rivers and harbors-the real wealth of our country. As long as we keep our country rich, we can write our own financial system. We have overdrawn on our money account. If we ever overdraw on the land like they have in India and China, we will be in the gravest of trouble. That is where I part company with many of the recommendations now. There are a lot of things that need to be cut but not those things that look toward protecting the ability of this country to produce food and fiber. I am proud of the record the Soil Conservation Service has nationally in saving the land and helping the other conservation programs to produce good results. Anybody who fails to see the achievements just has not traveled over the country. If we had not differed with Presidents, about half this country would be a dust bowl today. If we go along with some of the recommendations before us now, we will start heading toward that condition again. I say that candidly. Mr. Berg, we are glad to have you here. I am glad to see that the Soil Conservation Service and the Agricultural Conservation Program have been dealt with more lightly than many of the other programs, and properly so because they are the base on which all the rest depends. You have heard me say that many times. I have heard you say the same thing. The only reason I am the one to say it today is that I get the first shot at it. We are glad to have you here. We welcome the new Assistant Secretary. We hope we can at least maintain our land while we get our finances straightened out. As long as we protect our ability to produce food and fiber we will be able to solve our financial problems, but if we let this go, we will not. We would be glad to have you proceed in the manner you wish. Mr. BERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had the good fortune to visit northern Mississippi within the last three or four months. A local forester pointed out to me that they had just in recent months planted the billionth tree in that area in the last four decades. Mr. WHITTEN. At one time we had a request for a laboratory on forest genetics presented to this subcommittee. They had cuts of two trees of exactly the same type of pine. One was about twice the diameter of the other. By chance I asked where they came from. He said, the little one came from Louisiana and the big one came from Loundes County, Mississippi. I said, that was environment not genetics. [Laughter.] We went along with the laboratory and it has done a great job. They have made a lot of improvement in the trees we now plant. Television and two or three of the major companies have educated the people about the value of reforestation. Excuse me for interrupting. Mr. BERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. NATIONAL OFFICE REORGANIZATION Since the last time we were before your Committee, I have reorganized my national office and I will provide that new organization for the record with your permission. Mr. WHITTEN. It will be inserted into the record. [The document follows:] 77-802 0-81--42 BUDGET REQUEST FOR 1982 Mr. BERG. We are pleased to appear before your subcommittee to discuss our 1982 budget estimate as amended on March 10, 1981. We do sincerely thank you for your continued and deep concern for the farmer, rancher, forester and American agriculture. You and your Committee through your understanding of the need to conserve, develop and improve the nation's soil and water resources has led to Congress authorizing about thirty soil and water conservation programs, and watershed programs, in the past four decades. These include all the programs my agency administers plus the programs for research, extension and financial assistance. All these programs are designed to help the land and water users invest their resources for public benefit. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert my full statement into the record. In the interest of time, I will abbreviate the presentation. Mr. WHITTEN. Your full statement will be inserted into the record. [The statement appears on pages 714 through 730. The Explanatory Notes appear on pages 731 through 863.] RESOURCES CONSERVATION ACT APPRAISAL Mr. BERG. The extensive appraisal that we have made pursuant to the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977, which we call RCA, has identified the major soil, water and related resource problems facing our country. This appraisal provides compelling evidence that these problems will worsen as further demands are placed on our land and water resources due to the projected needs for food and fiber for both domestic consumption and an increasing export market. We have completed all of the technical inputs into this RCA process as called for in the Act and have furnished all of the information developed to the Office of the Secretary for their review. Mr. Crowell is being briefed on all of the work we have been doing to date. The 1982 RCA program has not yet been formulated. The fiscal year budget that we have before us is not based on any specific RCA program recommendations. I think we have done a reasonably good job for the first time in history of identifying the types of problems that we really face in a comprehensive way and from this setting the desired objectives as to what the country should do in concert with state and local governments and the land users of this country. Establishing the procedures and programs for achieving objectives and implementing those procedures and programs is by far the more difficult part of the job ahead. The new Administration will be moving in that direction when they have all of the data at hand. Meanwhile this budget will permit the Soil Conservation Service to carry out its broad responsibilities for our nation's soil and water conservation programs at about the current level for most activities. IMPACT OF INFLATION ON SCS PROGRAMS The revised budget that we have before us today for consideration is a conservative one. It responds to the current economic situation and the need to exercise fiscal restraint in federal spending. Inflation that we have all been concerned about is not only a major problem for you and me as consumers, but it is the number one enemy of a program such as we administer. Funding for the Soil Conservation Service programs is a good example. We have had increases of about 68 percent in actual appropriations over the past ten years, but our purchasing power has actually declined by about 17 percent. That will be through this fiscal year. We are concerned about the double digit inflation of recent years and how we can get more buying power for the federal program dollar. BUDGET PROPOSALS FOR 1982 The total 1982 budget proposed for the Soil Conservation Service is $552,539,000. Compared to the current estimate for 1981, it includes program decreases of $55,374,000 decreases of $55,374,000 and increases of $19,556,000 primarily to fund increased operating and pay costs, for a net decrease of $35,818,000. Both the fiscal 1981 and 1982 estimates have incorporated into them a series of reductions reflecting the current Administration's efforts to reduce federal travel, procurement, use of consulting services and employment levels. Total reductions of $6.3 million in fiscal year 1981 and $2.7 million in fiscal 1982 have been made to reflect these savings. CONSERVATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Our conservation operations activity has been the one we have built on. That proposal includes $317,639,000 and this is a net increase of $6,730,000 from fiscal year 1981. We fund six activities under this appropriation including conservation technical assistance. The budget proposes $236,925,000 for conservation technical assistance. This is $3,844,000 more than fiscal year 1981. This is the net result of a $7.1 million increase primarily to defray increased operating costs and pay costs, and a program decrease of $3.3 million. In 1982 we will continue to focus our attention and resources on major conservation needs throughout the country. We will use $6.7 million of these funds to accelerate the treatment of serious conservation problems in the West Tennessee region which includes parts of Mississippi, Tennessee and Kentucky, the Southern Piedmont areas of Alabama and Georgia, the Palouse areas of Washington, Oregon and Idaho, and the most erosion prone areas of Missouri and Iowa. We will also provide additional assistance to some of the irrigated water short areas of the western states. In fiscal 1982 the Service will help about 873,000 land users apply conservation practices to adequately protect about 37 million acres of land. Many land users are making significant contributions to conserving soil, water, energy and wildlife. State and local governments and the private sector are making significant investments in labor and money to conserve and protect our natural resources. This nonfederal investment totaled nearly $256 million in the past calendar year. INVENTORY AND MONITORING For inventory and monitoring we propose $17,762,000. This is an increase of $699,000 from fiscal year 1981 to be used for increased operating and pay costs. We will continue the inventory of the status and condition of the nation's soil, water and related resources as required by the Congress in the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977. SOIL SURVEYS The budget proposes $49,888,000 for soil surveys. This is an increase of $1,454,000 to offset the growing costs of conducting soil surveys and publishing the results. At the end of last fiscal year, soil surveys had been completed on about 1.5 billion acres, 67 percent of the land in the nation. For 1982 we need to maintain the current rate of progress in soil mapping through combined federal, state and local efforts to meet the urgent and growing needs for basic soil information. SNOW SURVEY AND WATER FORECASTING The budget for snow survey and water supply forecasting is proposed at $3,633,000 and that is $82,000 more than for fiscal year 1981. Current data from this activity now indicates that the 1981 crop growing season will be characterized by potentially serious water and soil-moisture shortages in many parts of the country unless there is significant relief by late winter and spring snows and rains. The optimistic factor is that the reservoirs are pretty well filled up, but if we do not have reservoir capacity in an area, then the snow melt and water runoff is going to be low based on our present estimates. If we have two back-to-back seasons of low snow and water yield, it will be even more serious a year hence. We have automated this system and call it SNOTEL. We plan to provide our 1982 users with the same number of forecasts as provided in 1981. PLANT MATERIALS CENTERS The budget proposes $3,604,000 for operating our twenty plant material centers, an increase of $459,000 from fiscal 1981. Of this |