Mr. GODFREY. Starting out with the low point, this is about the low point as far as ACP participation is concerned, 1,006,000 farms in 1959, up to 1,217,000 in 1961. We do not have the final figures on 1962 yet, but it looks like it will be in the neighborhood of 1,300,000 farms. A special effort was put forth this past year by our county and community elected committeemen to go out and get farmers who had not heretofore been participating to carry out conservation practices. Generally, in the Southern part of the country the farmers who were not carrying out conservation practices were those who needed them the most-small farmers who did not have the financial backing or finances available to do it.

We asked our committeemen, the elected community committeemen primarily, to go out and see if they could get at least one new participant themselves, at no cost to the Government.

We would not pay the committeeman for his time expended or anything else. We said, "Just to show your interest in the program." The response was amazing, because I personally know some community committeemen who went out and got 10 new participants. We expect 200,000 new participants as a result of this activity by community committeemen.

Mr. WHITTEN. May I interrupt you there, Mr. Godfrey, and say that this committee in years past recognized the problem that you have. Some years ago, which you doubtless remember, at the instance of this committee, we set out on the basis that the purpose of this agricultural conservation program, in the case of the Federal Government putting up about on the average of $1 for each $2 in labor and materials that the farmer puts up to do the work on the land, was to do things to and for land.

We set out to try to see that it would be spread around the way it is needed the most.

For 1 year that was carried on, and I thought it was very, very helpful. Unfortunately, it happened to be a political year, and some people attributed to us intentions which we certainly did not have. But I am glad to see that efforts are being made to get it on the land that needs it the worst.

Further, it is my belief that any time you have a soilbank program, which we had under the previous administration, or any time that you have the type program that you presently have under your administration of taking land out of production, it makes it perhaps even more imperative that attention be given to keeping the land from going back.

In fact, I know of many, many areas where land that was rented out under the soilbank and left out of production ended up in a rather bad condition. It would have been much better to do as I think you are trying to do now, and that is to see that during the period while land is retired from row crops it does not deteriorate to the point of being inferior to what it was to start with.

So I am glad to see that efforts are being made to get those farmers to spend their dollars to improve land where normally they would not.

Mr. GODFREY. We are concentrating on this, and we are going to concentrate on it again in 1963 as a result of our 1962 success.

There are some additional benefits that we get out of this. Naturally, for every farm that carries out a conservation practice, at least two to four farms see this, and there is a benefit there.

Mr. WHITTEN. Yes.

Mr. GODFREY. In addition, when this community committeeman goes out and contacts a man about carrying out a conservation practice on his farm, he becomes a little better acquainted with the program himself, and the farmer becomes better acquainted with the program too. And this is the effort that we put forth.

Now, the only recognizition that has been given these people-as I say, we did not pay them for doing this work-was a certificate by the Secretary if they got a certain number of farms, just recognizing their efforts to get additional farms.

Mr. WHITTEN. As you point out, the landowner who is rather successful and rather well fixed, comparatively, is the first that always recognizes these opportunities.

Mr. GODFREY. Oh, yes.

Mr. WHITTEN. And the fellow who is smaller and who, as you described him, needs these things worst, usually traces back to the fact that he has not been on his toes to the long-range benefits.

We asked the Secretary when he was before us if the Department had not requested a continuation of ACP in the coming year at the same level as this year. He stated that the Department had asked for a continuation at the $250 million level and that this was a change made by the Budget Bureau.

We on this committee are rather accustomed to that. Maybe they just want to keep us busy and out of devilment by making us work to restore this fund every year, because most of the time they do it this way.

ESTIMATED PROGRAM REDUCTION FOR 1964

I do realize that quite a bit of the funds have to go into administration. I would like for you to provide for the record, if the reduction was made in the coming year's program as provided by the Bureau of the Budget, how much the total number of participants would be reduced, if the rates were kept at the present level.

Now, on the other hand, if the same number of participants participated, what would the contribution be decreased to? Or if it were reduced and applied to the practices, how many of the presently existing practices would you have to eliminate if you applied it by taking out practices instead of either one of the other two?

I think that will enable us to make a better, clearer picture of what the effects of this would be.

Mr. GODFREY. We have studied this, and I could give you some offthe-cuff remarks on it, but we would prefer presenting it for the record.

Mr. WHITTEN. You might make it more clear if you showed type of practices along with numbers.

Mr. GODFREY. All right, sir.

(The information requested follows:)

PRACTICES UNDER A REDUCED ACP PROGRAM

The adjustment of the program to a $150 million level will be achieved by changes decided on at the State and county levels rather than by eliminating practices at the national level. Each practice in the national program is of such importance to sound conservation in one or more areas of the country that it should be available for use where most needed. However, reducing the program to the $150 million level will provide assistance for approximately 50 percent of the extent of the practices in the major categories now getting such assistance. These categories are:

1. Permanent cover, for example, (a) establishing such cover or adding more acreage of cover in rotation, (b) use of necessary minerals to make possible the establishment of essential protective cover, (c) planting trees, and (d) establishing contour striperopping.

2. Practices for protecting established cover, for example, (a) measures to extend the effective life of cover, (b) livestock water (farm ponds, developing springs, etc.) and associated measures necessary to the continuation of vegetative cover on range and pasture land, and (c) improving stands of forest trees. 3. Practices for the conservation and safe disposal of water, for example, (a) terrace systems, (b) permanent sod waterways, (c) erosion control and sediment retention dams, (d) streambank or shore protection to prevent erosion or flood damage to farmland, and (e) measures necessary to conserve irrigation water.

4. Practices primarily for vegetative and other temporary protection from wind and water erosion, for example, (a) winter or summer cover, (b) cover to protect cropland throughout a crop year, or (c) stubble mulching, to improve soil permeability and prevent washing and blowing of soil, and (d) emergency wind erosion control operations of the most enduring benefit obtainable under existing conditions.

5. Wildlife conservation practices with soil and water conservation benefits, for example, (a) restoration or development of wetland areas, (b) water facilities for wildlife habitat or protection, and (c) vegetative habitat, food or shelter plots for wildlife.

If the program were adjusted to the $150 million level by eliminating practices at the national level, this would involve adjustments equivalent to withdrawing assistance from all construction-type practices such as farm ponds, terrace systems, irrigation water conserving measures, and water impoundments and habitat for wildlife, and to withdrawing from about one-third of the farmers who now participate in the program the assistance they now receive for establishing a protective cover of grasses, legumes, or trees, or for the continued use of farmland and ranchland for such protective measures.

FARMERS' CONTRIBUTION IF PROGRAM IS REDUCED

It is estimated that farmers are currently contributing about $2 of their funds and labor for each $1 of Federal funds made available to them for doing conservation work. While an ACP of $150 million could not realistically be expected to obtain the same participation and conservation accomplishments as achieved with a 1963 ACP of $250 million, if this were possible farmers would have to contribute more than $5 for each $1 of Federal funds available to them.

ESTIMATED PARTICIPATION UNDER REDUCED PROGRAM

If the same list of conservation practices is offered and the ACP cost-share rates are kept the same for 1964 as for 1963, it is estimated that considerably fewer than 1 million farms would participate in the 1964 program, in comparison with an estimate of 1.3 million in the 1963 program.

Mr. GODFREY. We are moving forward, as I said, on this same effort for 1963, and we hope we can achieve results as outstanding as we did this past year.

ENDURING ACP PRACTICES

Now this next chart is an effort to illustrate to you the type of practices that are now being carried out with ACP funds.

(The chart referred to follows:)

Mr. GODFREY. The charge has been made time and time again that the funds should be expended upon enduring-type practices. Certainly this is our goal. And at the present time 85 percent of our funds are being expended on what we call enduring-type practices.

I pointed out to the committee last year that it is according to the way you interpret things whether a practice is permanent or whether it is nonpermanent.

The remaining 15 percent here is spent on temporary vegetative cover practices. And in some areas of the country there is a definite need for this.

I would merely point out that in areas which I am entirely familiar with, such as our tobacco area, Mr. Natcher, it is necessary that we

use cover, and, therefore, this would fall in the category of temporary protective cover, because it is not of an enduring nature.

I would point out also that in the hot, humid areas of the Southeast it is necessary many times that we use temporary cover in the winter and summer because of our cropping system.

But 85 percent of the funds are being expended on what is generally known as enduring-type practices.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER SELECTED ACP PRACTICES

Here we have a record of some practices, just some selected practices. We did not attempt to cover the whole field but just take a few of the most popular practices and show what has been done from 1936 through 1961.

(The chart referred to follows:)

Selected conservation practices, 1936–61—Agricultural conservation program Storage-type reservoirs (structures) _

1,705, 000

Leveling irrigated land to control erosion and conserve water (acres) 7, 158, 000 Permanent sod waterways (acres).

Terraces:

Acres.

Miles___

Tree planting (acres) __.

Timber stand improvements (acres).

726,000 26, 131, 000 1,415, 000 3, 327,000 2,598, 000

Mr. GODFREY. For example, the total number of storage-type reservoirs built has been 1,705,000. With the number of farms that we now have, this is one storage-type reservoir for every other farm, just about every other farm. We are down to about 3.6 million farms.

Then, leveling irrigated land to control erosion and conserve water has been carried out on 7,158,000 acres.

Permament sod waterways, 726,000 acres. This may not look like a large figure, but when you consider that one waterway may serve 50 acres, then this becomes increasingly important.

Terracing. We have constructed terracing on 26,131,000 acres, or better than 1.4 million miles of terraces. This is to retard the runoff and to hold water where it falls.

Tree planting, 3,327,000 acres.

And timber stand improvement, 2,598,000 acres.

These are just some of the selected practices.

Mr. WHITTEN. I wish you would point out what value this may have, both in connection with flood control and with the flood control, watershed protection, and flood prevention programs of the Soil Conservation Service and the Corps of Engineers, respectively.

In that connection, I think most any reader would have to draw his own conclusions, but if you could provide for the record the money we spent in these other areas and what is involved, which they would be glad to provide you with, then we could tie this in.

Mr. GODFREY. I will be glad to do that, but I will put in side comments about these as we go through here just as we are talking. (The information requested follows:)

All except a very few agriculture conservation program practices conserve water or retard runoff. Most of these conservation practices are multiplepurpose measures. They help save needed water or slow it down and hold it (in farm storage reservoirs or in the soil) to help maintain water tables,