LIMITATIONS ON WATERSHED PROGRAMS Mr. WHITTEN. Do you have any applicants who are ready to start now and who, because the Budget Bureau has frozen your funds, are unable to get going at all? Mr. GRANT. Mr. Chairman, we have a limitation other than freezing of funds. It relates to our ability to start new projects which have been approved by the Congress or administratively approved by me but which we cannot provide funds to actually begin the advanced engineering work. Mr. WHITTEN. Is that because Congress failed to appropriate the funds? Mr. GRANT. No, sir. Mr. WHITTEN. What is the reason? Mr. GRANT. This is because in April 1969 we were advised that for the 1970 program we should limit operational starts to the number of projects whose total Federal cost would not exceed the amount appropriated for watershed operations. For example, if the Congress were to appropriate $75 million, we would be only able to put into operation 50 projects if the Federal cost averaged $1.5 million. Fifty times $1.5 million would equal $75 million. Any other projects, even though approved, would remain unfunded. We have at the present time 22 projects in that category. Mr. WHITTEN. I wish you would supply that information to the committee. I don't know what course we might wish to follow. (The information follows:) The budget has placed a dollar limit on new Public Law 566 project funding. The amount appropriated each year for the installation of projects will be used to determine the number of projects approved for operations. Total Federal costs of new approvals in a given year may not exceed the appropriation for that year. The first 33 projects approved in fiscal year 1970 had a combined Federal cost of $66 million. This was equal to the appropriation for watershed works of improvement and therefore determined the limit for 1970. The estimated appropriation in 1971 is about $74 million. Assuming a Federal cost of $1.5 million per project, the limit of $74 million would permit approval for funding of about 50 projects. LOCAL INITIATIVE STIFLED Mr. WHITTEN. I have in recent weeks had complaints from a few people to the effect that they have done everything that the Federal Government has asked them to. They have made their own arrangements. They have come up with everything that is demanded at the local level. They have organized their districts. They have paid their lawyers and levied the taxes. And when they write you, you say, "We are sorry that we led you into this, but there is nothing we can do." Are you familiar with that? Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITTEN. What would you advise us on this committee to write them? LIMIT ON OPERATIONAL STARTS Mr. GRANT. The limitation that we are operating under this year has permitted us to only move into operations 33 projects. This is related to the amount of our appropriation. Mr. WHITTEN. That 33 that you have been permitted to move, that compares with what the Congress authorized you to do? Mr. GRANT. The Congress did not set any limit insofar as moving into operations. We have had limits in terms of new construction starts, but this particular limit prevents us from providing the advanced engineering work and working with the local people while they are acquiring their easements and rights of way. The Congress has not set any limit. Mr. WHITTEN. How does the 33 compare with what you were able to do prior to 1969? Mr. GRANT. In 1969 we actually had 103 that were approved for operations. This year we have 33 that we have approved. We have 22 more that have either been approved administratively or have gone before the congressional committee but are not now funded. We estimate that there are about 60 more in the pipeline. By the end of this year we will have somewhere in the neighborhood of about 80 to 85 projects which we would not be able to move ahead on. Mr. WHITTEN. I wish you would make it clear for the record the programs that you handle which are being retarded because of a freeze of funds or because of rules and regulations or directives similar to that which you have just stated. Mr. GRANT. I shall be happy to supply that for the record. (The information follows:) PROGRAM LIMITATIONS 1970-71 River basin surveys and investigations: 1971-No new type I surveys One type II survey Watershed planning: 1970-50 new planning starts. 1971-60 new planning starts. Watershed works of improvement: 1970-Total Federal commitments for new projects approved may not exceed $66 million (estimated 33 new projects). 50 new construction starts. 1971-Total Federal commitment for new projects approved may not exceed $74 million (estimated 50 new projects). 70 new construction starts. Resource conservation and development projects: 1971-no new planning starts. Mr. WHITTEN. The records show that the Budget Bureau cut FHA loan funds for Public Law 566. What has been the effect? Mr. GRANT. The $2 million reduction in 1970 estimated loan funds to be made available to Public Law 566 projects through the direct loan account of the FHA would reduce the number of loans that could be made from 25 to 17. This means sponsoring local organizations planning on loans must delay moving ahead with scheduled works of improvement. These organizations may have borrowed some funds locally or made other commitments in anticipation of FHA loans. In such situations interest accrues and taxes may be assessed with delayed benefit or easements may be lost. LOCAL SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS Mr. WHITTEN. Turning back to the overall operations and reviewing for the record, the soil conservation district is made up of local people and it is not a governmental agency. Your regular activities are through the soil conservation districts? This is the means through which you work, is it not? Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITTEN. Are they organized under the laws of the various States or by the Federal Government or under a plan which you more or less help them to work out to make them somewhat uniform? Mr. GRANT. They are organized under State law and there are 3,017 of these districts now organized in the country. They are organized after petition and a referendum has indicated that the local people are in favor of establishing a soil and water conservation district. The district supervisors are locally elected or are appointed by a State soil and water conservation committee or commission. In every sense they are an entity of State government. We provide our assistance to these 3,017 districts through memorandum of understanding with the Department of Agriculture and with the Soil Conservation Service. Mr. WHITTEN. What is the purpose of these districts? Mr. GRANT. These districts, in brief, are to provide a mechanism at the local level that the Federal agencies-Soil Conservation Service and many others can provide the assistance necessary for local landowners and operators to develop a complete conservation plan for their land, and to move ahead with the orderly establishment of these practices. Many of these practices relate to the very things that we have been talking about, the reduction of sediment and improvement of the overall environment through a plan that is tailored to meet their own particular needs. Mr. WHITTEN. When you say their "own," you mean the needs of the people in the conservation district? LOCALLY ADAPTED PROGRAM Mr. GRANT. The people and the needs of that particular conservation district. It is local farmers and ranchers that are involved. They are voluntarily cooperating with that soil conservation district. The main emphasis throughout this entire movement has been local leadership on a voluntary basis. Mr. WHITTEN. You say there are over 3,000 such districts. Could you provide for the record what percentage of the Nation is organized into soil conservation districts; that is, what part of the Nation which is amenable to such things. And would you repeat again-I think you have it in your statement-the percentage of the land within these districts which has prepared plans for the restoration or for the protection of the soil of that region. Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir. (The information follows:) About 97 percent of the total farm and ranch lands are within conservation districts and 99.5 percent of farm and ranches are in conservation districts. About 38 percent of the operating units within districts are planned under all programs administered by the Service. The plans comprise nearly 566 million acres or 42 percent of total agricultural land. Mr. WHITTEN. How many additional soil conservation districts do you anticipate for 1971 ? Mr. GRANT. We estimate eight new conservation districts will be organized during 1971. Mr. WHITTEN. With a planned reduction of 29 man-years, how do you expect to service these districts? Mr. GRANT. Since no funds are included in the budget in 1971 for new conservation districts only limited staff services can be provided to them through reassignment from existing districts. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED Mr. WHITTEN. The Federal Government provides technical assistance; that is, technical experts plus certain other people who are laymen with a certain amount of training who cooperate with them. Could you trace for the last 6 or 8 years the total number of man-years that you have had in technical people and the number that you have had in other employees? Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir. We could provide a table which shows the permanently employed and other temporary or part-time people who work in or for the benefit of conservation districts under our conservation operations work. (The information follows:) Mr. WHITTEN. Through the years we have tried our best to strengthen this program. We have urged you to urge the State legislatures and the local political entity to put up as much money as they could, not to displace you, but so as to enlarge your ability to meet the problems. How much money are you now obtaining from those sources? Mr. GRANT. There has been a remarkable outpouring of funds in this particular endeavor, Mr. Chairman. The total amount provided by all sources now to assist in the moving ahead of the conservation job is about $105.8 million. Mr. WHITTEN. From your experience in dealing with these States and local governments, if the Federal Government begins to cut back and fails to carry out its part, what is your own belief on this State and local funding. LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP Mr. GRANT. Mr. Chairman, I think the long-term basic philosophy of the movement has always been a sharing relationship between the local, State, and Federal governments. For a long time the major input was from the Federal Government. We worked quite diligently with people to point out that this sharing concept needed to be imple mented. They have, I think, done a very remarkable job in coming forth on this. They have substantially increased their non-Federal contribution. We are beginning to reach the point where questions on sharing costs are being asked of me. As local people increase their contributions, they frequently raise questions if there is a reduction of the Federal input. Now, the total conservation needs across the country, of course, are in excess of the amount of personnel which we can fund with Federal dollars. So this fine relationship that has been developed has enabled us to move ahead much faster. It would be conjecture on my part, obviously, but I think in many cases the local communities are beginning to reach the point where they feel that any further substantial increase on their part should probably appropriately be matched by a further Federal input. This is not true in all cases. There are probably some places still where a major non-Federal input is still required. We have been asked this financing question in a number of places now. FEDERAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Mr. WHITTEN. What is the total amount of money that is in the budget request for personnel? Mr. GRANT. Around 85 percent. Other than contract construction, about 85 percent of our requests will go to personnel. Mr. WHITTEN. Could you supply for the record the total number of man-years that might be? Mr. GRANT. Yes, sir. (The information follows:) NUMBER OF MAN-YEARS AND PERCENT OF FUNDS USED FOR SALARIES AND RELATED EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (EXCLUDES CONSTRUCTION FUNDS) Mr. WHITTEN. You have your regular people and part-time people. On an average, how much Federal personnel does the average district receive in federally paid personnel? Mr. GRANT. I think it is about 3/4 direct man-years of assistance. Mr. WHITTEN. How much of that would be technical and how much other? Mr. GRANT. All of this would be technical. Mr. WHITTEN. Do you have any reductions for the present year by way of freeze in planning funds? |