Mr. JOHNSON. Well now, in connection with the proposed new language, are you requesting any authority here not contained in the current law? Mr. FICKINGER. Mr. Chairman, we are not requesting any new authority in this new item that has not previously been contained in the two old items. Mr. JOHNSON. You will say, will you, that that holds good in all these other proposed consolidations where you are not requesting authority not contained in the current law? Mr. FICKINGER. Except in those instances that we have pointed out. For example, in education I believe we did point out one modification. Mr. JOHNSON. In any further consolidations that you are asking, if you are requesting authority that you are not now receiving, you will point that out as you go along? Mr. ZIMMERMAN. May I point out that this language is similar to the present content of other legislation? We may collect proceeds from various sources that are credited, not to a specific appropriation, but go to the general fund of the Treasury, which is exactly what would happen to collections made under this proviso. It is not a matter of segregating the receipts so that they may be offset against this appropriation. Do I make myself clear? There is now the precedent for this kind of proviso. We collect fees for various purposes, and those are turned into the Treasury and not credited against a specific appropriation. JUSTIFICATION OF INCREASES FOR 1947 Mr. JOHNSON. On page 158 of your justification you propose an increase totaling $270,555. Will you explain briefly the need for those increases? Mr. FICKINGER. Mr. Chairman, a portion of those increases represents reallocations and within-grade promotions which, of course, are the usual statutory provisions. An increase of $68,000 is requested for overtime with which to meet the expenses of employees who are engaged as fire guards, and so forth, when the needs arise. Then there is a total of $187,272 for program increases, broken down as between forest management, $31,636; range management, $20,196; and fire protection, $135,440. Mr. Arnold, Director of Forestry, if the committee wishes, can explain the program increases. Mr. JOHNSON. If you want to make a brief statement about it, that will be all right, Mr. Arnold. Mr. ARNOLD. A part of the increase for forest management is $11,440 for sustained-yield forest management. That item covers the employment of two men, one P-4 grade, one P-3 grade, to assist in gathering the data necessary to develop the sustained-yield forestmanagement plans. These men will be required to review the records we now have with respect to forest inventories, to analyze the data, to obtain new data where necessary, and to formulate forest-management plans in accordance with the principles of sustained yield. They will also be required to establish the sustained-yield capacity of each forest, and also such parts of each forest that may be included in cooperative sustained-yield units with other forest ownerships. This is difficult work, technical in character, which requires able men of training and experience to accomplish dependable results. It is for these reasons that we have asked for this increase. In this connection I would like to direct attention to section 6 of the act of June 18, 1934, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to manage the forest resources in accordance with the principles of sustained yield. In order to carry out the provisions of this act it is essential that additional personnel be employed for this work. The next item is $135,440 for fire protection, which is broken down as follows: $35,440 for the employment of 40 Indian fire-control aids for an average of 6 months each year and $100,000 for fire-protection equipment. The Indian Service is providing fire protection for approximately 38,000,000 acres of forest and range lands on Indian reservations. Our experience has clearly indicated that we do not have sufficient seasonal personnel to give these resources adequate fire protection. We plan to distribute this proposed increase in personnel among approximately 30 Indian agencies. Our equipment for fire-presuppression and fire-suppression work is very limited and much of it is badly worn and cannot give dependable service. This is especially true of the automotive equipment. During the past 4 years it has been very difficult to purchase additional trucks, tractors, and other types of equipment for this work. The lack of dependable fire-protection equipment presents a serious problem which the Indian Service hopes to meet at least partially with this proposed increase. We would like to direct attention to the fact that with this proposed increase in the amount of $135,440 for the fiscal year 1947 the total expenditure for fire protection on 38,000,000 acres of Indian forest and range lands will amount to about $0.0118 per acre. This is a very low rate as compared with the expenditure per acre by other Federal and State agencies. This item, for forest management, also includes $20,196, which is broken down as follows: $12,996 for the employment of six Indian forest guards and $7,200 for the purchase and operation of six light trucks. One forest guard and one light truck are badly needed to assist in forest management and fire protection at the following Indian agencies: Blackfeet, Consolidated Chippewa, Great Lakes, Jicarilla, San Carlos, and Tongue River. The next item under program increases is $20,196 for range management, which is broken down as follows: $12,996 for the employment of six Indian range guards and $7,200 for the purchase and operation of six light trucks. One range guard and one light truck are needed to assist in range management and fire protection at each of the following Indian agencies: Cheyenne River, Consolidated Ute, Crow, Pine Ridge, Rosebud, and Standing Rock. The area of range land for each man now employed at these agencies varies from 455,850 acres to 992,000 acres. Mr. JOHNSON. Is that all? Mr. ARNOLD. Yes, sir. Mr. NORRELL. I would like for the record to show how many fires you had during the past year and the timber destroyed, if you have those figures. If you have not, you can put them in the record a little later. I notice also that I believe you have quite a sizable item there in your $135,000 for equipment; do you not? Do you have any equipment in that item? Mr. FICKINGER. Yes, sir. Mr. NORRELL. I believe the record ought to show what equipment you want, and the amount. You are asking for $100,000 in equip ment. FIRE PROTECTION Mr. ARNOLD. Do you want, first, the number of fires? Is that it? Mr. MORRELL. I would like to have, first, a break-down of your $135,440 for fire protection. What do you expect to do with that money? Mr. ARNOLD. We expect to use $35,440 in employment of firecontrol aids. These will be Indians employed on their reservations to assist in all fire-protection work. Mr. NORRELL. What is the balance of it for? PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT Mr. ARNOLD. $100,000 will be used for the purchase of equipment. Mr. NORRELL. What equipment do you expect to buy? Mr. ARNOLD. We have listed in the justification the equipment we expect to purchase. Some of it will be heavy equipment, which will consist of 212-ton trucks with water tanks, tractors, semitrailers, and 4-5-ton trucks. The medium equipment, of course, will be about the same, only of a lighter type. We also expect to buy water pumps, hose, and other equipment for fire fighting." Mr. NORRELL. In other words, your heavy equipment would include trucks, tractors, trailers, semitrailers, and so on; all told, the equipment being valued at $100,000? Mr. ARNOLD. That is right. Mr. NORRELL. That is all. Mr. ARNOLD. I might add that this equipment is very badly needed. Our present equipment is in bad shape. We have been able to buy but very little equipment during the last 4 years. Mr. NORRELL. But the Army and the Navy have almost everything you need in surplus if, again, we can secure it. And so the same old stories apply to this. Mr. ARNOLD. We have purchased this year certain items of surplus. equipment, but we have not been able to purchase as much as we want. The equipment has not been available to us. Mr. NORRELL. That is all, Mr. Chairman. SOIL AND MOISTURE CONSERVATION OPERATIONS Mr. JENSEN. I think it would be well to have in the hearings a short explanation of the activities of the Soil Conservation Service, as to the Indian forests and ranges. You can get that from the Interior Department. Mr. FICKINGER. We have had to furnish a statement, of course, for inclusion in the departmental presentation of the soil moisture appropriation item, and we can make you a brief statement concerning that activity. (The statement requested follows:) Soil and moisture conservation operations, Office of Indian Affairs Total actual expenditures, soil and moisture conservation funds, fiscal years 1941-46 (estimated). Total contributed and cooperative funds_ Total, all funds____. Acreage directly benefited_. $3,383, 339 5,589, 516 8,972, 855 3,258, 889 6, 000, 000 In the above statement we have shown the estimated total amount of work that needs to be done on Indian lands. Pursuant, however, to the policy laid down by the Office of Land Utilization, which office is in general charge of the soil and moisture conservation work of the Department, we have been requested up to date to limit our work to the severe and critically eroded areas with only passing attention to all other areas. The Indian lands comprise about 53,000,000 acres of forest and range lands located in the major watersheds of the West, and an area in excess of 34 million acres is in farms. Our analysis of the erosion status of the 56,315,000 acres of Indian lands, based on the best information currently available, shows 13,864,000 acres to be in critical condition, 17,000,000 acres severely eroded, 18,951,000 acres moderately eroded, and 6,500,000 acres not more than slightly eroded. It is esti mated that 3,443,000 acres have been ruined and abandoned because of erosion and an additional 10,000,000 acres are either marginal or submarginal because of erosion. On the range lands the most critical problems are in the Southwest. Vast areas need treatment to restore adequate vegetation and prevent excessive run-off. In the plains area of the Dakotas and Montana several hundred thousand acres plowed during the previous war are in need of seeding. There are approximately 50,000 dry-farm units embracing 2,820,000 acres and 14,000 irrigated farms embracing 441,000 acres. Our attention during the war years has been given largely to the farm lands which require more intensive treatment and from which greater yields are realized. Our objective is to place each of these farm units under a soil conservation plan of operation as speedily as we can. We are revising our land-leasing procedures where necessary and as fast as possible to provide for and insist upon renters following sound soil conservation practices. We are coordinating our operations with those of the State soil conservation districts wherever the interests of both are concerned. In this way we are striving for unified local programs embracing both Indian and nonIndian lands. Mr. JENSEN. I think we should have it, because I think it will complete the record. I might say that I do not believe that we are paying enough attention to the soil and moisture conservation problem on Indian lands. Of course I am a fanatic on soil conservation, but I do think that it is one of the most necessary things and one of the greatest responsibilities that we have in preserving this rich soil of ours, this precious soil, for ourselves and for posterity, for the children who are to come, and I do not think we are paying enough attention to it on Government lands. In fact, I know we are not. While I do not want to waste money and I do not want to spend too much money, the Department of the Interior is spending a measly little sum compared with other departments in the preservation of our soil and in the conservation of our soil and water resources, to see that our rich land does not float away to the sea, and I hope, Mr. Brophy, that you will take a very deep interest in that problem and make recommendations to the Interior Department, to the Secretary of Interior, of some of the things that you see as you go over these Indian territories, for the simple reason that I am afraid the Interior Department is not paying enough attention to it, and you get over those territories so much more, and your men do, and they know more about what is needed than the Department of the Interior can possibly know, because it is your job to take care of the Indians, and I am greatly concerned about that. I do not think they are paying enough attention to that problem. Mr. BROPHY. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Jensen, I think that is correct, that there must be more soil conservation done on Indian reservations and in Indian forests and on all the land, indeed, and as you know, Mr. Jensen, the committee does make available to the Department of the Interior a certain fund called the Soil and Moisture Conservation Fund, and a part of that money is allocated by the Department for soil conservation development on Indian reservations and in conjunction with the neighbors of the Indians in various areas. The reports that I have had indicate that we are doing the utmost within our power and within the appropriations to conserve and preserve the basic resources of the Indians and of the Nation, and we are constantly seeking from the Department aid to get the job done. Mr. JENSEN. Are the Indians contouring on their rough and rolling lands? Are they practicing contour farming and strip farming and gully control extensively? |