lution adopted by soil-conservation leaders from Eau Claire, Pepin, Buffalo, Monroe, Trempealeau, La Crosse, Jackson, Crawford, and Vernon Counties in Wisconsin. Mr. POAGE. Without objection, they will be included in the record. (The letters and statements referred to are as follows:) STATE OF WISCONSIN CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT Hon. LESTER R. JOHNSON, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. JOHNSON: Your bill, H. R. 5547, is vital to the future of Wisconsin's great nonglaciated area which is subject to severe erosion. The Wisconsin Conservation Department is deeply concerned about this matter, not only because this valuable soil must be stabilized to preserve it for present and future use, but also because silt in the streams and rivers of this region is destructive to fish and other wildlife. The amendment which you proposed to this Small Watershed Act-to eliminate the cost of erosion-control structures in calculating cost-benefit ratios-is the only way many Wisconsin watershed associations can participate successfully in this program. While our State is a leader in stripcropping, terracing, and other soil-erosion-control practices, especially in the southwestern nonglaciated region, structures are needed to stop active gully erosion now beyond the financial ability of local farmers and groups. We are working closely with other State and Federal agencies in this smallwatershed program, and especially in the land-treatment aspects which always must be considered an important part of this legislation. Because we want to give you full support on this measure, a copy of this letter is being sent to other Wisconsin Congressmen for their information. Very truly yours, L. P. VOIGHT, Conservation Director. ALMA, WIS., June 14, 1957. Hon. LESTER JOHNSON, Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We are very pleased to know that the water-protection bill, H. R. 5547, has been introduced in the House of Representatives. Soil and water conservation and flood control are of vital importance in Buffalo County, and we heartily support the provision of this bill which will enable the farmers in organized watersheds to qualify under the Watershed and Flood Prevention Act passed by the last Congress. Watershed areas in this region are made up of farms which contain fertile productive soil. The terrain is very steep with long narrow valleys surrounded by farms which drain into the valuable bottom land. Gully control in the center of these valleys is of major importance. These gullies, if allowed to continue, will destroy the valley farm units and eventually work back to the ridgeland farms. Cost of necessary control is beyond the reach of present landowners. In order to maintain a permanent and prosperous agriculture, gully control should be given special consideration and assistance under Public Law 566. Once land is lost, it is lost forever for production of food and fiber, which is of such great importance in these United States. Sincerely yours, O. J. SOHRWEIDE, Buffalo County Soil Conservation District Supervisors. 8 To Whom It May Concern: BLACK RIVER FALLS, WIS., April 30, 1957. Whereas the Jackson County Soil Conservation District is vitally interested in promoting watershed development; and Whereas farmers within the watersheds of Jackson County need outside assistance to build erosion-control structures to do a complete job in controlling erosion; and Whereas these watershed associations cannot qualify under the present interpretation of the cost-benefit ratio under Public Law 566: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That Public Law 566, or the interpretation of the cost-benefit ratio, be studied and changed by legislative action or on the Federal Government level so that these watersheds can qualify and receive assistance in building these stabilization and gully-control structures. Hon. LESTER JOHNSON, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. SAM KELLY, MERLIN L. OLSON, ROBERT HAYDON, County Agricultural Committee. EAU CLAIRE, Wis., March 27, 1957. We have reviewed this procedure for Federal aid under the Public Law 566 concerning small watersheds. In our opinion the present interpretation of the law discriminates against watersheds in western Wisconsin because of the benefit-cost ratio. We are of the opinion that the proposed amendment, H. R. 5547, will correct inequities and we heartily endorse the enactment of this amendment. HENRY E. GRAFF, Chairman County Board. Chairman, Agricultural Committee. Whereas the welfare of our communities depends upon a stable and prosperous agriculture; and Whereas, to implement this prosperity, it is necessary to have watershed projects to conserve and use our soil and water resources to the best advantage; and Whereas the benefit-cost ratio of Public Law 566 does not make it possible for the watershed association to comply with this cost-benefit-ratio requirement; Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That this group, composed of citizens from Eau Claire, Pepin, Buffalo, Monroe, Trempealeau, La Crosse, Jackson, Crawford, and Vernon Counties, meeting at Coon Valley, Wis., April 4, go on record asking Congress to remove erosion-control structures from the requirement of a cost-benefit ratio; and be it further Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Senators and Congressmen of Wisconsin, and to the State and National Association of Soil Conservation Districts. Hon. LESTER JOHNSON, PEPIN COUNTY SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. JOHNSON: At the meeting of our soil conservation district supervisors, the other day, we had a considerable discussion on watershed work. As you know, we have the work plan for the Lost Creek watershed in for final approval now. We have another watershed group that organized in April 1954 that is preparing to put in an application this fall. We have a number of watersheds here in Pepin County which could organize to seek help in solving their flood problems. Unless the restrictions in the present law, Public Law 566, are changed, it is doubtful if a favorable cost-benefit ratio would exist. If the present requirements were changed so that a favorable cost-benefit ratio could be arrived at, we feel that the number of watersheds coming under Public Law 566 would be considerable. We feel that your bill, H. R. 5547, exempting the cost of measures primarily for erosion control from being considered in figuring the cost-benefit ratio, is a needed addition to Public Law 566. We hope that H. R. 5547 will become law. With kindest personal regards, I am Yours truly, M. H. CARROLL, Chairman, Supervisors of Pepin County Soil Conservation District. RESOLUTION No. 32, AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE Whereas the welfare of our communities depends upon a stable and prosperous agriculture; and Whereas, to implement this prosperity, it is necessary to have watershed projects to conserve and use our soil and water recources to the best advantage; and Whereas the benefit-cost ratio of Public Law 566 does not make it possible for the watershed association to comply with this cost-benefit ratio requirement: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Monroe County Board of Supervisors, at its annual spring session held at Sparta, Wis., go on record asking Congress to remove erosioncontrol structures from the requirement of a cost-benefit ratio; and be it further Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Senators and Congressmen of Wisconsin, and to the State and National Association of Soil Conservation Districts. ANDY WAGNER. OFFICE OF COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, Hon. LESTER JOHNSON, DOOR COUNTY, Sturgeon Bay, Wis., April 8, 1957. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Your bill, H. R. 5547, recommending amendment to the Watershed and Flood Prevention Act was studied by members of the Door County Soil Conservation District board of supervisors during their regular monthly meeting this morning. The committee voted unanimously in favor of the changes you are suggesting, and a letter is being sent to Congress Byrnes encouraging him to give you his support on this issue. Sincerely yours, HOMER WILLEMS, Secretary, Door County Conservation District. RIPON, WIS., April 10, 1957. Hon. LESTER JOHNSON, Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. JOHNSON: A review and discussion of your bill, H. R. 5547, was made by the Fond du Lac County district supervisors and through the recommendations of the Federal work unit conservationist of this district, J. Bryan Keating, we feel the action taken in your behalf is fully in order. We, as the district governing body from this area, are in full favor of your action. Sincerely, ALLMAN HAMMEN, Chairman, Fond du Lac County District Supervisors. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION WORK IN Congressman LESTER JOHNSON, March 28, 1957. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The soil conservation district supervisors of Langlade County Soil Conservation District at a special meeting held March 27, 1957, in the Langlade County Courthouse voted their approval of your bill to amend the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act. The supervisors also agreed that an increase in payment for gully control structures through ACP would be another way of reducing the cost of gully control. LANGLADE COUNTY SOIL CONSERVATION ED GOLDBACH, Chairman. THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, STATE SOIL CONSERVATION COMMITTEE, Madison, March 21, 1957. Congressman LESTER JOHNSON, House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN JOHNSON: Many folks in Wisconsin are grateful for the interest you have shown in soil and water management. Watershed groups have been organizing at a remarkable rate, and a number of them have found problems above and beyond the ability to handle on a local basis. These groups have, in a number of cases, sought assistance under Public Law 566. Splendid progress has been made in land treatment in many areas, but a major obstacle has appeared in the cost-benefit ratio as it affects gully control under Public Law 566. The unglaciated area of western Wisconsin presents an endless number of problems, with narrow valleys through which water from the uplands passes and does extensive damage in flood stage. The farmers in these valleys are victims of a situation over which they have no control. However, under Public Law 566 as it stands now, these folks cannot obtain help because of the cost-benefit ratio. In many cases huge gullies have worked up through these valley farms, dissecting them completely. This has greatly reduced the land values and actually widening the gap from the standpoint of the cost-benefit ratio in establishing structures that would help control floodwater and stop the advance of these gullies. To be of value and workable Public Law 566 needs broadening in some way to except the cost-benefit ratio as it applies to gully control in the situations mentioned above. Your introduction and support of these remedial measures will be of everlasting benefit to the communities affected and the welfare of all citizens. Sincerely yours, E. O. BAKER, Erosion Control Agent. Mr. POAGE. Do you not have a copy of the letter from Mr. Fuqua? I have the original, and hope that it will be made a part of the record. Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to read that letter to the committee. I received a copy of it. This is from the National Association of Soil Conservation Districts. It is addressed to Congressman Poage, as chairman of the committee: Congressman W. R. POAGE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Credit and Conservation, House Committee on Agriculture, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. JUNE 19, 1957. DEAR CONGRESSMAN POAGE: It has come to my attention that a hearing has been scheduled on H. R. 5547, a bill to amend the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act with respect to measures for erosion control, introduced by Congressman Lester Johnson, of Wisconsin, for Tuesday, June 25, before your Subcommittee on Credit and Conservation. I would like for you to place this letter into the record of that hearing as an expression of attitude on the part of the National Association of Soil Conservation Districts on H. R. 5547. The board of directors of NABCC, in session March 18-21, 1957, at Washington, D. C., voted to support and endorse H. R. 5547. As we understand it, the purpose of this bill is to exempt erosion-control measures from the requirement of making a determination that their benefits exceed costs. Our association fully subscribes to the principle that measures required for flood control, irrigation drainage, and other water-resource developments should be evaluated to determine whether their benefits exceed the costs. At the same time, we believe that erosion-control measures fall into entirely different category. Flood control, irrigation, and drainage measures are designed to increase the productive use of our natural resources. There should be an economic yardstick for determining the relative value of such developments now and in the future. The economic losses sustained by not constructing improvements for these purposes are only temporary losses suffered by the present-day owners of land and properties. Flood protection or water-use developments can be made at anytime in the future as well as they can be today. The same is not true for erosion control. Productive soil lost through the erosion of huge gullies can never be replaced. The losses sustained by the farmer on whose land the gulley develops are only a tiny bit of the loss to the Nation from the destruction of our most essential and irreplaceable resourceour fertile soil. There is national interest involved in the loss of soil through gully erosion. That the Congress of the United States believes in this national interest has been demonstrated in many items of legislation enacted over the past 25 years. When the Congress passed, unanimously, the Soil Conservation Act of 1935, which established the Soil Conservation Service, it declared as a matter of national policy that it was in the public interest to control soil erosion. This declaration of policy was made without qualification and without restriction, and has since been continuously maintained. A great soil and water conservation movement has developed under this authority. The movement has now reached 1,700,000 landowners and operators through 2,750 local soil-conservation districts which contain more than 90 percent of the agricultural land of the United States. The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act provides a means through which local organizations can carry out in one package the total job of land and water resources protection, development, and management. We believe that this program should not be more restrictive in any way than programs authorized under earlier legislation. Although other legislation requires the determination of economic feasibility for flood control, irrigation, and drainage, no other Federal program requires a test of economic feasibility for erosion control. We do not believe that such a test on erosion control should be required under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act. Soil-conservation districts throughout America believe that erosion, whereever it is threatening agricultural productivity now or for future generations, must be controlled in the national interest. The National Association of Soil Conservation Districts is, therefore, in favor of H. R. 5547 as introduced by Congressman Lester Johnson, of Wisconsin. Sincerely, Mr. POAGE. Is that all? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. NOLEN J. FUQUA, President. Mr. POAGE. We are very much obliged to you. You have been deeply interested in this soil-conservation work and flood-prevention work ever since you have been a member of this committee, and have been very helpful to us, and we appreciate the interest you have taken in this problem. Are there any questions of Mr. Johnson? Mr. MATTHEWs. I would just like to reiterate what you said. Congressman Johnson went along with us in introducing the measure last year to liberalize Public Law 566. As I understand it, what your |