ple can cooperate on a local level, and I am very hopeful that with the proper safeguards for the protection of the State water laws that we can get some legislation in here that will improve the existing watershed protection law.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I will ask permission, if I may, to file a formal statement on this bill at a later date and ask that it follow my statement here this morning.

Senator KERR. Very good, Senator Barrett.

Senator BARRETT. I thank you very much for this opportunity. (The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK A. BARRETT, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

I appreciate the suggestion made by Senators Case and Hruska that I comment somewhat on the various provisions of H. R. 8750 and on the comments made by General Itschner in the discussion of the bill this morning. I shall discuss the points very briefly:

1. H. R. 8750 permits the construction of reservoirs of more than 5,000 acrefeet total capacity, provided that the excess over 5,000 acre-feet is for purposes other than flood prevention and flood control and, furthermore, that the cost of construction of that part of the facility for storage in excess of 5,000 acre-feet shall be borne entirely by the local organization.

As I understand it, the Army engineers take the position that there should be a limit on reservoir capacity for purposes other than flood control and that capacity for flood prevention should be not less than 50 percent of the total capacity. As I construe the position taken by the Army engineers, this would effectively place a limit on the facility of 10,000 acre-feet of storage and that limitation could be attained only in the event there was at least 5,000 acre-feet dedicated to flood control. The engineers evidently take this position for the reason that they believe the justification for this program is flood control and, consequently, the engineers believe that that part of the structure dedicated to uses other than flood control should not be more than the part dedicated to flood control itself. In other words, there would be no objection to a dam of which 5,000 acre-feet was for flood-control purposes and any part of 5,000 additional acre-feet for other purposes, but, of course, as I said before, 10,000 acrefeet would be the limit and, furthermore, the total capacity could be only twice as much as that set aside for flood control in the event the flood control was for less than 5,000 acre-feet. In other words, if only 5,000 acre-feet were needed for flood control capacity, then the total structure could not exceed 7,000 acrefeet under the suggestion made by the Army engineers. While I subscribe to the theory of the Army engineers that the justification for this program is largely flood control, yet it does not seem to me that there is sufficient justification for imposing these restrictions.

It is probable that few projects will be undertaken under the authority of Public Law 566 which will have storage capacity in excess of 10,000 acre-feet. Nevertheless, if in a particular case a local unit of government desires to undertake a project involving more than 10,000 acre-feet capacity and involving multiple use of water for various purposes, and their plans to do so and the project as a whole is approved by the State government and the Department of Agriculture, there would not appear to be any legitimate reason why the Congress should interpose any prohibition to the approval of the project under Public Law 566. In such cases the Army Engineer Corps would continue to have the right, under the statute, to express to the Congress any reasons why the project should not be approved. It may be that the committee might consider a less restrictive provision than that suggested by the Army engineers in the event any restrictive language at all is deemed proper in that respect.

2. The bill, H. R. 8750 amends Public Law 566 by providing that local organizations will not be required to pay construction costs properly chargeable to flood control and prevention, but as I understand it would require the local organizations to participate in other costs for which storage is provided according to the benefits obtained. In other words, the bill, H. R. 8750, attempts to equalize the cost sharing under this type of activity in accordance with the provisions with respect to nonreimbursable items for flood control and flood prevention in the construction works presently carried on by the Corps of Engineers and the

Bureau of Reclamation. I am at a loss to explain the position taken by General Itschner with respect to this provision except on the basis that some contend that it is the intention to make all costs for construction of these projects of 5,000 acre-feet or less nonreimbursable. I do not subscribe to that contention. It is my opinion that costs for all other purposes, save flood control, are to be repaid by the local organizations with interest in the event H. R. 8750 is enacted. 3. The Engineers contend that provisions should be made for a Federal cash contribution representing the share of the cost allocable to flood control. It seems to me that is precisely what is proposed by H. R. 8750. On the other hand, as I interpret the statement of General Itschner, the Engineers contend that some local contribution toward the cost of structures for flood control should be retained. It is true that the Engineers require some measure of local contribution in the case of dikes and levees, but it is my understanding that in the case of storage reservoirs the Federal Government assumes 100 percent of floodcontrol benefits. I cannot justify the imposition of a larger measure of responsibility on farmers and others who will get some benefit from flood control under this act from the people in every section of the country who receive direct benefits from the tremendous sum spent for flood control by both the Army Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.

4. The Corps of Engineers suggests that local organizations constructing projects under Public Law 566 should employ "professional engineers.”

This recommendation is apparently designed to prevent the Soil Conservation Service from supplying engineering assistance-although it fails to so state in specific terms. I can see no reason why the Soil Conservation Service should not supply engineering service for watershed projects. It would be equally logical to follow a similar policy with respect to Army Engineer projects.

Probably in most instances a local unit of government undertaking a watershed project will employ engineers for construction and maintenance operations. But I can see no very adequate reason for the Congress to spell this out in the statute.

5. The Corps of Engineers "believe that at least the present degree of congressional control should be retained in Public Law 566.”

It should be appreciated that most of these watershed projects will be quite small and that there will be a very large number of them. While I have no very strong convictions on the desirability of the House and Senate Agricultural Committees being required to affirmatively approve these projects, I am inclined to believe that a veto power, as proposed in H. R. 8750, is sufficient to retain congressional control.

6. The Chief of Engineers suggests that it would be undesirable to eliminate the requirement for interagency review of plans of those projects where the Federal costs are under $250,000. As I understand, the provision of H. R. 8750 is made for the purpose of expediting these small projects and it does seem to me that a line should be drawn at some point or other so that the expense in connection with these porjects will not be disproportionate to the costs involved. 7. The Chief of Engineers opposes the elimination of the present provision in Public Law 566 that contracting of construction after July 1, 1956, must be undertaken by the local organization sponsoring the project. I concur in this recommendation as I believe the underlying theory of H. R. 8750 is that the projects will be initiated, constructed and operated by local authorities at the grassroots with the proper measure of assistance from the Federal Government. It seems to me that if this provision should be eliminated, the program might well develop into a Federal program with local participation. It is this feature of local control and responsibility which has so effectively stimulated interest in watershed projects by local people and organizations and local units of government. I hope the committee will modify H. R. 8750 in this respect.

I am pleased to comment on the statement made by the Chief of Engineers at the request of my colleagues and, in addition, I desire to say that I am pleased with the provision in the bill for long-term loans to the local organization with interest at the rate which the Federal Government is required to pay. Of course, the farmer will be obliged to provide the rights-of-way, the lands, the easements and, of course, all of the costs of maintenance and operation. By and large I desire to reiterate the statement I made earlier that while I am sure it is the intention to require that these projects be constructed in conformity with State laws and pursuant thereto, nevertheless I believe a provision to that effect in the bill might be desirable.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee and make these remarks.

Senator HRUSKA. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Senator Barrett if he will review the statement just given by General Itschner in which several suggestions are made with reference to possible amendments to H. R. 8750 and, after having read and considered them if it is your desire to comment thereon, I certainly, as one member of this committee would very much appreciate any comments or appraisals that you would make of those suggested amendments, sir.

Senator BARRETT. I thank my colleague. I might say that I came in after General Itschner had just about completed his statement. I have been advised of some of his recommendations and I will be glad in my formal statement to comment on same.

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, I would merely like to state that the committee welcomes the suggestions which Senator Barrett gives and has given. Senator Barrett for many years was a member of the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation or its successor committees in the House of Representatives, and he is in a position to help us coordinate policy here with water policy as administered by the Bureau of Reclamation under congressional acts which he has helped

to write.

Senator HRUSKA. Mr. Chairman, may I say that it is my recognition of Senator Barrett's previous experience that led me to make the suggestion that I did.

Senator BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I will say that I appreciate the statements made by both of my colleagues, and while I am concerned that we work out a plan here that will coordinate the activities of both the Army engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, yet I am constrained to say that I think that there still remains a big broad field where the Department of Agriculture can go in and work very effectively and to a very sound purpose with the local communities all over the country and help the people in those communities do things that the individual land owners cannot possibly do by themselves.

Senator CASE. And which are not being done by either the Corps of Engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation at this time.

Senator BARRETT. That is right. And I might say, Mr. Chairman, that it has been my judgment that over the years the Army engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation both have not been too interested in these right small projects that I am thinking of myself in connection with this legislation. I know that the Bureau of Reclamation is more concerned with big projects, and for that reason when I was Governor of Wyoming I advocated the institution of a natural resource board which had for its purpose the granting of State loans for the construction of small irrigation projects. The board has been proceeding along that line. And of course the Congress will do pretty much the very same thing under the small projects bill, which we hope will be acted on yet this year.

But, still, even with it all, I believe the Department of Agriculture can do a splendid job in this field on a nationwide basis.

I appreciate the comments here, and I will be glad in preparing my formal statement to review some of those various problems. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator KERR. Thank you, Senator.

All right, Mr. Peterson.

STATEMENT OF E. L. PETERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we appreciate the opportunity of appearing before your committee to discuss proposed amendments to the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act provided for in House bill 8750 and Senate bills 3023, 3243 and 3371.

The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public Law 566 of the 83d Congress, authorizes one of the basic programs administered by the Department of Agriculture. Its primary purpose is to provide Federal assistance to local units of government in carrying out those soil and water management measures of a community nature that cannot reasonably be accomplished by individual landowners and operators with help provided through other departmental programs of educational, technical, financial, and credit assistance. Public Law 566 provides a mechanism through which may be bridged the gap between the conservation work of farmers and ranchers, and the major projects on our Nation's rivers carried out by Federal construction agencies such as the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation.

The widespread interest in small watershed projects is evidence of a recognition of need for this kind of work. Small watershed projects, coupled with soil and water conservation practices which individual farmers apply on their own farms, are logical first steps in the management of water for beneficial use.

The act provides for local initiative in water management and for proper use and treatment of the land as an essential step in water management. Experience to date under this act and earlier experience with the demonstrations completed or nearing completion in the pilot watershed projects show that there is an essential place for small watershed projects in the development of water resources of this country for beneficial use of our citizens.

A distinguishing feature of small watershed projects is that land treatment becomes an early consideration in the management and use of water. It is the objective of these projects to develop and increase the usable water supplies by beginning the control and management of water on the fields and forests where it first falls as rain or snow. Developing and making the fullest possible use of our water supply for irrigation and other productive uses, as well as for flood prevention and drainage, requires a combination of both engineering and land management practices. Water management must be compatible with the management requirements of successful farming operations and with the need of urban communities that make up the watershed, if we are to meet the increasing demands on water supplies. A necessary consideration in the development of small watersheds for the maximum beneficial use of the water which falls upon them is the interrelationship of land and water.

. We view the work in small watersheds to be a desirable complement to other necessary work on the larger rivers. Where there are direct relationships between upstream and downstream developments they are being taken into account in the planning of watershed projects and in reviews of the work plans by all State and Federal agencies who may have water-resource responsibilities.

We have been encouraged by public acceptance of the provision of the act that watershed projects are to be local projects with assistance from the Federal Government rather than projects planned and built by the Federal Government. We have been pleased with the willingness of local communities to assume development and management responsibility, and with the action of State governments to provide enabling legislation that permits local communities to take on these responsibilities.

It would be difficult to name any legislation enacted in recent years which has had more widespread favorable reception throughout the country than has the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act.

The Governors of each of the 48 States have designated State agencies or made other appropriate arrangements to handle the review and approval of applications for assistance under the act. In order to strengthen the position of States and local organizations to participate in this program, 25 States have enacted 45 separate pieces of legislation since the passage of Public Law 566 in August 1954; this, in itself, is impressive of widespread public interest. In less than 24 months the Soil Conservation Service has received 541 State-approved applications for assistance under the act. Our information indicates that several hundred additional applications are being formulated or are before State agencies for review.

The Soil Conservation Service has to date approved planning assistance to local organizations in 172 watersheds in 45 States. All of these approvals have been based on priority recommendations of the State agencies which have the approval responsibility.

Thus far, 24 plans have been completed and submitted to the Congress. Thirteen projects have been placed in operation. Five of these plans which required resolutions of approval by the Congress have been reviewed and approved by the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and by the House Committee on Agriculture. Four additional plans have been completed and are in the process of transmittal to the Congress, and four more plans are under review by other Federal agencies. We estimate that more than 50 additional plans will be ready for submission to the next Congress when it convenes in January.

The Soil Conservation Service, with assistance from the Forest Service, has essentially completed its organization for providing planning assistance in all States in the country. Thirty-nine planning parties have been formed, some of them to serve two States. In some States a backlog of applications is developing.

Experience gained during the 2 years of operations under this Act has indicated the desirability for certain amendments to extend its scope and improve its operation. These amendments would put the Federal Government in a better position to meet more fully the needs and desires of local organizations which have applied for Federal aid in flood prevention and water management.

The Secretary of Agriculture made recommendations in letters dated April 16, 1956, to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House for certain amendments to the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act. These amendments were cleared with the Bureau of the Budget. I would like to submit a copy of these amendments for your record at this point, Mr. Chairman, if I may.