ALASKA, 1955 SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1955 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:20 a. m., in the community hall, Hon. Leo W. O'Brien (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. O'BRIEN. The hearing will come to order. This particular hearing might be called Reunion in Palmer. It is nice to meet some of the members of the subcommittee again. I would like to explain to the witnesses that we have a very difficult time schedule and we would like very much to complete the hearing in an hour if we could manage it. We do not want to cut anybody short, but if the earlier witnesses would keep in mind that there will be some to follow and try to be as brief as possible, we, in turn, will keep our questioning to a minimum, I am very sure. Dr. Taylor, you are going to handle the questions for the committee. I believe we have not touched very much so far on agriculture, and this seems to be an ideal place to do it. In fact, we had a little tour on the way here and we saw some of the farms and some of the problems, and I would hope that at least one of the witnesses discussing agriculture might give us the benefit of his or her views on the erosion problem, which seems to be quite serious. On my immediate right is the Congresswoman from Idaho, Mrs. Pfost. Of course, you all know Delegate Bartlett. At my extreme left is our engineering consultant, Sid McFarland, and Dr. Taylor, our consultant, who will serve as both counsel and consultant this morning. I want to congratulate you upon your new law degree. We have two missing members, not missing, visiting. Congressman Utt of California and Congressman Dawson of Utah have gone to look at the power project and I hope they will be back before the hearing ends, but they were very much interested in that, having joined with the reset of us in having provided a substantial sum of money for that project. I might say for the record I had an opportunity to visit this this morning, and while there may be controversy over whether the cost was more than we anticipated, I am sure that no one who saw Eklutna could question the tremendous need and the tremendous value of it. I was impressed by some figures that showed that the consumption since January 6 has gone up steadily right through the summer months, and for the week ended last Saturday I believe it was approximately 214 million kilowatts, which is more than double what it was January 6. So we will be very happy to report to Congress that the demand for power was fully justified in this area. Dr. Taylor, if you will proceed to call the first witness. Mr. TAYLOR. The first witness we have listed is Don L. Irwin, to be followed by Jim Wilson and Allan Mick. It does not matter to us which one of these gentlemen will appear first. Whoever feels he has the background information for us would be the best witness to appear first because we feel a bit of background is most necessary. So whichever one of you people wish to testify first. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. O'BRIEN. Doctor, would you give your full name and background for the benefit of the record? STATEMENT OF ALLAN H. MICK, DIRECTOR OF EXTENSION, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA Mr. MICK. I am Allan H. Mick, director of extension for the University of Alaska. Alaska's agricultural extension service is a department of the University of Alaska, the Territory's land-grant college. It conforms to the pattern of the land-grant extension program that has evolved in the United States during the past 45 years. Although the university now receives its full quota of funds under the amended Smith-Lever Act, it is appropriate to point out that these funds are dispersed to the States and Territories on a formula that does not take into account discrepancies in costs of operation. Operational costs do not greatly differ among the States and the formula is thus satisfactory to nearly all land-grant colleges. But Federal grantsin-aid do not stretch very far in Alaska. Nor does it appear possible the Territory itself will pay for a large education program designed primarily for its rural inhabitants, because Alaska is being developed primarily by an industrial rather than by an agrarian society. Under existing laws it is extremely unlikely that agriculture will ever have a voice in the Territorial legislature. Continued support of agricultural extension thus depends primarily upon Alaska's urban population and its program must be designed to satisfy urban needs. The University of Alaska's extension service therefore finds itself unable to cope with the problems of low-income farm groups. Nor has it been able to enter the field now being vacated by the Alaska Native Service. Alaska's native population is an important resource. But because their culture is in a state of transition, their living standards are extremely poor. In many places, their existence poses acute welfare and health problems. Yet they are surrounded by plenty. Although the Territory possesses a tremendous food producing potential, full exploitation of which would contribute markedly to the economic development of the country, this potential must be realized through the efforts of the homesteader. Alaska's homesteaders and native population are valuable assets. I therefore urge that in planning any national program concerning low-income farmers and other rural people, the Territory of Alaska be given full consideration. The agricultural status of the Territory from the standpoint of commercial food production is briefly summarized as follows: 1. The Territory has about 150 full-time commercial farmers. Their net farm income per year averages between $4,500 and $5,000. As many as 30 of this group may have net farm incomes of $10,000 or more. These and other farm incomes should be reduced by a third to roughly compare with stateside incomes. This is to compensate for higher prices and living costs in Alaska. By stateside standards then, at least half of these 150 full-time farmers should be classed in the low-income group. 2. There are perhaps 250 part-time farmers with some agricultural produce for sale say $250 or more yearly. Included in this group are (a) homesteaders with only a few acres in cultivation or (b) part-time farmers with regular outside employment. Part-time farmers or homesteaders who depend largely on farming usually have incomes of less than $2,000 per year including both farm and off-farm earnings. Those part-time farmers who have regular off-farm employment enjoy total net incomes of $5,000 to $6,000 or more; many of them cannot be regarded as low-income families. However, for both (1) and (2) the farm business is not of adequate size to return a reasonable family living and pay for the development of a commercial farm. 3. The largest group of potential farmers is made up of rural residents and homesteaders. This group includes 500 to 800 families, each owning from 40 to 160 uncleared acres with little or no commercial production from the land. Many of these rural residents have off-farm employment and some have reasonable incomes. Homesteaders in the early stages of farm development are included here. Many subsist on savings or borrowed funds. In most cases their total annual income-farm plus nonfarm--is less than $1,000 a year. A majority of this group do not have enough cleared land, farm improvements, and machinery for a commercial family farm. In summary, Alaska has 800 to 1,200 families that may be classified as farmers or potential farmers. From 80 to 90 percent have low annual farm incomes as compared to commercial farmers in the States. As a rule of thumb for the Territory, anything less than $4,000 should be considered a low income. Most of thes, farmers are in the early stages of farm development and capital accumulation. At this stage of development they are not of adequate size to pay off farm indebtedness, provide capital improvements, and provide the farm family with a reasonable living standard. The native population of Alaska constitutes the largest group of low-income rural families. They are excluded from the above esti mates. Although the population of Alaska's mainland annually spends perhaps $40 million for food that might be grown in the Territory, only about $7 million worth is actually raised here. An orderly expansion of the Territory's food-growing industry to perhaps 3 or 4 times its present size in the course of the next decade offers great promise of contributing a much-needed stability to its present economy. This expansion will not only supply more food but will also provide markets for other industries now in prospect. But this growth will probably not occur in Alaska's current economic atmos phere. In our modern day and age an individual farm family cannot assume the full risk of hewing productive land out of the wilderness. The average homesteader does not possess large capital resources now required for commercial farming. It is highly unrealistic to expect a homesteader to build in a decade a farm that required three generations of effort in our grandfather's time. It is therefore urged that the Federal Government recognize its responsibilities in creating a favorable economic environment in which agricultural growth can take place. It is also urged that a coordinated rural development program be jointly undertaken by the appropriate agricultural and interior agencies to provide: 1. More ample credit for the enlargement of existing farms into efficient family-size units. Long-term credit for land clearing will provide an adequate feed base in the dairy and livestock industries, will reduce farm costs, improve family income, and ultimately be expressed in lower-consumer prices. 2. More cropland for new farms through: (a) Extending and improving access roads into potential farm areas. (b) Expediting cadastral surveys to open more good farmlands. (c) Removing agricultural land in Alaska from the provisions of the present homestead law and, instead, offering such lands for sale under a conditional deed. It is suggested that a fairly rapid but controlled expansion of agricultural production could be attained by offering for purchase partially developed farm units on which the feed-base acreage had already been cleared. 3. A stepped-up research effort to devise improved farm management practices and crop varieties especially adapted to subarctic agriculture. 4. Additional grants-in-aid to enlarge educational programs for Alaska's rural people. This is an acute need because Alaska's new farmers will come largely from industrial rather than rural society. Nor can the Territory's native people be overlooked. 5. An expansion of work now conducted by the Soil Conservation. Service, Farmers' Home Administration, REA and RTA, ACP, and the Bureau of Reclamation. That concludes my formal presentation. Mrs. Prost. Dr. Mick, what type of crops do you grow here in the Matanuska Valley? Mr. MICK. Our agricultural industry is based upon two major cash crops. Of these, the greatest and that with the most potential for development is the production of milk. Potatoes are a very important cash crop and constitute at the present time about half the total cash income to Alaska farmers. Mrs. PrOST. Alfalfa cannot be grown successfully here. Mr. MICK. That is correct. Although our climate is no more severe than the climate in your home State or Montana or the Dakotas where alfalfa can be successfully grown, we have never had any success in growing it. For a reason unknown it winterkills. Our primary forage at the present time is a mixture of silage or hay, and we are encouraging perennial broom grass as a forage grass. Mrs. Prost. You are able to grow grain crops in the valley? Mr. MICK. That is right, although a considerable portion of grain concentrates are imported. We haven't sufficient acreage to grow |