CONTRIBUTION OF VOLUNTEERS We estimate that nation-wide, over 120,000 people have volunteered their services to the soil and water conservation cause. These volunteers are serving as conservation and watershed district board members, associate or auxiliary board members, committee members, or in some special conservation activity. It is estimated that an average of 120 volunteer local citizens make significant contributions in each watershed project that has reached the construction stage. About 20 such volunteers are involved in each project in the planning stage. This totals about 100,000 volunteers in watershed protection work. Over 50,000 people have volunteered their services to the cause of R.C. & D. projects, serving as members of local sponsoring organizations, steering committees, sponsors of project measures, and in various committee activities. The input from these local citizens influences the nature and extent of the soil, water, plant, and wildlife programs which are developed and applied across the Nation. It also reflects the degree to which Soil Conservation Service programs are tuned to local needs, desires, and priorities. This voluntary program participation, in itself, will help build a stronger Nation." Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. I will be happy to respond to any questions which you may have about our programs and budget estimates. (The chart follows:) -3,332,000 278,242,000 -9,530,956 278,242,000 Includes $618,000 transfer from River Basin Surveys and Investigations. SUPPORT OF WATERSHED PROGRAMS Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Grant, one of the problems we have here I mentioned earlier about these 62 pilot projects. When I came here they had passed the Flood Control Act which provided that certain work would be done in the eleven watersheds which had been neglected up to that point. The Corps of Engineers under the law looked after the main streams. The Soil Conservation Service looked after the hillside. They had an in-between area in which there was an Alfonse and Gaston act. It was a no man's land, and nobody assumed responsibility for it. So this committee provided, by legislation in an appropriation bill, where one laid his shovel down, that is where the other's responsibility started. As I looked back, what we said is where the Corps quit, that is where you started. So we have no no man's land. Last year we provided that is where you two go in cooperation, because when the Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conservation Service agree, you can work in these areas where you have a common problem. Not only that, but I neglected, to say that what we now call flood prevention, you had 11 original watersheds. I could not get any support in the Congress for these watersheds because most of them-except for the Trinity watershed-were in the southern part of the United States, which nobody knew about and nobody cared about. It was on that basis that I went before the Democratic Platform Committee in Chicago and urged that we have a nationwide program of watershed and flood prevention. Mr. Eisenhower was elected President. With the cooperation of both sides of the committee, we added $5 million to the budget to set up these pilot plans all over the country. This sold the country on the value of this program, and then Public Law 566 later followed. But the original granddaddy of them all, the flood prevention program, lags far behind. And every year it is cut back and back. Yet if it had not been for that, I am convinced there would not have been any of the other. It is very noticeable. Then there was another thing with Public Law 566. As you recall, we finally got the law through Congress where the people could borrow from the FHA, which you mentioned, funds with which to pay their share so that they could cooperate with you in building these dams and doing these acts to correct these watershed problems. But there again they left the 11 watersheds out, so they had to pass a special act to give them the privileges that the newer programs had. You still seem to be cutting these things back. I presume that comes at the Secretary's level or at the Office of Management and Budget level. CARRYOVER FUNDS These figures are a little misleading. Not intentionally on your part, but I am advised-and it appears correctly so that for this year, the coming year, you really are cut much worse than would appear. For the present fiscal year you had a carryover of funds which enabled you to do a lot more than it shows in your appropriations. Next year or for the coming year, what you have submitted to us looks like you are not cut very much, but you do not have the carryover which you were able to use this year, and, therefore, you are cut below last year's level. I would like to have another line of tables here showing us how much less you are going to have to actually do the job than you did have this year. Can you do that? Mr. K. GRANT. Yes, sir. (The information follows:) FUNDING REQUIRED FOR 1967 AND 1970 OPERATING LEVELS Mr. WHITTEN. Then you can show us, if you will, how much this committee and the Congress would have to provide in each of your programs to restore you to last year's capacity to carry on your programs and to prevent any additional cuts. Then I would like for you to put in another table showing us what you would have to have if you put yourself on the personnel and work level you had 5 years ago. (The information follows:) |