Page images
PDF
EPUB

the GAO report that should be available fairly soon as to what they have observed as a group that we have not had the advantage of to this date.

Mr. WHITTEN. We should put this program under GAO instead of the Department of Agriculture?

Mr. BERG. No, I think it is a good program under the leadership we have been able to provide. I think their analysis and suggestions may be helpful.

Mr. WHITTEN. The projects are not getting done.

Mr. BERG. There is tremendous concern by the sponsors of the projects as to what the future of this program will be. It is going to be a very complexing item.

Mr. WHITTEN. Do you have the money?

Mr. BERG. We have the money this year that we can do the work with. The $26 million for next year is to phase out the work that has been committed.

Mr. WHITTEN. I do not remember anybody discussing phasing out other than you.

Mr. BERG. That is the language covered in the Appropriation Act. These projects were authorized by legislation in 1962, as an amendment to the Bankhead Jones Title III Act. We have had to utilize other legislation to clearly identify what could be done. There have been amendments added to the Act.

I know there is concern in Congress as to whether there should be a clear cut legislative authority for this program but the Appropriations Committee has kept this program moving from year to

year.

Mr. WHITTEN. I always thought I could write pretty plainly. Page 86 of last year's Committee Report says, "The Committee totally rejects this proposal." That is the proposal to phase out. I do not know how to make it any plainer. The proposal was to phase it out in three years. "The Committee totally rejects this proposal." What does that mean to you?

Mr. BERG. It means we continue to do the work we are doing this year and that is what we are doing.

Mr. WHITTEN. When the proposal included the words "phase out" and we totally rejected it, why do you keep using it?

Mr. BERG. Mr. Chairman, this is a policy question that I think needs to be answered.

Mr. WHITTEN. Do you want to break in the new Assistant Secretary? Mr. Secretary, when anyone else gets a question like this they turn to Mr. Dewhurst. They say he knows everything. I just wanted to give you a hint about what the others do.

Mr. BERG. Steve and I understand very well the situation. I think we have arrived at a pretty good understanding in the Department of Agriculture regarding what your language meant. We may need to start over.

Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you. We have some questions Mr. Robinson has submitted to you for the record.

[The questions and responses follow:]

CONSERVATION EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

Mr. ROBINSON. In a May 1980 GAO report it was suggested that USDA should prepare a consolidated list of conservation purposes as a first step in implementing an evaluation framework. What has been done about this?

RESPONSE. Public Law 95–192, the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977, directs the Secretary of Agriculture to make an appraisal of the soil, water, and related resources of the Nation. In the process of developing the appraisals called for in the RCA, we have identified conservation program objectives. The overall objectives were in the RCA draft documents that had been released for public comment. They are curently being reviewed by this Administration.

In addition, the handbooks for each conservation program contain a more detailed identification of specific objectives. Within the SCS we have recently reorganized with one of the results being more emphasis placed upon program evaluation activities. We do have in process a scheduling plan for evaluations and the development of an evaluation framework which will facilitate the needs identified by the GAO report. There are at this time four evaluation activities just getting underway. These are reviews of the Conservation Technical Assistance Program, the Great Plains Conservation Program, Watershed Planning activites, and the Plant Materials Centers. Questions and issues raised in the GÃO report will be instrumental in helping us identify specific considerations we must take into account.

ALLOCATING SCS PROGRAM FUNDS

Mr. ROBINSON. What procedures, criteria or other factors are now used in each county for allocating SCS program funds? What allocation formulas and factors are now used for distributing funds to conservation problems or programs?

RESPONSE. The SCS National Office allocates funds to each SCS state office based on a state planning budget request. The state budget planning requests are supported by an annual workload analysis for each SCS field office location which services one or more counties. Workload analyses identify in detail the conservation treatment needs, work priorities, expected accomplishments, funds required by program, and needed staff. Workload analyses utilize resource inventory information such as the Conservation Needs Inventory or National Resource Inventory data to identify and support the conservation needs.

Current factors included in workload analyses and considered in the budgeting process include acres subject to erosion; soil loss prevented; land adequately protected; rangeland condition; fish and wildlife habitat improvement; water quality improvement needs; prime farmland acres subject to conversion to other uses; and special emphasis items such as assistance to Indians and small farmers.

SCS state conservationists allocate funds to field offices based on the priorities specified in the analysis.

INCENTIVES FOR CONSERVATION INVESTMENTS

Mr. ROBINSON. The higher costs of production for the farmer and the continuing cost-price squeeze make it difficult for the farmer to be willing to spend voluntarily more on conservation costs. What district activities or methods are used for encouraging soil conservation investment by the farmer?

RESPONSE. SCS and conservation districts use several voluntary incentives to encourage land users to apply needed conservation treatment. Some practices such as conservation tillage are promoted based on the cost savings realized from less energy consumption as well as the erosion prevention values. Other practices such as terraces and waterways may have a cost-sharing incentive provided by USDA cost-share programs such as ACP or by locally funded and operated cost-share progams. Also, Congress provided an additional incentive by amending Section 126 of Revenue Code of 1954 to allow land users to exclude cost-share payments under certain USDA programs from gross income for federal tax purposes. This new provision of the Revenue Code has not yet been implemented.

INCREASING CONSERVATION EFFECTIVENESS

Mr. ROBINSON. The Nation has spent $14.8 billion on soil conservation since the mid 1930's only to find it is losing more soil to water erosion than it ever did during the 1930's depression. It seems to me that even in areas where the loss of topsoil has begun to reduce the land's natural fertility and productivity, the effect is often masked by the positive response to heavy applications of fertilizer and pesticides, which keep crop yields relatively high. In a GAO report a few years ago, it was shown that there was no evidence that the soil losses were smaller for the farmers who had been participating in the USDA conservation programs than for those who had not. Losses for both groups were found to be "well above the maximum tolerable level." What plans are specifically targeted toward this problem in the fiscal year 1982 budget? Has any followup report been done since the 1977 GAO report which shows any improvement for farmers who participated in USDA conservation practices over those who did not?

RESPONSE. The fiscal year 1982 proposed budget includes $5.5 million to be targeted for critical erosion control on cropland that is eroding at 14 tons or more per acre per year or 2.8 times the allowable limit in four geographical areas. These are the Palouse area which includes parts of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; the Cornbelt area of western Iowa and Missouri; the Piedmont and Southern Coastal Plains area of Georgia and Alabama; and the West Tennessee area which includes parts of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky. This approach accelerates technical assistance in these areas to treat the worst first of the cropland erosion problems. In addition, SCS has changed its conservation planning policies so that conservation plans are developed only with those land users and only for those fields that need a plan. These efforts have enabled SCS to provide more technical assistance to those land users who have the most critical resource problems.

The 1980 National Evaluation of the Agricultural Conservation Program indicates that targeting erosion control according to the potential for erosion reduction could more than triple the amount of soil saved.

The Resource Conservation Act appraisal and program effort now underway by SCS also indicates similar increases in erosion prevention can be accomplished by targeting funds to problem areas.

Recent appraisals of SCS operations within states have generally indicated that farmers who have planned and applied conservation treatment systems are showing improvement over farmers who do not plan and apply practices. But, to my knowledge, no specific follow-up report has been done since the 1977 GAO report.

Mr. ROBINSON. It seems to me that erosion control policies should focus on soil erosion prevention rather than soil erosion cures. What incentives are embodied in SCS policies providing for the goal of preventing soil losses before we get to the restoration stage?

RESPONSE. SCS policies are designed to prevent erosion by applying and maintaining a conservation treatment system that will maintain the soil resource base at or below the annual allowable soil loss. The problem is that 926 million acres of the Nation's nonfederal land needs conservation treatment and maintenance. Over 340 million of these acres are presently eroding at rates more than the annual allowable limit. At present rates of treatment, only 4 to 5 percent of the total acreage requiring treatment is treated annually. Land use changes, ownership changes, agricultural export levels, prices, and production costs are but a few of the factors that cause a continuous change in the acreage of land needing treatment. Also because some soil losses may be offset by increased fertilization and use of improved varieties it is not always possible on a voluntary basis to convince a land user of the need to prevent erosion. Because of the magnitude of the current erosion problem, SCS policy is to do the worst first. This does not provide ample time to work with the land users converting land to more intensive uses and to plan for and carry out the land treatment systems needed to prevent erosion.

Mr. ROBINSON. Can you tell me how much of the money in the soil conservation cost-sharing program administered by the ASCS is used for measures primarily oriented toward conserving the Nation's topsoil reserve, as distinct from improving crop yields?

RESPONSE. As the Agricultural Conservation Program is administered by the ASCS, I will ask them to supply an answer to this for the record.

[The information follows:]

ASCS, with SCS assistance, is striving to direct ACP cost-sharing practices to those areas and soils of greatest need to achieve the most effective erosion control of the Nation's topsoil. The practice recommendations from local committees are also reviewed by a national group comprised of representatives of several USDA agencies and others. This group makes recommendations on practices to be authorized. Although most conservation practices provide some increases in crop yields, at least in the long run, ASCS restricts cost-sharing to only those practices where in our best collective judgment we believe the primary benefit is conservation rather than production.

Mr. ROBINSON. In the past, criticisms have been made of SCS saying that some of the 2,750 district conservationists spent a substantial part of their time preparing conservation plans for individual farms which are seldom followed and soon become out of date. Can you comment on this?

RESPONSE. SCS policies in the past required that a conservation plan be developed for an entire farm, ranch, or operating unit. In 1978 SCS changed its policies concerning conservation planning procedures. Now a conservation plan is developed with a land user only for that acreage of field that needs treatment. This new approach has provided much more flexibility in our conservation planning procedures and has resulted in more effective conservation planning. Program appraisals

now being conducted by SCS place emphasis on the practices the land user has applied as a result of the plan and not on the plan itself.

AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF PROBLEMS IN VIRGINIA

Mr. ROBINSON. The SCS and Virginia State Water Control Board recently looked at 15 watersheds in Virginia and found some serious problems from agriculture runoff. Can you comment on these findings?

RESPONSE. The Soil Conservation Service and the State Water Control Board conducted a joint study of potential water quality problems caused by agricultural pollution. The study was financed by EPA. A total of 15 watersheds from the 5 basins with the greatest potential for pollution were identified as having high potential for creating water quality problems as a result of agriculture run-off. The erosion rates, cropping patterns, livestock numbers, fertilization practices, and other similar parameters were used to identify potential. This study and the resulting information was used as input to the state water quality management plan. The information will serve as documentation for requests for specific program assistance. Possibilities for assistance include the P.L. 566 Small Watershed Program, the Experimental Rural Clean Water Program, the Agricultural Conservation Program, the clean lakes program of EPA, and local initiatives.

Mr. WHITTEN. I want to compliment you on your presentation, Mr. Berg. We look forward to working with you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. BERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITTEN. The Committee is adjourned.

[The prepared statement and the Explanatory Notes follow:]

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

Statement of Norman A. Berg, Chief, Soil Conservation Service, before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies.

I am pleased to appear again before your Subcommittee to discuss our 1982 Budget Estimate as amended on March 10, 1981.

I want to thank you for your continued and deep concern for the farmer, rancher, and forester and American agriculture. Your understanding of their need to conserve, develop and improve the Nation's soil and water resources has led to Congress authorizing about thirty soil, water, and watershed conservation programs in the past 45 years. These include all that my agency administers plus programs for research, extension and financial assistance to help the land and water users invest their resources for public benefit.

The extensive appraisal that we have made pursuant to the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (RCA) has identified the major soil, water, and related resource problems facing the Nation. This appraisal provides compelling evidence that these problems will worsen as further demands are placed on our land and water resources due to projected needs for food and fiber for domestic consumption and export.

We have completed all of the technical inputs into the RCA process called for in the Act and have furnished all of the information developed

« PreviousContinue »