RECONSTRUCTION OF GREENLEAF LAKE SPILLWAY

Mr. STIGLER. Turning to page 438 of the breakdown, I notice under subsection (a) of section 1, language pertaining to a decrease of $265,000, and then you have, "nonrecurring." I assume you have in mind there is a possibility of the incorporation of this entire amount of money which will not be used during this year?

Mr. DYKES. This means we eliminate it from the budget because it was added as a nonrecurring item last year. This job once done we do not have to repeat.

Mr. STIGLER. I did not want a misunderstanding about the decrease because it is being eliminated entirely.

Mr. DYKES. We drop it from next year's budget; that is what it does mean, of course.

Dr. BENNETT. It will be finished.

Mr. STIGLER. I hope so. But at the rate we are going now I have some doubts, Doctor.

Along that line, I wish you would state for the record where you are now, what the situation is. Have the invitations to bid been issued? Mr. DYKES. No, sir.

Mr. STIGLER. I would like to know why.

Mr. DYKES. The difficulty we ran into was finding a foundation under the spillway. We found very porous rock formations under the spillway which once dried out would cause a crumpling or sinking of the spillway itself. That was probably the reason for the failure of the original spillway. The failure to get the information about the soil material, and rock formation underneath the spillway site could lead to another failure. We have delayed issuing the invitations to bid on this job until we could submit the soil and rock samples under the site of the spillway to the laboratories for analysis in order that we may determine exactly what we will have to do to put in this new one so it will stay there.

Mr. STIGLER. It is my understanding that the analysis has been returned from the laboratories. Is that correct?

Mr. DYKES. I believe the samples have been to the laboratory and the report returned. The invitation is now being put in final form for issuing in this coming month.

Mr. STIGLER. Have you set a specific date in this coming month? Mr. DYKES. No, sir; we have not.

Mr. STIGLER. Would you forecast at this time some definite date when you propose to send out invitations to bid?

Mr. DYKES. I prefer not to, Mr. Stigler.

Mr. STIGLER. For any special reason?

Mr. DYKES. I simply do not know when we can get invitations out. We will put them out at the very earliest possible moment.

Mr. STIGLER. That answer is not very satisfactory. Since this item was appropriated I have called you many times, Mr. Dykes, urging you to expedite the letting of this contract. There has been too much delay. The particular reason I am so vitally and deeply interested in this project is that it furnishes the sole water supply for Camp Gruber, which may be utilized in the future. As to when that may be, no one knows at this particular time. But we may have spring floods pretty soon and if by chance one of these flash floods should come, the water supply may be lost entirely. So I

think we should get started on the work immediately and complete the project before anything like that happens because I think both of us know if the spillway did break, it would cost not only this amount of money but three or four times that much.

Dr. BENNETT. Let us do what we can to speed the thing along. Mr. DYKES. We have been doing that; Mr. Stigler has been in touch with us almost constantly since we got this appropriation, Dr. Bennett, and we have pushed the boys along. But we simply hit a snag on finding that we had nothing we could depend on for support for the spillway. We have a serious job of determining exactly what to do-whether we are going to have to pump concrete or mud under the spillway or whether we will have to cut the spillway down to solid rock. Mr. Stigler wants this job done right just as we do, and we think we are wise to delay issuing invitations to bid until we know what it takes to do the job.

Mr. STIGLER. Each day that goes by, the cost of material goes up. It is very alarming to me. That is another reason I am so anxious to have work expedited and contracts let as soon as possible.

Mr. DYKES. Our staff is thoroughly aware of that; we are watching that index of construction costs. We know what delays mean but at the same time we have to know what the contractor has to do in order to put a spillway there that will hold

Mr. WHITTEN. The money was made available last September and it is available for the current fiscal year only. You have got to let the contract by the 1st of July, as I understand it.

Mr. DYKES. That is right. We intend to issue the invitations to bid in March and

Mr. STIGLER. You told me you were going to issue them in February Mr. DYKES. I thought we were going to issue them last December, but that was before we found out what we had under that spillway. Mr. STIGLER. I hope it can be done at the earliest possible date.

I want to talk just a few minutes about your budget chart for your regional office. This is at Fort Worth under Mr. Merrill, I believe. After the appropriation bill was passed last year and visitations over my district I had occasion to talk with some members of soil conservation districts, not Government employees but those who were elected to the place, and they were complaining about the discrimination of funds to Oklahoma with reference to other States. Do you know anything about that?

Mr. DYKES. Sure I do.

Mr. STIGLER. I would like for you to elucidate on that a little bit. Mr. DYKES. Oklahoma is the one State in region 4 that has never received less than its formula share of the funds, and therefore there has been no discrimination against the State of Oklahoma with regard to the allocation of funds.

Mr. STIGLER. I have the information that the funds for 1951 for Oklahoma, the regular SCS, was $1,771,103 on flood control; $1,025,072, land utilization, and a total of $2,838,175. Now, then, the budget chart from the regional office shows the following for Oklahoma: Regular SCS, $1,840,786; flood control, $1,000,000; works improvement, $1,539,000; two flood control surveys, $82,165; land utilization, so much; total, $3,270,171, which leaves a net difference of $432,196. I would like to know which is right.

Mr. DORNY. There are the indirect charges of cartographic expense and the supply center and regional office expenses that we have to distribute to the States.

Mr. DYKES. Part of our staff in our Washington office has to be charged to Oklahoma, Mr. Stigler. In other words, the work is done out there in Oklahoma, and in the other States, Mr. Stigler. We use 2.15 percent of our funds here in Washington and a proportionate share of it is assigned to Oklahoma.

Mr. STIGLER. You are saying that after the money is allocated to the different regions, you take your share for the Washington office? Mr. DYKES. We have to charge every bit of Washington expense against work on the land. We separate the office costs and charge the cost of all those above the field activity level back to the work in the various States in proportion to field level expenditures.

FUNDS BY LEVEL OF ORGANIZATION

Mr. WHITTEN. In connection with this personnel information that I asked for, I would like for you to show the money expended, too. Mr. DYKES. We will be glad to show that, sir. (The information requested follows:)

Comparison of obligations by level of organization-All funds

1 Approximately one-half of this amount (in 1948, 1949, 1950, and 1951) is program expense and one-half administrative expense (executive direction and management services) as defined by the Department in Budget and Finance Circular 883, dated Mar. 20, 1947.

NOTE.-Amounts for 1948, 1949, 1950, and 1951 include additional costs due to the various pay acts which have increased salary rates approximately 35 to 40 percent. For comparability the 1942 "Total indirect" figure should be increased by approximately $2,250,000 and the "Net total obligations" figure by approxi mately $11,100,000 for the salary increases above.

Mr. STIGLER. What formula do you use in allocating this money to these regions?

Mr. DYKES. Of course, as near as we can, Mr. Stigler, we put it on the basis of need. That has not always been possible in recent years due to the fact that additional funds have been ear-marked for new soil conservation districts. We have alloted the funds on that basis. We have sent the new money to those States where the new districts were created. All of the State of Oklahoma except Kingfisher County and parts of one or two of the Panhandle counties is in soil conservation districts now. It has not been possible to give additional funds to Oklahoma when you gentlemen have appropriated the additional funds for new districts. We sent the new funds to California and Oregon and Minnesota and places where the districts have been newly created.

Mr. STIGLER. Do not misunderstand me. We appreciate all we get and certainly ask for no special consideration. But after these complaints were made to me by some members of my soil conservation districts, I felt that I should inquire into the operation. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

SOIL CONSERVATION RESEARCH

Mr. WHITTEN. Turning then to your research, how much in funds are you requesting next year for research?

Mr. DYKES. Well, actually there is no change despite the change in the form of the request, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITTEN. What was the total last year and what is it this year? Mr. DYKES. This current year is estimated at $1,490,600 and the next year at $1,489,000, essentially the same thing-I think there is about a $1,600 difference.

Mr. WHITTEN. In view of the present financial situation facing the Nation and due to the fact that the farmers are going to be very busy trying to meet their commitments under this drive of the war effort, is it essential to carry on research at the same level as you did last year. Or could that stand some reduction?

Mr. DYKES. New districts have come in despite the mobilization effort. That means additional problems to be dealt with in areas where we have little or no research information at the present time. Demands for the research information are not decreasing as a result of the emergency situation.

Dr. BENNETT. Problems have been solved, like the one in the Imperial Valley. We are through with research there now and it is in the hands of operations people. But there are other parts of California in which we are not sure that we have the solution to the problems of drainage and the accumulation of silt. The problems are not the same as those in the Imperial Valley and they need attention. There is a water conservation problem in Bakersfield on which we are working. We hope to save the water that is being wasted by being allowed to run out into the Pacific Ocean from the melting snow in the Sierras. Much of this water could be put into the ground so that we could bring the water table up higher and could help some of those cotton producers who cannot afford to pump up water from a depth of 200 feet. It is awfully expensive when they have to lift water 50 feet, and when you have to lift it 200 feet, some of those people have gone out of business. We are going right ahead with our research program there. Instead of operating on small plots with 150 square feet in them, as we have been operating before, we are seeing how this thing operates on a field scale, in six-acre plots. It is going to be 3 or 4 years before we finish that job.

Then there is the matter of stubble mulch, which is the saving of a residue crop like wheat stubble. The results of this practice vary enormously throughout the United States with the rainfall and the type of agriculture. So we just practically have to take area by area and find out whether or not we are going to reduce the yield or whether it is going to increase the yields. If there is too much reduction, the farmer is not going to adopt it.

Mr. WHITTEN. What is going to be your situation this year with regard to personnel? It looks like the manpower barrel is going to be worked over pretty closely by the demands of the military and