REFORESTATION ACT AMENDMENTS COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Gilbert N. Haugen (chairman) presiding. STATEMENTS OF HON. WALTER F. LINEBERGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND MR. E. A. SHERMAN, ASSOCIATE FORESTER Mr. LINEBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I have two brief matters to bring to the attention of the committee, both regarding bills that have passed the Senate. Both of them have the indorsement of the department, and inasmuch as time is a very important element in the situation I would like to discuss them briefly and request that the committee report them out, so that we may have an opportunity to urge their passage before the end of the session. The first one is a bill for the establishment and maintenance of a forest experiment station in California and the surrounding States. Mr. TINCHER. Is there a House bill on the same subject? Mr. LINEBERGER. Yes. Now, my suggestion would be that the Senate bill be substituted for the House bill and reported. Last year we had some very devastating fires in the State of California, running over about 55,000 acres of land in the southern part of the State, near Los Angeles, in the San Bernardino Mountains, which gives the water supply for the great Los Angeles Basin, which is the richest agricultural and horticultural section for its area in the country. Now, we must get busy and start with the reforestation of that area at once, because that not only affects the question of fire control but it very seriously affects our underground water supply. This bill (S. 4156) passed the Senate several days ago. Mr. ASWELL. Does it carry an appropriation? Mr. LINEBERGER. No, sir; it is merely an authorization for $50,000. Now, there is another bill that I would like to bring to your attention. I see that neither the gentleman from California, Mr. Fredericks, who is the author of the bill in the House, H. R. 12332, nor Senator Shortridge, who was the original introducer of the bill in the Senate, is here, but Mr. Dodds, secretary to Senator Shortridge, is present, and he may desire to say something about it. Mr. Fredericks is sick and can not be present. This is a bill, "to amend section 2 of the act of June 7, 1924 (Public, 270) entitled, 'An act to provide for the protection of forest lands, for the reforestation of denuded areas, for the extension of national forests, and for other purposes.' in order to promote the continuous production of timber on lands chiefly suitable therefor." It simply extends this act by adding the following words, "or watersheds from which water is secured for domestic use or irrigation," so that section 2 as amended will read as follows: SEC. 2. If the Secretary of Agriculture shall find that the system and practice of forest-fire prevention and suppression provided by any State substantially promotes the objects described in the foregoing section, he is hereby authorized and directed, under such conditions as he may determine to be fair and equitable in each State, to cooperate with appropriate officials of each State, and through them with private and other agencies therein, in the protection of timbered and forest-producing lands from fire. In no case other than for preliminary investigations shall the amount expended by the Federal Government in any State during any fiscal year, under this section, exceed the amount expended by the State for the same purpose during the same fiscal year, including the expenditures of forest owners or operators which are required by State law or which are made in pursuance of the forest-protection system of the State under State supervision and for which in all cases the State renders satisfactory accounting. In the cooperation extended to the several States due consideration shall be given to the protection of watersheds of navigable streams, but such cooperation may, in the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture, be extended to any timbered or forest-producing lands, or watersheds from which water is secured for domestic use or irrigation, within the cooperating States. Colonel Greeley is here, and, as I said, both of these bills have the indorsement of the Department of Agriculture and of the Bureau of Forestry. I respectfully request that the bill S. 4224 be substituted for the bill H. R. 12332. Perhaps Mr. Dodd would like to say something regarding the matter. Mr. VOIGT. You say that both of these bills are recommended by the department? Mr. LINEBERGER. Yes; both are indorsed by the department. Mr. PURNELL. It is not possible for the agricultural experiment station of the State of California to undertake this work? Mr. SHERMAN. I think not. Mr. PURNELL. We have just passed the bill H. R. 157, which, I think, is being signed by the President to-day, authorizing a more complete endowment of the experiment stations and broadening the scope of their powers, and I was wondering whether by broadening the language we have made it possible for the experiment station in the State of California, with increased funds, to take care of this. Mr. LINEBERGER. This is a peculiar problem, and I think that the scope of their investigations is not comprehensive enough to take care of this emergency situation. We have $500,000,000 worth of property in Los Angeles County alone in a high state of cultivation. Immediate steps must be taken for the reforestation of that area or else the land will be washed away by floods and the water itself will seep beneath the ground and get away from us. Mr. PURNELL. I was wondering if the State experiment station could handle it. Mr. SHERMAN. Experimentation in forestry is being carried on by a number of regional forest-experiment stations. One has been authorized for Washington and Oregon, one for a part of the Rocky Mountain region, one in New England, and one in the South. We consider that the most important and most urgent need now is in California. Mr. PURNELL. Are these experiment stations operated independently of the State experiment stations? Mr. SHERMAN. They are conducted generally in cooperation with the States. In these cases we work in cooperation with the States. Mr. PURNELL. In this instance, will the State of California match the Federal appropriation or make a contribution toward the work? Mr. SHERMAN. The State of California is cooperating, and, as I understand it, they have already appropriated some funds. Mr. LINEBERGER. They have appropriated $10,000. Mr. TINCHER. What do these experiment stations do? Mr. SHERMAN. These forest experiment stations determine the best methods of revegetating those areas. Mr. PURNELL. It is largely a work of experimentation. Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. PURNELL. Evidently the department has given this matter consideration and indorses it. I am willing to vote to report it out and give them a chance to have it taken up at this session. Mr. SHERMAN. The department strongly indorses it. The CHAIRMAN. What do you have in mind doing if the bill should pass? Mr. SHERMAN. If the bill passes, we will determine how we can best plant up those areas that were burned over. Mr. TINCHER. Does this bill carry an appropriation? Mr. SHERMAN. The bill carries an authorization for an appropriation, which has been approved by the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. TINCHER. You would have to get it on the appropriation bill which will be up in the House to-day if you want to get any action. Mr. CLARKE. You say the Bureau of the Budget has approved this authorization? Mr. SHERMAN. The Bureau of the Budget has reported that the passage of this bill was not inconsistent with the fiscal policy of the Government. The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything else you desire to submit? Mr. SHERMAN. There is another bill (S. 4224) which is also indorsed by the department, and which is a measure that will assist in bringing immediate relief to that part of the country affected. It requires no additional appropriation. Mr. CLARKE. You say your solicitor has gone over this matter very carefully? Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, sir. (The clerk read the bill H. R. 4156.) Mr. RUBEY. I move that the committee report the bill favorably. (The motion was agreed to.) The clerk read the bill H. R. 4224.) Mr. RUBEY. I move that the committee report the bill favorably. (The motion was agreed to.) (There is printed as follows a letter from the Secretary of Agriculture on the bill reported.) Hon. GILBERT E. HAUGEN, Chairman Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives. FEBRUARY 25, 1925. DEAR MR. HAUGEN: I have your letter of February 18 inclosing copy of House bill 12332 and requesting my views on the measure. The bill proposes to amend section 2 of the act of June 7, 1924, entitled "An act to provide for the protection of forest lands, for the reforestation of denuded areas, for the extension of national forests. and for other purposes," in order to promote the continuous production of timber on lands chiefly suitable therefor. This bill is identical with Senate bill 4224 on which a report was made by me on February 6 to the chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. In that report I stated: "It is understood that the purpose of the amendment is to extend the provisions of the Clarke-McNary Act to apply to unnavigable streams and chaparral lands in the southwestern region of the United States. The waters in these streams have been appropriated and devoted to municipal water supply and other domestic uses and to irrigation and the development of hydroelectric power. The streams are not used in any way for navigation, and the waters thereof seldom find their way into navigable watercourses. Their watersheds, for the most part, support very little timber which can be used for sawmills. The principal forest growth is chaparral. This low forest cover grows very densely and provides an excellent conserving influence on the stream flow. Chaparral, however, while serving the same purposes in the southwestern part of the country that larger forest trees in other parts perform, can not be classed as timber within the purview of the Clake-McNary Act, although it is used very largely by the local communities for fuel wood. "The importance of these areas for watershed-protection purposes can scarcely be overestimated. Agricultural development of most intensive character and even urban and suburban settlements extend to the very foot of the mountains. The security of such settlements and the fertility and productiveness of such land depend upon reasonable control of the drainage from the immediately adjacent watersheds. The situation is somewhat imperiled through the inflammability of the brush cover, the difficulties of fire control, and the danger of floods and silting, which is tremendously increased on burned-over drainages. During the year 1924 the region experienced unusually heavy damage from fire. On the Angeles National Forest one unusually disastrous fire burned over 55,000 acres. The last extensive flood in this region was in 1916 when heavy rains during the month of January caused flood damage, according to official reports, in the three counties of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange, amounting to $1,525,445. Of this amount $850,000 was damage to agricultural lands. At the same time as a result of damage by the same floods in Los Angeles County, $10,000,000 in property values was written off the county assessment rolls. "To bring about more adequate protection of these brush-covered areas, about 90 per cent of which are in Government ownership, it is desirable to extend to them the fire-protection provisions of the Clarke-McNary Act, which in turn will result in the State and local authorities contributing an amount not less than that expended by the Federal Government. With the great private values at stake, it is understood that this cooperation will be readily forthcoming. "The department is in entire sympathy with the special purpose which the proposed amendment to the law is designed to serve. This bill is therefore preferable to S. 3922, which would amend the law in several of its basic provisions. The Clarke-McNary Act was passed only after long and careful study and negotiation whereby the various interests concerned were brought into harmonious agreement. I do not feel that it should be materially altered until such time as by actual experience real weaknesses are evidenced or opportunities for substantial improvement are clearly apparent. Furthermore, the general amendment proposed by S. 3922 are not necessary in order to accomplish the major objectives which it is understood the proponents of this measure have in view. Instead of broadening the entire measure in such a way as might cause real apprehension as to its effects upon the original purpose of the law or the extent to which it might cause a drain upon the Federal Treasury, it appears to this department much more desirable to amend the law in such a way as to permit these lands to be brought within the fire-protection provisions of the law as a clearly justifiable exception. This could be accomplished by the simple method of amending section 2 of the ClarkeMcNary law by adding after the words 'forest-producing lands' in the third sentence the words watersheds from which water is secured for domestic use or irrigation.' In other words, amending the law as proposed by S. 4224 introduced by Senator Shortridge as a substitute for S. 3922. |