Somewhere in between there is a place where we should work. I think they have to have some guidance too. We cannot simply say, "You ought to take care of every eroded acre in the United States," because you should not. There is certainly plenty of land in the United States that you should not spend a dime on in trying to stop erosion. There is a vast area, probably one-third of the United States, that you cannot afford to spend anything on. Mr. YOUNG. That is true. Mr. HARVEY. How many projects have been approved to date under this Small Watershed Act? Mr. YOUNG. I believe there are 42 now in operation. Mr. BROWN. Forty-two in operation, out of 268 that have been approved for planning, of which Mill Creek is one. Mr. JOHNSON. Has that been approved for planning? Mr. BROWN. Two hundred and sixty-eight have been approved for planning, and the plans have been completed and approved in the Congress or administratively on 42 where construction is now under way. I might mention there are a dozen or more in the Budget Bureau now. Mr. JOHNSON. Mill Creek is one of the greater number? Mr. BROWN. Of the 268. Mr. JOHNSON. One of those 268? Mr. BROWN. Yes. Mr. JOHNSON. How many of those 268 are running into trouble right now? Mr. BROWN. We have found that for one reason or another-part of which is unfavorable benefit cost ratio-that 39 out of the 268 will not make projects. Not all of those are on the basis of cost benefits determination. Part of them are because of the local people, that they are unwilling to meet their share of the required cost. Mr. JOHNSON. All of the 268 have not gone through the survey yet, so you do not know how many more will be in that other classification. Mr. BROWN. They have not all been. The surveys have not been completed on all of the 268. That is correct. Mr. JOHNSON. But to date in the 268, you have run into trouble on 39? Mr. BROWN. Yes. Mr. JOHNSON. In what parts of the United States are they located? Pretty well generally all over? Mr. BROWN. Pretty widely scattered-not concentrated. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that the Mill Creek watershed is the best example of western Wisconsin watersheds. I believe it is a little too close to the Mississippi and a short stream. I may be wrong but when you get over into Trempealeau County and Dunn County or down in Mr. Withrow's district, in Monroe County and some of the other counties that are farther away from the river where you have a bigger stream, they are better examples. Mr. BROWN. We have two projects in Wisconsin that are just now ready. One will have to come up to the Congress for approval, and the other can be administratively approved; in which we found favorable benefit cost ratio. Mr. JOHNSON. I have one up in Pepin County by the name of Lost Creek. Mr. BROWN. That will probably be approved within the next few days administratively. And the other one is another Mill Creek down in Richland County, where the benefits are flood-control benefits rather than gully-control benefits. Mr. JOHNSON. Richland County has one county between it and the Mississippi? Mr. BROWN. Yes; that is right. Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to have the Department up here again the last of January or the 1st of February to see how we are coming along. Mr. POAGE. We thank you very much, gentlemen. Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to thank the Department and Mr. Brown for making the trip out to Wisconsin. I am glad of the interest that the Department has shown. The people out there are very sincere and interested in this Small Watershed Act, and I know that all up and down western Wisconsin there is a lot of work being done to get various farmers into it. There is a lot of work behind getting one of these watersheds organized, and that is why what has happened in Mill Creek is stopping other watersheds from going ahead. Mr. BROWN. I would like to say it would be hard to find a district anywhere in the United States where the people have done more of what they can do in the way of conservation than out in your district. I was greatly impressed by the application of practices and the way the county looks. It looks good out there, really. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Mr. McINTIRE. I would like to ask one question. In relation to the usual formula of calculating cost-benefit ratios, is the thought of using it in this particular situation an attempt to establish whether or not there are other bases of calculation or rather to design a new basis to make the calculation, or what? What is the objective of the appraisals? Mr. BROWN. We would have the latitude to use either an appraisal basis or to use a basis of calculating the loss of future productive value and capitalizing that in effect by this discounting procedure. Either one of those are acceptable methods. And it was our feeling that if we got an unbiased outside appraiser to make the determinations, if that did show that the benefit-cost ratio would be favorable by that method, it would be entirely acceptable to other Federal agencies as well as to ourselves. Mr. JOHNSON. Where you ran into trouble with the other method of arriving at cost benefits, would you use it there or would you use it generally? Mr. BROWN. We would have the choice of using either one. Mr. McINTIRE. You are by this move making doubly sure that you are giving a fair evaluation to the situation? Mr. BROWN. That is what we are trying to do; yes, sir. Mr. YOUNG. I want to make it clear that the Department in speaking unfavorably toward this particular bill wants to make it perfectly clear that we are not in opposition to the job of trying to stop those gullies. We are as much in favor of that as we can be. It is a matter of keeping the expenditure for which we have administrative responsibility on a supportably sound basis. If we get it on any other basis we will lose the opportunity, I think, countrywide of continuing this important work. So it is a matter of finding a procedure that can stop the losses that are very obvious. We know they are going on. To stop them is an expensive undertaking. To try to correct something that started a long time ago is expensive now. So we are doing our best to find a supportable and a sound procedure for stopping a decline in values that we know is going on. We are interested, Mr. Johnson, in finding a way of doing that. Mr. POAGE. Is there anything further? If not, we are very much obliged to you gentlemen for coming here, and we hope you do work it out. The committee stands adjourned. (Whereupon, at 10:30 a. m., the above hearing was adjourned.) ACREAGE RESERVE PROGRAM IN MAJOR DISASTER AREAS 4- SEP 3 U HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H. R. 8031, H. R. 8032, H. R. 8033, H. R. 8051, H. R. 8052, JUNE 26, 1957 Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture Serial CC 94911 UNITED STATES WASHINGTON: 1957 |