Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Mr. CLAPP. This covers a much wider field.
Mr. WOODRUM. It is the same thing as that, isn't it?
Mr. CLAPP. Partly the same thing.

Mr. WOODRUM. It is also a duplication of the activities for which we have appropriated for cooperation with the various States in the procurement, production, and distribution of various tree seeds and plants for establishing windbreaks, shelterbelts, and farm wood lots upon denuded or nonforest lands within such cooperating States under the provisions of section 4 of the act entitled “An act to provide protection for various lands”, and so forth, and for which we appropriated $70,579 in the regular appropriation bill?

Mr. CLAPP. They all are comprehensive attacks in the same direction.

Mr. SNYDER. Supplementing that?
Mr. CLAPP. Yes.

Mr. WOODRUM. In other words, we have already appropriated for both of those things in two separate items, and this is another bill merely to enlarge it?

Mr. Clapp. Yes and materially to broaden its scope.

Mr. WOODRUM. Couldn't the same thing have been reached if Congress had wanted to do so by increasing the amount of money provided in this appropriation bill?

Mr. CLAPP. No.
Mr. Woodrum. Why not?

Mr. CLAPP. For one thing, there are limitations in the authorizations of those two items. I think it is $100,000 in both cases. Neither one of those bills covers the whole field. Each of them covers a segment of the field. This bill attempts to cover the whole farm forestry field.

Mr. Ludlow. It is not intended that there shall be duplication or triplication of effort?

Mr. CLAPP. They will all be administered in the same organization, so there won't be any duplication.

Mr. WOODRUM. But at least you have an additional amount of $700,000 and the $1,000,000 that you have, and here you have at least another $56,000 and another $70,000 for this purpose?

Mr. CLAPP. Yes.

Mr. WOODRUM. At what other point is the Department asking for the same purposes?

Mr. CLAPP. The only other point is in research, which Mr. Marsh referred to a few minutes ago, which would be $55,000 a year, I understand, which goes into the farm-forestry problem.

FUNDS ALLOTTED UNDER EMERGENCY RELIEF ACT OF 1937

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. In the letter from the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, dated July 17th, the statement is made that the sum of $1,000,000, which you are asking for, will be supplemented by the use of funds from the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1937 for that phase of the project dealing with the development of farm forestry in the prairie plains area.

Mr. CLAPP. Yes.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. So that is a further source of funds?

Mr. CLAPP. Yes, this is the amount Mr. Woodrum referred to a moment ago.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. To what extent do you expect to receive funds under that act?

Mr. CLAPP. That, so far as I know, will be the only fund we will receive from that source.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. How much?
Mr. CLAPP. That is the item of $700,000.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. But it says that there has already been provided $700,000 and that the sum of $1,000,000 will be supplemented by the use of further funds from the relief act. You don't get any? Mr. CLAPP. No. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. You don't anticipate any additional emer

gency funds?

Mr. CLAPP. No.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Will you get any funds under that act?

Mr. CLAPP. I think that was intended to refer to the $700,000 already allotted. Is that your understanding, Mr. Jump? Mr. JUMP. That is my understanding.

Mr. SNYDER. In the flood-control act we set aside $500,000 for the Agricultural Department for the survey and study of soil erosion and stream polution under the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year 1938. Hasn't that something to do with the preservation of tree life?

Mr. Clapp. That, as I understand it, is intended for surveys, which will cover watersheds, which are specifically named in the act itself or in other acts, and will attempt to get at any and all problems of land management, forestry, or whatever they may be which have an influence on stream flow and run-off. So that taking that with the War Department activities, you will have a comprehensive approach on the whole flood problem, taking in the handling of the land, and also the handling of the streams.

Mr. JUMP. Those surveys are designed primarily as a basis for detailed reports to Congress on specific flood-control projects jointly with the War Department, as provided by the Flood Control Act of 1936.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF STATES TO WORK

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. To what extent are the States contributing to this work that you have in mind?

Mr. CLAPP. We want to make this a means of obtaining State contributions.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Is there any requirement of State contributions in connection with this work?

Mr. CLAPP. No, sir; no requirement, but, as a matter of policy, we Want to try to work out an arrangement with the States whereby they will contribute. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. What assurance do you

have that

you

will be able to bring that about.

Mr. CLAPP. Only this, that we will have to say to the States, “We will start on this work with the expectation that the State will contribute finally dollar for dollar of our funds.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Have you any assurance that any State will appropriate money to carry on the work on that basis?

Mr. Cook. It has not been put up to the States as yet, but I do not anticipate any great amount of trouble about that.

COST OF SHELTERBELT OPERATIONS

Mr. Bacon. Is this to be an annual appropriation of $1,000,000, or will it be more next year?

Mr. CLAPP. Of course, this is for the current fiscal year. The authorization carried by the bill is $2,500,000. I would anticipate recommendations for increases in the amount until it reache he full authorization.

Mr. Bacon. Then, there would be an annual appropriation of $2,500,000.

Mr. CLAPP. Yes, sir. Mr. Ludlow. If this becomes a permanent activity, the cost of it will simply be staggering. What is your idea of the ultimate cost of the operations under this act, or what do you think would be the maximum cost?

Mr. Clapp. Mr. Cook gave an estimate of 40 to 50 million dollars for the Plains work. Under the provisions of the act the annual cost to the Federal Government for the entire project could not exceed $2,500,000.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. That is for the whole project.
Mr. CLAPP. Yes, sir.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Would there be additional similar work after that project is started?

Mr. CLAPP. I think that once you get the idea of timber growing on the farm established in the Plains country, and have worked out the technique, the benefits would be so obvious to the people of that country that a great deal of work would go forward by its own momentum.

Mr. WOODRUM. You do not understand that the agricultural problem today is a more or less realistic one, on the farmers' doorsteps, in trying to meet his indebtedness and educating his children. I think you will find considerable difficulty in interesting him in a project that will not bring a yield until after 75 or 80 years from now.

Mr. CLAPP. It is not quite as bad as that, because we have in the neighborhood of 150,000,000 acres of farm wood lots now with some timber already on the ground. It should be remembered that it does not take all timber 75 or 80 years to mature.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. What will you do with respect to those wood lots?

Mr. CLAPP. We want to advise the farmers as to specific areas; we want to advise them as to better means of handling their wooded lands, and advise them with reference to means of selling their products so as to get better prices.

Mr. WOODRUM. Would not that advice or service merely be & question of issuing carefully prepared bulletins, to go to those farmers through long existing agencies that are already in close touch and cooperation with the farmers; or will it require the setting up of another large organization here, and the expenditure of large sums of money? Do you want to give him advice about a product that he already has on his land?

Mr. CLAPP. While we should have bulletins and distribute them, if you want to do the greatest good and make real progress, you must get down to the individual owners so as to advise with them with reference to their individual problems.

Mr. SNYDER. As I understand it in States like Pennsylvania, you make use of the State land grant colleges in carrying out that work.

Mr. CLAPP. Partly that way, and partly through the State Forest Service.

Mr. SNYDER. Suppose they will not cooperate?

Mr. CLAPP. Then, there is a provision in the law whereby if we cannot get cooperation, we do what we can on our own; but we are under obligation to try first to secure the cooperation of State agencies.

Mr. Ludlow. I would like to get some additional light on this matter: I understood you to say that the cost of the shelter-belt operations in the various States would be from $40,000,000 to $50,000,000. Now, of course, the act is Nation-wide in its scope, and its operations would be Nation-wide. What would be the estimated cost of your operations, from the national standpoint, all together, and not in the prairie States only?

Mr. Clapp. The authorization in the bill is for $2,500,000, and it is probable that the appropriations in course of time would reach $2,500,000. Then they would be continued at that rate as long as Congress saw the need for it.

Mr. Ludlow. If you should carry on your operations in the way you have in contemplation, it would run the cost into many millions of dollars, and I wonder how far you think this would go, or should go, in the best interest of the country.

Mr. CLAPP. Under this law, the authorization is $2,500,000. It might run at that rate over a long period of years. That is the best answer I think I can give to that question. It would be from $2,000,000 to $2,500,000 a year over a period of years.

Mr. Ludlow. You think that it would cost $40,000,000 to $50,000,000 to do the work in the Prairie States alone, and I am wondering what would be the cost throughout the entire United States.

Mr. Clapp. There will not be much of any shelterbelt planting outside of the prairie of Plains country. In other parts of the country, the planting will be a process of development of lands that are no longer suitable for cultivation.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. You originally contemplated a Nation-wide belt, 1,000 miles long and 100 miles wide.

Mr. Clapp. Yes, sir; running down from the Canadian border a distance of about 1,000 miles.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. And you are planting a 2,000,000-acre area in the prairie States, at a cost of $50,000,000. Now, you do not foresee that the 2,000,000-acre area will be extended?

Mr. CLAPP. That would not be a solid area, but it would be in the form of a large number of narrow strips. We would expect the owners of land to do a great deal of planting on their own initiative after the work was well started.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. How long would it be? Mr. CLAPP. Do you mean the length of each strip? Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I mean that project of 2,000,000 acres. Mr. ClApp. The areas planted would be distributed throughout the plains or prairie country where that sort of thing is needed and where we can plant successfully. It will be large numbers of small areas scattered over quite a large number of States.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. How long would it be from north to south? Mr. CLAPP. Probably the areas as a whole would extend from the Canadian border well down into Texas.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. About the same length as was originally contemplated?

Mr. ČLAPP. Yes; but it would be made up of relatively short strip plantings ranging anywhere from half a mile to 2 or 3 miles long, depending on the topography and conditions of that sort. We would expect that after the Federal Government had started the work, the private owners, after seeing the benefits, would do a great deal of it on their own account.

Mr. Bacon. Do all of the States have forestry departments?
Mr. Clapp. I think about 35 States have forestry departments now.

Mr. BACON. Are those forestry departments of the States engaged in considerable planting work?

Mr. CLAPP. Yes, sir.

AMOUNTS CONTRIBUTED BY STATES FOR FORESTRY PURPOSES

Mr. Bacon. Have you any record of the amount of money that the States are spending for forestry purposes each year?

Mr. CLAPP. Yes, sir; I think we can supply that.
Mr. BACON. I would like to have it for the record.
Mr. ClAPP. We will supply that.
(Statement requested is as follows:)

Funds budgeted by individual States for forestry work, fiscal year 1937

State

Total budget

(all forestry purposes, in

cluding fire protection and suppression)

Amount earmarked for cooperative distribution of forest planting stock to farm

ers, etc.

$2,400 &, 529

4, 565 3,500 4, 177 10, 435 6,931 2, 100

Alabama.
Arkansas.
California.
Colorado.
Connecticut.
Delaware.
Florida..
Georgia..
Idaho..
Illinois.
Indiana.
Iowa.
Kansas.
Kentucky
Louisiana.
Maine.
Maryland.
Massachusetts.
Michigan..
Minnesota
Mississippi.
Montana.
Nebraska.
Nevada.
New Hampshire.
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina.
North Dakota.
Ohio.
Oklahoma.
Oregon
Pennsylvania.
Rhode Island.
South Carolina.
South Dakota.
Tennessee.
Texas.
Utah

$33, 753

9, 654 263, 667

4, 565 81, 089 16, 460 137, 630

95, 300 149, 500

80, 250 114, 051 172, 300 12, 700 12,500 11, 622 166, 982

63, 727 364, 790 337, 000 347, 975

12, 880 73, 395 18, 700

211 73, 248 238, 725 1,013, 379

95, 567

6, 750 113, 153

25,000 103, 600 599,000

17, 360 62, 500 6, 982

16, 799

3,083 12, 700

5,600 11, 622 1, 240 9, 632 27,020 13,664

1, 155 5, 277 18, 700

[ocr errors]

12, 466 24, 201 225, 827

4. 935 8, 399 25, 850 4, 150 2,068 34, 330

7, 603

5,344

93, 255 31, 504

3, 100

« AnteriorContinuar »