bill does, which is rather simple in terminology, it eliminates the cost of the erosion control in calculating cost-benefit ratios.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is right.

Mr. MATTHEWs. And, of course, you have no idea as to how much it would cost, but you feel there is enough money appropriated to go ahead with this program without any additional appropriation?

Mr. JOHNSON. I think it deserves a trial. I find in many of the watersheds being formed and coming up for final approval the cost of them is so enormous that the cost-benefit ratio fails, and that is the end of the project. That is as far as the watersheds can go.

Mr. POAGE. I wonder if you will yield to me.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Yes.

Mr. POAGE. It has been suggested that there was enough money appropriated, that you can take care of this program out of the money now being appropriated. I personally do not agree with that viewpoint, because I do not think there is enough money being appropriated to even carry out the program as presently contemplated by the Congress.

I do agree that we should appropriate more, and we should make provision for what Mr. Johnson is attempting to do here, but I think it is going to take more money. I think we must recognize that. I think that we are going to have to have a great deal more money, whether we pass this bill or whether we do not. The reason we have had money turned back is simply because that program has been so slow in getting started.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is right.

Mr. POAGE. Because we have not gotten these projects that are already approved into construction. We simply have been slow. I do not mean to condemn the Department; in fact, I fully recognize that it is better to start off on a sound basis, make our program a success each time we do work on one of these watersheds, to make it act as something we can be proud of, rather than start off on many watersheds and have a number of failures or question marks in our record. Were we to do that I think we would be in danger of losing the whole program. So I am not condemning anybody.

But I think it is quite clear that within the next 2 or 3 years we will need several times as much money as we have at the present time to carry out even the limited program that we now have.

I want to make it plain that I think we will need a great deal more money to be able to carry this program on.

Mr. JOHNSON. Isn't it true that one of these big dams that the Corps of Engineers are putting up in some of our rivers will cost more than the whole program has cost?

Mr. POAGE. I recognize that. I fully recognize the importance of increasing these funds. I would at the same time make it clear I don't think that we can start out with any hundred million dollars a year; it would result in waste and invite waste, but I think we must recognize that this program wil cost more every year from now on for a good many years.

Mr. ALBERT. Oklahoma has quite a number of projects in various stages under Public Law 566, as all States do; and Oklahoma has taken the lead-I think is one of the leaders among States on this

program. It has been the most helpful thing that I have ever seen. They tell me that the trouble now is they do not have enough of these teams. We have one team in the State of Oklahoma. If we could get a little more money into that business of getting the spadework done, and getting these things set up, why I do not think we would have any money left over. We would need more money. In other words, there is only one team to do all of the survey and engineering work or whatever it is they do.

Mr. POAGE. Yes; and even so you have a great many more people than we do in the same area.

Mr. ALBERT. Possibly we do. I think it is absolutely essential to move along.

Mr. POAGE. In Texas there is another team operating at local expense; the local people are paying for it.

Mr. ALBERT. We can do more under this program than any other similar program that the Government operates. I would also like, if we can, to invite your subcommittee to my district in my State, even before we adjourn, or soon after we adjourn.

Mr. POAGE. We would like to have a repeat on it. I remember our previous visit. It was very pleasant.

Mr. ALBERT. We would like to have you hear some of these people. Mr. Fuqua lives in Oklahoma. We would like to have a hearing in the undeveloped sections, and then go out in the western part of the State and see the completed project. I hope the committee will give that consideration.

Mr. POAGE. The committee will certainly do so.

Are there further questions of Mr. Johnson? If not, Mr. Johnson, I know you have some constituents here. I wonder, however, if we might not hear your colleague, Mr. Natcher, at the present time. I know he has another meeting on. If it is agreeable we will ask Mr. Natcher to proceed. I know you have a similar bill.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. NATCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY

Mr. NATCHER. I want to join with my colleague, Mr. Johnson, of Wisconsin, in his request concerning the bill H. R. 5547, on April 15 of this year.

I introduced H. R. 6904, which is an identical bill, with the bill of my colleague, Mr. Johnson, of Wisconsin, and it was introduced after his bill was introduced. This type of legislation, Mr. Chairman, means a lot to my section of the United States.

As you know, my home State is Kentucky, and I have the honor of representing the Second District of Kentucky. The legislation is important to my section of the United States generally. My district lies in the Green River Valley and the Green River Valley watershed, which contains 9,273 square miles.

From 1945 to 1950 we lost 100,000 people in this Green River Valley watershed. They migrated, and they left it. Mr. Chairman, when you were first elected to the House of Representatives, I believe we had either 9 or 10 Representatives from Kentucky; we now have 8

94742-57- -3

Members of the House. I want to thank you and the members of the committee for permitting me to appear at this time.

I know that time is of the essence; the House convenes today at 11 o'clock, and with your permission and the permission of the members of the committee, I would like to file a short statement, and again to thank you for permitting me to appear at this time.

Mr. POAGE. Without objection, it will be filed, and we are very much obliged to you for coming forward. I know of the interest you have had in this program, and we feel that your position will be a great help to us, and has been a great help to us in the past.

Are there any questions of Mr. Natcher? If not, we are very glad to have you with us. If you can stay we will be glad to have you. (The prepared statement of Hon. William H. Natcher is as follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. NATCHER, SECOND DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the record my name is William H. Natcher, and I have the honor of representing the Second District of Kentucky. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss with you H. R. 6904, which I introduced on April 15, 1957.

The purpose of H. R. 6904 is to amend the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act so that all measures taken in regard to erosion control are exempt from the benefit-cost provision of said act. In my opinion, the prevention of erosion justifies this action.

All of our people live within a watershed and are dependent upon them for water supply, food, recreation, and countless other essentials. Business, too, is dependent upon watershed management because of the effect of floods and the concentration of power on population and economic trends. Those watershed projects which are capitalized upon by nearby towns or cities usually have a favorable benefit-cost ratio. The farmer is totally dependent upon the watersheds; the soil must be rich to increase his productivity, and the prevention of floods is necessary if he is to maintain a stable economy.

The Green River watershed, comprising some 9,273 square miles, in which my congressional district lies, loses some 5 million tons of soil annually. This and the reoccurrence of damaging floods has caused the migration of over 100,000 people from 1940 to 1950. The importance of the Hope-Aiken Act, amended by H. R. 6904, to the Second District of Kentucky is immeasurable.

As successful as soil conservation has been, only watershed projects in most instances can defeat erosion. And, in a great many areas of the country the soil has eroded so badly, causing marshes and huge gulleys, that the benefitcost ratio does not warrant the expenditure for the project, as provided for under existing law. We must not allow ourselves to become "penny wise and pound foolish." This land must be reclaimed if the farmer is to prosper, and the prosperity of agriculture is a prerequisite to the prosperity of the Nation. Mr. Chairman, again let me state my pleasure in appearing before you, and I ask your committee's favorable consideration of H. R. 6904.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Johnson has some constituents who desire to appear in connection with his statement. Do you care to introduce them?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; it gives me great pleasure to introduce Adolph Maassen, a farmer who is right next to one of these watersheds we are having trouble with up in Dresser, Wis., and Irvin Hogden, of Ettrick, Wis., chairman of the Trempealean County board.

Mr. POAGE. Would they like to appear together? If you will both come up together, please. We will be glad to have you proceed, Mr. Maassen.

STATEMENT OF ADOLPH MAASSEN, FARMER, ALMA, WIS.

Mr. MAASSEN. I want to thank the committee for the privilege of appearing before you this afternoon in support of H. R. 5547, to

amend the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act eliminating the requirement of cost-benefit ratio for erosion control. I might add that I am a farmer. I live very close in and very close to the shed that Congressman Johnson has testified about. There are several important factors that enter into consideration for a request for a change in the law:

1. The law as it exists today will make it possible for only a very few watersheds to get Federal assistance under Public Law 566.

2. The law as it now stands penalizes farmers for doing a good job of conservation on their farms.

3. Through watershed associations we are solving the water and erosion problem for an entire drainage area.

4. The law as it exists today offers assistance only to those who have adequate capital for erosion-control structures.

I live on a farm in a community where water erosion has been a problem and a challenge. Since about 1870 the land in this area has been among the foremost in production of agricultural products, starting first with wheat, and dairy cattle and milk.

Our abundant topsoil and an average rainfall of 27 inches have provided our communities with thriving businesses. Our business enterprises, our churches, our schools-almost every segment of our local economy relies on the productive ability of the soil.

When we consider that it takes from 500 to 1,000 years to build an inch of topsoil and that our topsoil resource took from 3,000 to 5,000 years to build, and today vast sections of our country have already lost large amounts of our productive soil, it becomes our responsibility to protect our soil so that the generations of the future can be well

clothed and fed.

When we consider that in Wisconsin, for example, we have destroyed, in less than a century, one-third of our topsoil, perhaps the annals of American history will record such events as those that made headlines in our news last week when reports from China indicate that from 15 to 30 million people will starve to death.

Historians on China tell us that at one time China abounded with soil and water resource, but today, centuries later, due to lack of control of water and soil erosion, we read of such catastrophes that belie this Nation.

It is very easy in this time of abundance to delude ourselves into thinking that after all, now, we have adequate production, so why worry about the future. Unless we have coordinate effort now on the part of landowners, conservationists, and Government will continue and extend existing conservation programs, we may lose or render useless much of our lifegiving topsoil.

I live on a farm in an area which has in years past suffered great damage from gully erosion. As a growing boy I can well remember when we were able to easily jump across the small ditch that bordered our farm. Today many places in that gully are large enough to place into it a complete set of farm buildings and see only small parts of them.

Because of the vast destruction from floods, the farmers in my community were eager to grasp new ideas, and during the 1930's, with help of the technicians of the CCC, began to lay out practical soil conservation practices.

Members of the House. I want to thank you and the members of the committee for permitting me to appear at this time.

I know that time is of the essence; the House convenes today at 11 o'clock, and with your permission and the permission of the members of the committee, I would like to file a short statement, and again to thank you for permitting me to appear at this time.

Mr. POAGE. Without objection, it will be filed, and we are very much obliged to you for coming forward. I know of the interest you have had in this program, and we feel that your position will be a great help to us, and has been a great help to us in the past.

Are there any questions of Mr. Natcher? If not, we are very glad to have you with us. If you can stay we will be glad to have you. (The prepared statement of Hon. William H. Natcher is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. NATCHER, SECOND DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the record my name is William H. Natcher, and I have the honor of representing the Second District of Kentucky. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss with you H. R. 6904, which I introduced on April 15, 1957.

The purpose of H. R. 6904 is to amend the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act so that all measures taken in regard to erosion control are exempt from the benefit-cost provision of said act. In my opinion, the prevention of erosion justifies this action.

All of our people live within a watershed and are dependent upon them for water supply, food, recreation, and countless other essentials. Business, too, is dependent upon watershed management because of the effect of floods and the concentration of power on population and economic trends. Those watershed projects which are capitalized upon by nearby towns or cities usually have a favorable benefit-cost ratio. The farmer is totally dependent upon the watersheds; the soil must be rich to increase his productivity, and the prevention of floods is necessary if he is to maintain a stable economy.

The Green River watershed, comprising some 9,273 square miles, in which my congressional district lies, loses some 5 million tons of soil annually. This and the reoccurrence of damaging floods has caused the migration of over 100,000 people from 1940 to 1950. The importance of the Hope-Aiken Act, amended by H. R. 6904, to the Second District of Kentucky is immeasurable.

As successful as soil conservation has been, only watershed projects in most instances can defeat erosion. And, in a great many areas of the country the soil has eroded so badly, causing marshes and huge gulleys, that the benefitcost ratio does not warrant the expenditure for the project, as provided for under existing law. We must not allow ourselves to become "penny wise and pound foolish." This land must be reclaimed if the farmer is to prosper, and the prosperity of agriculture is a prerequisite to the prosperity of the Nation. Mr. Chairman, again let me state my pleasure in appearing before you, and I ask your committee's favorable consideration of H. R. 6904.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Johnson has some constituents who desire to appear in connection with his statement. Do you care to introduce them?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; it gives me great pleasure to introduce Adolph Maassen, a farmer who is right next to one of these watersheds we are having trouble with up in Dresser, Wis., and Irvin Hogden, of Ettrick, Wis., chairman of the Trempealean County board.

Mr. POAGE. Would they like to appear together? If you will both come up together, please. We will be glad to have you proceed, Mr. Maassen.

STATEMENT OF ADOLPH MAASSEN, FARMER, ALMA, WIS.

Mr. MAASSEN. I want to thank the committee for the privilege of appearing fore you this afternoon in support of H. R. 5547, to