f ■ 



3 

 333. 7:^ 



STATE DOCUMEHiS 



reai 



c 



3 0864 1004 5754 1 



c re s 



JANUARY-FEBRUARY. 1965 ^'^CH^ 

 PRESIIENT JOHNSON'S BUSCET CALLS FOR 

 REVOLVING FUND FOR SOIL CCNSERVATION SERVICE, 

 REPJCTION IN ACP FUNCB ^ 



Soil & Water Conservation mstricts throughout 

 the United States face a serious cutback in 

 assistance to their Soil and Water Conservation 

 programs if President Johnson's proposals to 

 set up a $20 million revolving fund and reduce 

 ACP cost sharing payments by $100 million are 

 carried out. 



PRESIIENT SEZ: 



Having just returned from the National Conven- 

 tion in Portland, Oregon, I can report that there 

 were supervisors and representatives from U9 

 states and Puerto Rico, In all, some 1700 people 

 The interest in all phases of soil & water consei^ 

 •vation was high, but two items were of great con- 

 cern to all present. These were: 1) the proposed 

 cuts in federal appropriations for soil Sc water 

 conservation districts. 2) A new "thing" called 

 a revolving fund. In this, the Bureau of the 

 Budget recommends that Congress enact legislation 

 to authorize a revolving fund through which Soil 

 & Water Conservation Districts farmers and rancheds 

 and other landowners would pay the Federal Govern- 

 ment a part of the cost of technical assistance 

 used in planning and applying soil & water conser 

 vation practices on the land. The term revolving 

 fund is just fancy words; there would be nothing 

 to revolve. It will simply cost farmers, ranchers 

 and other landowners an estimated $20,000,000 per 

 year. Space will not permit much comment here, 

 but it is obvious that if this policy is adopted 

 it will seriously curtail soil & water conserva- 

 tion practices on private land. It also reverses 

 a policy adopted by the Congress in 1935. Propo- 

 sals were made and sent to all members of Congresi 

 protesting these moves. 



It was a privilege to meet the National Presi- 

 dent, Marion S. Monk, a very able man, and to sit 

 in on the executive council meeting with Area Vic( 

 President Oscar Hippe. Oscar has done a fine lot 

 of hard work with the Great Plains program and 

 deserves our thanks and appreciation. \Ie were 

 also honored in Montana by having Mrs. Oscar 

 Hippe elected as National Woman's Auxiliary 

 President. 



There were approximately 12 supervisors and 

 representatives from Montana, including State 

 Vice President Ralph Briggs, State Executive 

 Secretary, Ole Ueland, and State Conservationist 

 Herschell Hurd and wife. 



Furthermore, this is a real challenge to 

 districts to convince the President, the 

 Congress, and fellow countrymen that this action 

 is not wise, that it would slow down a widely 

 accepted conservation program that has been 

 successful in making our country bountiful and 

 rich, that with the opportunities so great to 

 further conserve and enrich our soil and water, 

 more assistance, not less, is needed. 



Public assistance is always needed to provide 

 educational, technical, and cost sharing to the 

 occupiers of the land so that the results of 

 science and research can be promoted and applied. 

 This is a public responsibility, 



SWCD Supervisors solicit eveiyone to write 

 letters to the congressmen. Following are some 

 reasons for doing this: 



1, It would slow down the soil and water con- 

 servation effort on the privately owned lands in 

 America. It would result in an estimated de- 

 crease of ho to 50 percent in the application of 

 conservation practices on the land and reduce 

 the quality of practices applied. 



There is a need to increase our efforts in the 

 conservation of soil suid water. The conservation 

 effort demands a public effort as well as contrt- 

 butions made by land owners and occupiers. The 

 farmer cannot be expected to make all of the 

 contribution to conservation of resources, 'The 

 benefits are long lasting and will help the well 

 being of urban people for many generations to 

 come, 



2. It would slow up the effort to reduce water 

 pollution. The conservation needs inventory 

 shows that erosion is still the dominant problem 

 on tv?o-thirds of the nation's land area. Soil 



