct bearing on the kind of investments he would make, the size of his operation, and the kind of commodities he will choose to produce. The commercial farmer has the prime stake in how well land-use adjustment takes place. Public agencies, too-Federal, State, and local-concerned with conserving and developing our natural resources need this information to guide their operations wisely. This includes the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but is also needed by other agencies.

Mr. WHITTEN. Now you are trying to coach me so that I can try to handle my job on the floor. Keep that in mind. What would you say?

Mr. KOFFSKY. In this way, Mr. Chairman. As a nation, we are going to be investing a lot money on land-use adjustments and on land and water development over the years ahead, and it would be well to know which areas can produce most efficiently, can provide all of the things that we as a people want to do with land.

BENEFITS OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH

Mr. ADDABBO. May I interrupt at this point?

After you obtain all this information, is the Congress then going to be asked to pass a law that the farmer or the owner of the land must use these things you have found?

Mr. KOFFSKY. No. This is not planned at all, Mr. Addabbo. This simply provides the information that people should have-Congressmen, local authorities, farmers and businessmen-to make intelligent decisions on which way they are going to go.

Mr. ADDABBO. Well, do we not have that and have we not had that for the last 50 years, that we know in certain areas there is overproduction, in other areas there is underproduction, but we still have our basic surplus problem because the people have not changed their operation? So they know this from commonsense, but still we have not found any solution to the problem; and now we are just putting it out in fancy figures and IBM cards and everything else, but what are we going to do with it, as our chairman has stated.

Mr. KOFFSKY. Well, you know, Mr. Addabbo, it has not been so long that we have really faced up to a surplus problem. Not so many years ago it was generally believed that there was going to be such a growth in population that it was a real question whether we could feed all of the people that were going to be born. Now this has gradually changed over the years and now we do face a situation where it is apparent that the amount of cropland required is going to be significantly smaller over the next 20 years. This involves a whole lot of adjustment and the question of what happens to the land that would not be used for crops.

There are going to be all sorts of adjustments within these regions. It may very well be that certain regions are going to show up a lot

more efficiently in terms of producing farm products than other regions. But this is not the whole story either, Mr. Addabbo, in determining whether a region should go this way or that.

There is a larger question of what does a region need for economic growth and what is the appropriate land use to promote that growth? In other words, the Nation cannot just abandon a region. The Nation must consider the people involved and the alternative opportunities they may have.

We have this wealth of material on the physical characteristics of the soil. As chart 4 indicates, we want to add to it in terms of what different kinds of crops these soils can produce, and at the same time measure what it costs to produce those crops so that you have an idea of the most efficient way of trying to guide the whole land and water use adjustment. Chart 5 indicates the major uses for this kind of information.

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Addabbo's question, if he will permit me—I have sat on this committee to where I could not say I know a whole lot of answers-I just say I have heard a lot of answers through the years, some of which I can accept, some of which I have many questions in my own mind about.

But the thing that strikes me and I repeat it again-if there was a group that had something in mind, be it a certain section of the Department of Agriculture or Washington organization of some kind, or somebody from Baltimore or any other place that was looking for the location, a location for a certain type of operation, be it industry, be it this, that and the other, quite naturally they would be interested in the soil makeup and the depth and whether it would shift as you built houses and things like that. I can see certain specialized groups would want certain information anywhere. Or if they are looking for a location for a factory or plant they would want to have this thing.

On the other hand, if the Department has its heart and soul wrapped up in certain new programs they would want to find the place where you could try them out and see how they would do. That is the other side.

On the other hand, if farmers want to expand, which is what this would seem to indicate, where they would want to know what a given area will produce and, of course, this day and time they are pretty good at taking soil samples and sending them to the land-grant colleges or elsewhere for testing, or some soil laboratory.

Now I come back to the fact that while in its own area and for its own, all these programs may carry weight. But the large body of American production on the farm, and it has greatly increased because the unit price has gone down, costs have gone up, and I think there has been an incentive for the farmer to try to make up for increased cost and decrease in price by more units. He has had a limited number of acres which has led him to use everything he could to get as much as he could out of an acre. So there is a combination of reasons there.

But it still leaves me feeling that the Department's attention and the cash that we are going to need for carrying out this program is dealing with the fringes of American agriculture rather than the heart and soul of it.

Now I do not know whether I have made myself clear. I am raising it at this point so you can direct yourself to discussing the questions I have in mind.

Mr. KOFFSKY. Well, one of the primary benefits will flow from making it possible for public programs relating to natural resource conservation and development to operate more effectively. There is no question about that, Mr. Whitten. But how well our programs operate in meeting our national requirement has a direct impact on the well-being of commercial agriculture and how well it adjusts to changing needs.

Mr. Steele would like to say something more.

Mr. STEELE. Well, on your point about commercial agriculture there is no question that the major income, the major wealth will come from commercial agriculture.

What we are trying to do is to provide information as to how additional income might be added without taking away from commercial agriculture in any way.

RESOURCE-USE STUDIES

Mr. WHITTEN. Now, Mr. Steele, may I interrupt and this is not critical of the present Secretary or the preceding Secretary, and goodness knows they are entitled to their views. All of us have a different idea about agriculture, but the preceding Secretary had a feeling that you could afford to take out enough land and bring this thing in balance. I did not agree with him. The present Secretary seems to think you can, and I do not agree with him.

Now again there are lots of people I have not agreed with. They do not agree with me either. But I would like for you to indicate where it is that you think this approach will have any significant effect on this production matter.

Mr. STEELE. I will be glad to. Let me cite two types of studies that have been made where we dealt with this problem in general without carrying our analyses as far as we are recommending here.

One was the request from the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources. They asked us a few years ago to project for them the agricultural needs for land and water resources in the future. As you know, that committee study was a rather comprehensive study of the whole water problem and this was a significant part. But our analysis was very inadequate, and we feel that when a group like that asks for information they deserve a better job than we were able to give them. I think very great use has been made of this particular study.

USE AND REQUIREMENT TRENDS FOR LAND AND WATER RESOURCES

Now there is another example of a use of this type of analysis. About a year and a half ago the Secretary of Agriculture asked a group of people in the Department to serve on a land- and waterpolicy committee. We made an analysis of trends in use and requirements for land resources and water resources in agriculture. Out of this study has come the concept that we have unused resources in agriculture. If by new programs we could stimulate the use of these