period of 30 days before Federal participation in the works of improvement could begin. The 89th Congress did not act on the proposal. The same proposal was again transmitted on January 17, 1967, for consideration by the 90th Congress.

The Department of Agriculture has recommended early enactment of this proposed legislation so that authorization of future watershed protection projects can proceed on an orderly basis. Any extended delay in processing work plans may do irreparable harm to the popular and effective PL-83-566 watershed program.

Until the above mentioned provisions of the Act are clarified, we have no alternative but to hold the work plans.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN A. BAKER,
Assistant Secretary.

Mr. WAMPLER. If you will recall, Mr. Chairman, I served as a member of the Committee on Agriculture during the 83d Congress during which time the committee and the Congress approved a bill that led to the enactment of Public Law 566.

I think that you will further recall that that bill had wide bipartisan support, and when I returned as a member of the 90th Congress, I was somewhat appalled to find that the President and the Bureau of the Budget now raise objection to section 2 of the bill which sets forth certain procedures to be followed in approving work plans for watersheds. And it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the position of the President and the Bureau of the Budget represents an unwarranted encroachment on the authority of the legislative branch of Govern

ment.

I just simply want to state that I think that this action is ill advised. I think it is going to destroy what has been a very profitable and very workable program. I believe that this project I have been inquiring about, and others as well, are now gathering dust on the shelves of the Department of Agriculture and that the administration is taking a very ill-advised position.

I want the record to show that that is my position and I believe that it is the position of the Congress, and one could very well say, on the basis of this attitude on the part of the administration, that every project this committee has approved through the years is an unconstitutional act. I hope that this matter can be resolved and that the projects can be heard on their merits and given an expeditious hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that all of the members of the committeeI think that all of the people who are interested in soil conservation over the Nation-all members-have been somewhat appalled by that fact, too. We carried on a rather vigorous discussion on it last year. The then chairman of the committee and the then vice chairman met with the Attorney General and the Director of the Budget in regard to this on two occasions last year.

We were not convinced by the arguments that were presented by those that were then in authority.

The present chairman has asked for a statement of facts about where these outstanding projects are at the present time and has not yet received an answer.

It was some weeks ago that I requested such a reply in writing. We are still seeking to get advice as to just where these projects are. I do not know whether they are in the Department of Agriculture or whether they are in the Bureau of the Budget. I do not know who is

holding them up. I know that a number of projects, in my judgment, should be before this committee today. And I can assure you that, so far as I as Chairman can do, I will do everything I can to find out about that and to try to work out some kind of compromise.

I realize and recognize that there has been a constitutional argument going on for a long time. It did not start with the present session. It started in the Eisenhower administration, to be very frank about it—a constitutional question concerning this. Personally, I have not been impressed with that argument. They have made the same argument to Congress before. I think that we should try to resolve it because, to me, they are splitting hairs or arguing how many angels you can put on the point of a pin, but it is there. We do have it. We do have to recognize that we will not get any more progress until we do solve this matter.

Last year, they finally sent up some, when we did not have adequate time to give them the consideration that they should have been given. They have sent up eight this morning, and we have eight more scheduled for tomorrow morning.

Those are, so far as I know, all that are presently scheduled to come before the Congress.

I do want you to know that you are not a lone voice crying in the wilderness. We have been familiar with this problem for some time.

Mr. WAMPLER. I am aware of the chairman's interest in this program, and I think that I can say, without fear of contradiction, that there is no Member of Congress who is more knowledgeable of this work and the benefits of this act than the chairman of this committee.

I want to pledge the chairman my support in any way that I can to get this question resolved as quickly as possible. I feel that there are others besides myself who have project applications that are being denied a hearing on the merits, simply because of this constitutional impasse. I hope that it can be resolved at the earliest possible date. The CHAIRMAN. We hope so, too.

Mr. WAMPLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is nothing further, the committee will stand

in recess.

Mrs. HANNAH (subcommittee clerk). We do have a meeting this afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me announce that there will be an open hearing by the Tobacco Subcommittee at 3 p.m. today, in room 1302. That is just across the hall. They have a matter of considerable importance, H.R. 273 and H.R. 274.

The subcommittee will meet at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., a recess was taken until 10 a.m., Thursday, February 16, 1967.)

WATERSHED PROJECTS

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1967

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND CREDIT

OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m., in room 1305, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C., Hon. W. R Poage (chairman) presiding.

Present: Representatives Poage, Gathings, Stubblefield, Jones of North Carolina, Dole, and Goodling.

Also present: Representative Hansen; Martha Hannah, subcommittee clerk; Hyde H. Murray, assistant counsel; Fowler C. West, assistant staff consultant.

Hollis R. Williams, Deputy Administrator for Watersheds; Harold O. Ogrosky, Acting Assistant Deputy Administrator, Watershed Planning; Clyde W. Graham, Director, Watershed Planning Division; William A. Weld, Assistant Director, Watershed Planning Division, and R. Neil Lane, Chief, Projects Branch, Watershed Planning Division, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order.

The first project is that of the Little Auglaize River in Ohio, will be presented for the Department by Mr. Weld.

We will ask the Department to explain the projects, and we will then be glad to hear from any of our visitors who are interested in the project.

LITTLE AUGLAIZE RIVER WATERSHED, OHIO; MIDDLE BRANCH OF THE LITTLE AUGLAIZE RIVER WATERSHED, OHIO; PRAIRIE-HOAGLIN BRANCH OF THE LITTLE AUGLAIZE RIVER WATERSHED, OHIO

PRAIRIE-HOAGLIN BRANCH OF THE LITTLE AUGLAIZE RIVER WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and location: 67,840 acres in Paulding and Van Wert Counties.
Tributary to: Maumee River, Lake Erie, St. Lawrence River.

Sponsors: Maumee Watershed Conservancy District; Paulding and Van Wert Soil and Water Conservation Districts.

Number of farms : 485.

Size of farms: About 93 acres average.

Purposes: Watershed protection, flood prevention and drainage.

Principle measures: Soil conservation practices on farms; and structural measures consisting of 59.9 miles of stream channel improvement.

Annual benefits:

Benefit-cost ratio: 3.2 to 1.0. With secondary benefits excluded the benefit-cost ratio is 2.9 to 1.0.

Area benefited: 19,565 acres.

Number of beneficiaries: Owners and operators of approximately 400 farms. Project costs:

1 This is primarily the cost of applying land treatment measures by landowners. Cost sharing from Federal funds appropriated for the agricultural conservation program may be available if included in the county program developed each year in consideration of approved State and National programs and the annual authorization by the Congress.

2 Consisting of construction costs for drainage, $135,374; land, easements, and rights-of-way, $77,961; administration of contracts, $37,324.

3 The value of measures already installed ($383,198) increases this to 42 percent.

Prorated P.L. 566 structural cost per acre benefited: $65.

Carrying out the project: The Maumee Watershed Conservancy District assumes all local responsibilities for installation, operation and maintenance of the structural measures.

The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $19,440.

MIDDLE BRANCH OF THE LITTLE AUGLAIZE RIVER WATERSHED WORK PLAN Size and location : 65,920 acres in Paulding and Van Wert Counties. Tributary to: Maumee River, Lake Erie, St. Lawrence River.

Sponsors: Maumee Watershed Conservancy District; the Paulding and Van Wert Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and the City of Van Wert, Ohio. Total watershed land use:

Purposes: Watershed protection, Flood Prevention and Drainage.

Principal measures: Soil conservation practices on farms; and structural measures consisting of 57.2 miles of stream channel improvement.