Mr. THURSTON. Of course, I can see a great deal of the work that you have done there is experimental in nature and might not be added to the capital investment. I am just inquiring for any information you may have in this respect. Mr. UMSTEAD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to get this in the record at this point. PRELIMINARY WORK PRIMARILY EDUCATIONAL IN VALUE Mr. UMSTEAD. Mr. Bennett, the number of demonstration projects which you initiated under the first Public Works allotment, when this work was an emergency organization, were how many? Mr. BENNETT. About 41. Mr. UMSTEAD. During the first 6 months of the program you had only about 23 of them, did you not? Mr. BENNETT. That is correct. Mr. UMSTEAD. These demonstration projects, were scattered throughout the country, were they not? Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir. Mr. UMSTEAD. In the areas where your soil demonstration investigations and surveys had disclosed bad erosion conditions? Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir. Mr. UMSTEAD. The fundamental purpose of the original projects was to demonstrate in those areas what could be done, wasn't it? Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir. Mr. UMSTEAD. The purpose of the original project was not directed to the sole goal of increasing the value of that land, was it? Mr. BENNETT. That is correct; it was not. Mr. UMSTEAD. In the beginning of this program, just as in the beginning of all other programs of like nature on the part of the Government, there was some lost motion, some excessive costs and other items which enter into original programs, which, as time passes on and this work becomes premanent, will be, as far as possible, eliminated? Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir. Mr. UMSTEAD. The 140-odd projects which you now say you have under way are soil demonstration areas, aren't they? Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir. Mr. UMSTEAD. These projects have for their purpose not only the improvement of the immediate area in which the project is being carried on, but also of educating and showing in a practical way to other farmers, no matter whether their lands are in that area or not, how to do this work? Mr. BENNETT. That is correct. Mr. UMSTEAD. So that, as a matter of fairness to your Department, you cannot really charge against the farms in a given area the total cost of the work in that area as being a fair charge against that particular land, can you? Mr. BENNETT. I think not, sir. Mr. UMSTEAD. I believe in every State where you have had those demonstration projects it has been the goal and the purpose of your organization, has it not, to stir up in the minds and the consciousness of the people in that State, or section of the State, an awakening to the disaster resulting from soil erosion? Mr. BENNETT. That is correct; yes, sir. Mr. UMSTEAD. And, in every instance, a part of the overhead expense which has been incurred in any project area has been devoted to that type and kind of activity? Mr. BENNETT. That is right. Mr. UMSTEAD. And that all your specialists, for example, have not given all their time to these projects. They have gone here and there, in cooperation with the agricultural colleges, the extension service, your advisory committees, and various other groups, making speeches appearing at schools, and in every way possible they have undertaken to teach the permanent value of this work? Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir; that is true. Mr. UMSTEAD. Question has been raised here as to the value of the farm in Texas in the area described by you before and after the work had been done by your Bureau. Is it not a fact that the added value to that land will come gradually as a result of your work? Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir; that is true. Mr. UMSTEAD. Would the difference in the value of said land before the soil erosion project was started and the value of said land immediately after the project was completed be a fair indication of the improvement which your work had carried to that land? Mr. BENNETT. No, sir; that would not have been a fair indication. However, an immediate survey would have shown what had happened at that moment. We have had some very, very wasteful rains since that work has been completed, and these lands have stood the test very successfully from the standpoint of erosion control. Mr. UMSTEAD. A thing which is evidence to you of permanent improvement, is it not? Mr. BENNETT. That is true. Mr. UMSTEAD. I believe you hope this program will ultimately be carried on not only in the places where you have had demonstration areas but elsewhere through voluntary associations in every county throughout the country where they are willing to cooperate with the Government in this work? Mr. BENNETT. I hope that will be the next step in advancing this work. Mr. UMSTEAD. Isn't it true that in the sections of the various States where you have actually carried out these demonstrations, as a rule, the farmers have whole-heartedly entered into your program? Is it not also true that they are organizing associations, and even in many counties have induced their county commissioners to purchase terracing machinery and are calling upon your Bureau to furnish technical advice and assistance to make that work effective? Mr. BENNETT. That is true; yes sir. We have the figures here somewhere that relate to that. Mr. UMSTEAD. You can put those in the record. (The figures referred to follow:) REPORT OF SOIL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATIONS AND TERRACING UNITS Reports of State coordinators of the Soil Conservation Service and State extension directors give the following information as of December 1935. Number of terracing units (excepting Texas) Total cost of terracing equipment (excepting Texas) - Total cost of small equipment in Texas.. Total cost of terracing equipment (including Texas). Total number of voluntary soil conservation associations.. Total reported membership of voluntary soil conservation associations... Total number of independent farm agreements reported.. Informal soil conservation associations operating terracing units in addition to the above__ Total number of formal and informal associations. IMPROVEMENT AND CHANGE OF METHODS 192 $789, 347. 20 19 $11, 662. 20 $801, 009. 40 278 9, 924 2,774 112 390 Mr. UMSTEAD. Now, as this work progresses, I believe you said a moment ago that you are constantly finding it necessary to change your own methods? Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir. Mr. UMSTEAD. This whole question of soil-erosion control is in its infancy in this country? Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir. Today we would not think of building a gully control project in the Piedmont region of South Carolina as we built them 2 years ago, using then the best information we had on the face of the earth. Mr. UMSTEAD. Then, a certain proportion of your expenditure in carrying on your work is being directed to investigations, and to improvement of the methods which have heretofore been used by the Bureau? Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir. Mr. UMSTEAD. And that is looking toward the future, to a permanent program for soil-erosion control? Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Mr. TARVER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the witness some questions? How many employees do you have in the Soil Conservation Service here in Washington? Mr. ABBOT. I think it is eight hundred and something. Mr. COLLIER. It is 808. Mr. TARVER. How many employees do you have in the field? SOIL-EROSION DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS NOW IN OPERATION Mr. TARVER. I believe I heard the statement made that you have Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir. Mr. TARVER. Will you place a statement in the record showing the location by States and localities of those various projects? Mr. BENNETT. We will be very glad indeed to do so. (The statement referred to follows:) Soil and moisture conservation operations by means of demonstration projectsEstimated obligations by projects, fiscal years 1934, 1935, 1936, and 1937 [Deductions made for expenditures chargeable to other financial projects. Expenditures from January 1936 Deficiency Act not included] |