appliances he now owns. These ranges, refrigerators, washers, dryers and all the rest were produced in cities by urban labór. There was no end to the benefits to all Americans from rural electric programs.

The drastic action amounts to repeal of an Act of Congress by Executive fiat and if allowed to stand will accomplish what the power companies have failed to do with their tremendous power in the legislature over all these years.

The action will destroy the program and will eliminate many small systems. Those which do survive will have to increase their rates drastically to cover this higher cost of money. Rural electric systems even now serve only three meters to the mile of line compared to 35 or 40 served by private power companies. It is easy to understand why the co-ops cannot stand to have their interest costs increased.

The rural electric co-ops and public power districts have been moving to develop their own financial institution, the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation (C.F.C.) in order to secure the greater amounts of capital now required. However, few if any of these systems could exist today if it were not for the low cost interest program of REA. This action will bring utter chaos to the program at this time when the capital requirements of the systems are doubling about every seven years.

If it is important that we revitalize rural America then we must have a healthly on-going electric program by the rural systems. The decision to abolish REA is a severe blow to rural America and the consequences to urban Americans will be just as drastic.

Robert Partridge, General Manager of the National Rural Electrification Cooperative Association, has written letters of protest to Nixon. He has also pledged to fight the move on Capitol Hill "with all the resources at our command." Many Senators and Congressmen are upset over this action and we hope it will not be permitted to stand.

This type of executive action has more importance to all Americans than we may realize. If newspapers and television stations can be told what to say, and the will of Congress can be overturned, how long will it be before Congress is eliminated?

PLUMAS-SIERRA RURAL ELECTRIC CO-OP,
A. E. ENGEL, Manager.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD C. NOMSEN, WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BIOLOGIST, STATE FISH HATCHERY, CLEAR LAKE, IOWA, REPRESENTING THE NORTH CENTRAL SECTION OF THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY

The total cancellation of R.E.A.P. is a serious setback to soil, water and wildlife conservation in the Upper Midwest. We agree that certain practices, such as tiling and liming, were basically production practices and should be eliminated from the program. But many of the soil, water and wildlife practices improved the over-all environment and were beneficial to everyone. Therefore, we urgently request that R.E.A.P. be reinstated emphasizing sound long-term conservation practices.

North Central Sction of the Wildlife Society: Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan.

STATEMENT OF PAUL L. SJOBLOM, STATE FORESTER, STATE OF UTAH,
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

GENTLEMEN: I, as State Forester of Utah as well as a member of the National Association of State Foresters, am quite concerned about the financial future of a number of cooperative programs dealing with conservation and the environment. It is also recognized that we are faced with a serious financial crisis in the United States. I have no solution for the obvious problem but do have strong feelings that our priorities in determining how to resolve this apparent conflict should receive careful consideration.

Basically, two things, our people and our resources, have made this country what it is today. The number of our people is increasing; the amount of resources available is decreasing. In view of this situation, the demands on our resources are obviously becoming greater. More people want houses, electricity, recreation

areas, hunting opportunities, wilderness experiences, clean air, scenic areas, and on and on. The list of uses we make of our natural resources is nearly endless and growing all the time. Unfortunately, although the resources exist, their uses are not free. Costs of management (and the resource must be managed-even not using a resource costs money) seems to increase continually. These costs need to be met.

The various cooperative programs that will be, or have been, discussed during this two-day hearing period collectively constitute one of the basic means of meeting the costs for the total conservation effort. One of the basic reasons for establishing these programs, i.e., the fact that the manner in which we care for our resources in Utah will have an impact on California, Arizona, Mexico, and even eastern states, is still as true today as when the original Weeks Law was first enacted in 1911. This is a principle that should be preserved.

There are other basic reasons these cooperative programs should be maintained:

1. The public land states of the West have a small tax base to support programs that have a national impact.

2. Conservation organizations have not been, generally, successful in obtaining strong political and financial support at the local level.

3. Strong state programs assist and complement Federal programs, particularly in the West.

4. The present revenue sharing program was not, we understood, to take the place of these special grants. The special revenue sharing program to cover specific programs has not been enacted into law.

These are rather general comments on the cooperative programs as a whole. A copy of a recent letter to The Honorable Frank E. Moss, Senator from Utah, which is attached, will detail the impact and importance these programs play to the conservation program here in Utah.

My thanks to the committee for this opportunity to present my thoughts on some programs that are of importance to me individually as well as to the people of my state and country collectively.

(The attachment follows:)

Hon. FRANK E. Moss,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

JANUARY 25, 1973.

SIR: I, as State Forester of Utah as well as a member of the National Association of State Foresters, am quite concerned with the severe limitation the President is putting on the conservation and environmental programs this year (FY 73), in addition to those projected for FY 74. We have a number of specific programs that annually contribute approximately $250,000 to the State Forestry area of responsibility here in Utah. Cuts in these programs, particularly in the sparsely populated public land states of the west, will have a definite and lasting impact on our conservation programs.

The following is a list of the programs that we feel have suffered and probably will be curtailed additionally in the future:

Cooperative Forest Management (CFM)

No cuts at present. Approximately $35,000 is paid to the State under this program. Our expenditures would allow us to qualify for more if federal funds were available. Congress last fall passed the Sikes bill which did several things. Among these, it created an Urban Forestry program and raised the authorized funding limit of the CFM program to $20 million. Unfortunately, no additional funds were appropriated.

Clarke-McNary 2 (CM-2)

The Congress last fall raised the authorized amount in this program to $40 million. The appropriation was increased to $25 million, a $5 million increase above FY 72 funds. This $5 million increase was impounded by OMB last fall. Early this month an additional $4 million was removed from this fund. This results in a net reduction of $9 million in this program. Fortunately, we hadn't budgeted the $5 million increase but used the FY 72 financial level for planning purposes in FY 73. Even this figure was not good and recent cuts will cause us to lose approximately $31,000. With only 5 months left in the fiscal year, this is

91-868-73-30

creating some problems. We will now receive approximately $126,000 rather than the $156,700 originally allocated.

Clarke-McNary Section 4 (CM−4)

To date there has been no change in this program. We are receiving $12,000 for our nursery program.

General Forestry Assistance (GFA)

This is a project-oriented program. We are in the second year of a two-year program. There seems to be a small chance presently of any money being available next fiscal year (74). Over the two-year project life we have received approximately $34,000.

Resource Conservation & Development (RC&D)

For the last several years, we have been receiving from $5,000 to $14,000 annually in this program. Most of this money is used in counties to improve rural living conditions and resource use. Only one project is operational presently. A second project has been approved for planning and an application has ́been submitted for a third. Apparently, a small chance presently exists for additional financial support for this program.

Rural Environmental Assistance Program (REAP)

This program has been eliminated entirely. No fiscal impact on us directly but will have a secondary effect in reducing interest of farmers and other landowners in a variety of conservation practices. Programs such as tree planting and timber stand improvement may suffer because of lack of federal cost sharing to the landowner.

Rural Development Financial Resources Act of 1972 (S-3462)

I believe this act was passed in the final stages of 1972 This, were it funded, would be of valuable assistance to us in helping to provide adequate fire protection to many of the rural areas of Utah. I assume this will probably face tough going in FY 74 financing.

Sikes Bill (H.R. 8)

This is a new bill scheduled to be introduced shortly. It would be of value to many landowners in Utah if passed and funded.

Land Use Planning Bill

Several bills were introduced last session to deal with this problem. There is a great need for legislation of this sort. I believe that the State is in favor of an amended form of Senator Jackson's bill. It is my understanding this bill will be reintroduced this session.

From the above list, three programs are most important to us as an organization, and even more so, to the people of the State of Utah. In order of priority these are, CM-2 (wildland fire control) CFM (forest management assistance on private lands) and CM-4 (the nursery program). These are the heart of the present forestry program here in Utah on some 9,000,000 acres of State and privately owned land. Protection and management of these forested and watershed lands are of prime importance to all the people of the State, and to a lesser degree to people in surrounding states.

This includes most of the areas in which we have a concern. If we can provide any additional information in the future, please let me know.

STATEMENT OF CHESTER A. MCCONNELL, TENNESSEE GAME AND FISH COMMISSION AND THE FARM GAME COMMITTEE, SOUTHEAST SECTION OF THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY, LAWRENCEBURG, TENN.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to appear and express our views relating to agricultural programs. I am a Game Biologist with the Tennessee Game and Fish Commission and Chairman of the Farm Game Committee. The Farm Game Committee jointly serves the

Southeastern Section of The Wildlife Society and the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners. The Committee is composed of wildlife biologist representing sixteen southern states.

One of the most phenomenal events in the history of man has been the agricultural progress in this nation. Our nation is blessed with an abundant supply of excellent food in addition to many other material things. This agricultural progress did not just happen but it was made to happen. One cause for this progress has been the legislative action initiated by Congress. Another cause has been the U.S. Department of Agriculture farm programs which have guided and assisted our dedicated farmers. Our nation should be proud of your actions, those of the Department of Agriculture and of our farmers which have resulted in our abundant food supply.

During the process of developing and administering the farm programs, another dramatic event has occurred. Our wildlife which lives on farmlands has been seriously neglected and has suffered. Many of the farm programs having outstanding results when production is emphasized have caused highly detrimental results to our farm wildlife. This situation could have been avoided. We can easily have an abundance of wildlife and agricultural production on the same land. Farm wildlife needs and agricultural practices can be compatible, The vast majority of our farm wildlife populations are produced on private lands. During the past two decades, there has been an almost continual declining trend of this wildlife. The decline has been caused primarily by a loss of quality and quantity of wildlife habitat on farmlands. The habitat loss is primarily due to changing land use and modern agriculture practices. We certainly have no desire to return to the old farming methods because wildlife management can also be best accomplished with modern methods. The most promising approach to wildlife management is to provide and maintain the proper environment for wildlife to express its own reproductive potential. Food and cover establishment and farm pattern manipulation are considered to be among the most important management techniques in providing proper environment.

State wildlife agencies have the responsibility for state-wide habitat improvements, but have found it very difficult to encourage management on private lands. These agencies know how to manage habitat to increase wildlife, but cannot accomplish the job alone. We recognize that most farm wildlife is presently produced simply as a by-product of farm operations. The landowner, with few exceptions, has always determined the use of his land. In most cases the landowner has little economic incentive to develop wildlife habitat, or to encourage its utilization. Thus wildlife production must be assisted in order to compete with other economic interest on the land.

We feel that, in our present society, a realistic approach is to provide financial incentive to landowner for providing the habitat for farm wildlife. This habitat must literally be purchased in terms of the amount of corn, beans, hay or other crops that the farmer would have to sacrifice. Landowners should not be expected to pay for habitat preservation or improvement when they could possibly use the land or money to increase their income. In most cases, the general public receives the most benefit from the wildlife resource. Therefore, funds from the general public should finance the program. Hunter license fees are paying for many programs of benefit to the public at large. However, they cannot, and should not be expected to pay for all farm wildlife needs, particularly when the need for expensive habitat improvement is necessitated because of programs financed by public funds.

The general public has an interest and responsibility in effecting and perpetuating sound management policies for all natural resources. During the past several years this public has probably become more aware and' interested in the environment than during all previous history. Congress, governmental agencies and private industry have responded to this awareness by altering policies and devising programs beneficial to the environment.

This nation urgently needs a good, sound program which will enhance wildlife on farmlands. More people are near farm wildlife and can enjoy it in comparison to other forms of wildlife. Congress and our Presidents have very wisely established park systems, wildlife refuges wilderness areas and wild streams. We commend these accomplishments but these areas are normally long distances from the majority of our citizens. The approximate 460 million acres of cropland and 630 million acres of grazing lands are more closely located to our people and urgently need attention. We feel that our nation has a moral obligation to

our wildlife resource and the time has come for a serious program which considers wildlife needs on farm lands.

The Rural Environmental Assistance Program (REAP) included goals and objectives which considered the wildlife resource. This was one of the few agricultural programs which considered wildlife and now it has been eliminated by the President. The REAP was not a program to provide supplemental income. It was an incentive program designed to encourage those who control the land to preserve and protect it for use by future generations. Statistics for the 1971 REAP show that more than 90 percent of the funds expended under the program went for long-term, enduring conservation practices designed to control erosion and prevent pollution of our streams and waterways. The greatest single pollutant of our streams and lakes has been identified by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) as silt and sedimentation. This program strikes directly at this problem by helping to keep the soil in place on the land where it belongs and reduction of pollution of our waters is of benefit to our fish and wildlife resources. The Tennessee Game and Fish Commission and other wildlife agencies are vitally interested in the REAP wildlife practices. We have been working with Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (A.S.C.S.) officials on the national, state and county level and with many individual farmers to encourage more participation in wildlife practices. We had gained a large "grass roots" interest in the wildlife practices. During 1972 various wildlife agencies and organization including the International Association of Game, Fish and Conservation Commissions, the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners, the S.E. Section of The Wildlife Society, the National Wildlife Federation and many local organizations went on record in support of improving and encouraging the REAP wildlife practices. Will the desires of all these and other conservation organizations be ignored? Are we to be completely overlooked when programs are being developed which vitally effects our wildlife? We ask you to allow us to assist in developing any future agriculture programs and in improving existing programs.

The most practical method of compensating landowners for wildlife habitat within our present governmental organization would appear to be through the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This agency presently has the organizational structure through the A.S.C.S. and S.C.S. to administer wildlife habitat programs. Historically agricultural agencies have had more influence on the land than wildlife agencies; therefore, it is only reasonable that if wildlife is to be enhanced on farmlands both agricultural and wildlife agencies must work together.

The new farm bill presently being developed will become effective with the 1974 planting season. The enactment of the Rural Development Act of 1972 (Section 605) makes it possible for long term agreements. Now is the time to develop a sensible farm program which will consider wildlife needs. Wildlife practices utilizing proper perennial cover could be developed on the lands diverted from crop production. Under long term agreements diverted cropland could provide an abundance of wildlife habitat at little or no added cost. This is not feasible under annual diversion programs.

Payments to farmers for cropland diversion are astronomical compared to budgets of wildlife agencies. In 1970 farmers received $3.4 billion for diverting 57 million acres from farm production. The nation's hunters spent only $114 million for hunting in the form of license fees, special stamps and P-R federal excise taxes. Obviously the effects of a $3.4 billion program could hardly be offset by hunter sponsored programs totaling $114 million.

We urge this committee to do what it can to reinstate the beneficial aspects of the REAP and to incorporate practices beneficial to wildlife in any program which pays landowners to divert cropland from production.

Based on previous experience we also request that two points should be considered in any U.S. Department of Agriculture program involving wildlife. 1. The funds allotted to wildlife practices should be earmarked and not be competitive with funds for other farm practices.

2. Wildlife practices should be made a compulsory part of state and county programs.

Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, I again say "thanks" for the opportunity to be here and to express our views. We will be available to assist you at your request when programs affecting wildlife are being developed.