ABSTRACT AN EVALUATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM’S PERFORMANCE IN FULFILLING PROGRAM AND POLITICAL OBJECTIVES by K. William Easter Little is known concerning an optimum expenditure plan for government programs such as the Agricultural Con- servation Program (ACP). Approximately 250 million dollars is spent annually through ACP but the effectiveness of these expenditures is unknown. There is a definite question as to what ACP is achieving: Does it bring about conservation of land resources or does it cause overproduction and a misallo— cation of resources? To answer these and other questions, an estimate of ACP's past performance is needed so more efficient programs can be devised; that is, ones achieving a greater quantity for a given cost, or obtaining a Specific quantity at a lower cost. Given this problem situation, the thesis objectives are: (1) to obtain a better perSpective of ACP and to deter- mine its objectives, (2) to obtain an understanding of ACP politics and administration as well as the different groups involved in each, (3) to compare ACP‘s past performance and accomplishments with the objectives and determine if the K. William Easter same could have been accomplished at a lower cost and (4) to suggest guidelines for improving ACP‘s performance. The analysis of politics and the administrative structure influencing ACP policy Showsa.multitude of objec- tives have been imposed on the program and policy formula- tion has passed from the Secretary of Agriculture to the appropriation subcommittees. At the state and county level of administration, the formula for allocating funds is shown to promote their use in any way possible,with little regard for program objectives. This, along with conflicts between objectives, helps push those administering ACP into develop- ing alternative objectives. The distribution of payments from 1946-63 shows a wide difference between regions of the United States. For example, in all but two of the Western states, ACP used over 50 percent of its payments to improve irrigation systems, while in the Midwestern and Lake states a high prOportion went for drainage and minerals. In the Plains states a high prOportion of payments was used for temporary practices and in all but two of the Eastern states over 50 percent went for minerals. The analysis of practice adoption in relation to cost-share payments indicates the same practice use could have been obtained at a lower cost. First, the program has increased practice adoption but not without making payments K. William Easter to farmers who would have applied the practice without assistance. Second, the response of six practices in Mich- igan to alterationsijlcost—shares, measured by a ”reSponse elasticity," shows a significant difference among practices. This indicates that by shifting ACP funds among practices a larger acreage could be covered at the same expenditure. Finally, the promotion of objectives such as income support and aid to small farmers increases the cost of obtaining a given practice adoption. If fulfillment of program objectives is desired,a number of changes in ACP's institutional structure should be considered. Payments should be limited on certain prac— tices to once per farmer or reduced after initial practice adoption. Provisions should be developed allowing ACP to make higher payments to certain farmers in problem areas without having to offer them to all farmers. There should be a further use of the package practice approach,including the elimination of practices contributing very little to conservation or land-use adjustment and using such practices only as part of another with high land-use adjustment or conservation benefits. Finally, the formula for allocating funds should be changed to put major emphasis on how funds have been used. Without these changes, a substantial prOpor- tion of ACP‘s appr0priations will continue to be Spent in a manner not meeting program objectives. AN EVALUATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM‘S PERFORMANCE IN FULFILLING PROGRAM AND POLITICAL OBJECTIVES By K,'William Easter A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Agricultural Economics 1966 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to extend his appreciation to Dr. A. Allen Schmid for his stimulating ideas and advice while serving as Guidance Committee Chairman. Appreciation is also eXpressed to Dr. Dale E. Hathaway, who served on the author‘s Guidance Committee and filled in as Chairman while Dr. Schmid was on a year's leave. Thanks to Dr. Glenn Johnson for reading the thesis and offering constructive criticism,and to the remaining two members of the author‘s Guidance Committee, Dr. J. H. Stapleton and Dr. B. P. Pesek, who helped design the author‘s program of study. Special thanks are extended to the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation personnel, who assisted in providing historical background material and information concerning the Agricultural Conservation Program's state and local administration. The author wishes to eXpress his appreciation to the Department of Agricultural Economics of Michigan State University for making this study possible. Thanks goes to Mrs. Wylie Rutherford, who did such a fine job of typing the manuscript and to Mrs. John Goodwin for processing the thesis. Finally,the author eXpresses his greatest apprecia- tion to his wife Carolyn and son Nate for their understand- ing and encouragement during the graduate program. Carolyn typed both rough drafts of the thesis and helped make the author‘s English legible. But,any errors in this thesis remain the sole responsibility of the author° ii Chapter II. III. IV. VI. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . Problem Situation Objectives . . Method of Analysis STUDIES EVALUATING SOIL CONSERVATION AND ACP The Model . Review of Soil Conservation Studies Studies of ACP PROGRAM OBJECTIVES Conservation Becomes Major Objectives New Administration The New Democratic Administration Summary NATIONAL ACP POLICY FORMULATION ACP Policy Process Objectives of the Policy Making Bodies PrOSpects for the Future STATE AND COUNTY POLICY FORMULATION The Policy Making Bodies Policy Formulation Objectives . Program Changes Summary . . . . PERFORMANCE AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF PAYMENTS ACP Policy (1946-64) Distribution of Funds iii Page l-‘ mcnk> 10 12 14 24 30 34 38 45 46 48 48 6O 67 69 69 72 76 78 81 83 86 88 Chapter United States State Programs California Utah North Dakota Texas Iowa . Michigan New York Virginia Georgia Summary VII. MINIMIZING ACP COSTS Economic Framework . Increasing Practice Use Without Subsidizing Normal Farming Practices Minimizing the Cost-Share Underground Drainage Open Drainage Forestry Permanent Vegetative Cover Temporary Cover Sod Waterway . Agricultural Lime Summary . . Fulfilling Alternative Objectives Small Farmer Aid . . . Income Support . Increased Participation Summary VIII. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Improved Performance Research on Conservation Programs BIBLIOGRAPHY . iv Page 94 100 101 108 115 121 127 134 142 148 156 162 166 167 171 180 185 187 188 192 198 199 200 202 203 203 207 209 212 214 218 224 227 Table 10. ll. 12. LIST OF TABLES Composition of the Subcommittee on Agricul- ture and Related Agencies of the Senate Committee on ApprOpriations . . . . Composition of the Subcommittee on Agricul- ture and Related Agencies of the House Committee on ApprOpriations Composition of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry Composition of the House Committee on Agriculture Practice classification ACP practices grouped by ability to fulfill objectives in the United States (1946—63). The proportion (fl? ACP payments used for minerals and temporary practices in the United States {1946—63) ACP practices grouped by ability to fulfill objectives, California (1946-63) The proportion of ACP payments used for minerals and temporary practices, California (1946-63) ACP practices grouped by ability to fulfill objectives, Utah (1946—63) . . The proportion of ACP payments used for minerals and temporary practices, Utah (1946-63) ACP practices grouped by ability to fulfill objectives, North Dakota (1946-63) Page 51 52 57 58 92 95 97 102 104 109 110 116 Table 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. The proportion of ACP payments used minerals and temporary practices, North Dakota (1946—63) ACP practices grouped by ability to objectives, Texas (1946—63) The prOportion of ACP payments used minerals and temporary practices, (1946—63) ACP practices grouped by ability to objectives, Iowa (1946-63) The proportion of ACP payments used minerals and temporary practices, (1946-63) ACP practices grouped by ability to objectives, Michigan (1946-63) The proportion of ACP payments used minerals and temporary practices, (1946-63) The pr0portion of ACP payments used minerals and temporary practices, New York (1946-63) for fulfill for Texas fulfill for Iowa fulfill for Michigan for ACP payments grouped by ability to fulfill objectives, New York (1946-63) The proportion of ACP payments used minerals and temporary practices, Virginia (1946-63) ACP practices grouped by ability to objectives, Virginia (1946-63) The proportion of ACP payments used minerals and temporary practices, Georgia (1946—63) ACP practices grouped by ability to objectives, Georgia (1946-63) vi for fulfill for fulfill Page 118 122 124 128 130 135 136 143 144 149 151 157 158 Table 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Total United States agricultural lime sales not subsidized by ACP (1935—62) ACP cost-share and quantity used of selected practices in the total United States and Michigan (1946—63) ACP cost-share and quantity used of selected practices in the total United States and Michigan (1946-63) The distribution of ACP payments by size of farm in the South Central and Thumb areas of Michigan (1961—64) Average size of ACP participating farms as compared with all farms in the United States (1948-63) Percent of farmland on ACP participating farms compared with the percent of payments used for temporary practices in Iowa and Minnesota (1951463) vii Page 174 183 195 204 205 211 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The federal government during the brief eight years from 1953 to 1960 Spent almost 14 billion dollars on the develOpment and conservation of United States‘ natural resources. Of this 14 billion over 11 billion, or 80 per- cent, was Spent for the conservation and development of land resources. The Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) is one of the programs through which the federal government has Spent these funds. And from 1953 to 1960, over 2 billion dollars or about one-fifth of the total federal funds used for the conservation and development of land resources was Spent under ACP. ACP was initiated in 1936 as a program primarily to control farm production and secondarily to promote soil con- servation. The program was conducted by making payments to farmers who used Specified cropping programs. During World War II overproduction was no longer a problem, so in 1943 production control was drOpped as an official objective of the program. Since 1944 approximately 250 biliion dollars has been Spent annually under ACP to promote the conservation of soil, water, and wildlife aSpects of land by cost-sharing with farmers who conduct approved conservation practices. And in the fifties program objectives were further broadened to include land-use adjustment away from intensive crops as surplus production again became a problem. Problem Situation Few if any well developed research procedures are available for evaluating government programs. Little is known concerning an optimum eXpenditure plan for government programs such as ACP. Federal funds have been Spent on con— servation of land resources through ACP for almost three decades and the returns from these expenditures and their effectiveness in fulfilling program objectives is still unknown. T. W. Schultz Showed his concern for the lack of research on soil conservation investment in his paper before the American Farm Economic Association: Concern about soil conservation served a useful purpose three decades ago when there was little investment in conservation. Now that there is too much, our analytical guns are strangely silent. The production and welfare effects of large income transfers into agriculture are grossly neglected.l 1T. W. Schultz, "Changing Relevance of Agricultural Economics,” Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 46 (December 1964), p. 1006. ACP has been criticized as being one of the soil conservation investments which has helped to cause overpro— duction and has been an income transfer to input industries and large farmers. The ACP subsidy lowers the price of some inputs to the farmer and thus increases their use both rela- tively and absolutely. This brings about increased produc- tion when we are trying to reduce the rate of eXpansion in production and a misallocation of resources to agriculture. Hathaway argues, for instance, that the program is at best an income transfer from the economy at large to nonfarm pro- ducers.2 In fact, it has been said that the tile drain industry was built on the basis of the ACP subsidy. Simi- larly Robert M. Kock, President of the National Limestone Institute, Inc. has stated that ACP has subsidized a little over 81 percent of the aglime used in the past 26 years (1936-61).3 Thus, there may be a substantial redistribution of income in favor of a few input industries. 2Dale Hathaway, Government and Agriculture: Public Policy in a Democratic Society (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1963), p. 313. 3”Let me remind the committee that the highest annual rate of liming application prior to the ACP was 3 million tons a year and frequently it fell to 1 million a year. According to USDA reports during the 26 year period, the ACP was reSponsible for 439 tons of aglime of the 541 million tons used." U.S. Congress, Senate, Subcommittee on ApprOpriations, Hearings, Department of Agriculture ApprOpri- ations for 1964, 88th Cong., lst Sess., p. 1250. On the other hand, ACP has been justified on the grounds that it is paying society's share of the cost of conserving the nation‘s land resources. The subsidy is needed since all the benefits from conservation of land resources do not accrue to the farmer. ACP has also been defended as a program that gives the initial incentive neces— sary to start farmers using profitable conservation prac— tices not initially undertaken without assistance due to uncertainty, lack of knowledge or education. Once the bene- fits from the conservation practice have been demonstrated the farmer will continue its use without any further assis- tance from ACP. iNot only is there the question of what ACP is achiev- ing but also that of whether the accomplishments could have been achieved at a lower cost. To answer these and other questions one needs an estimate of ACP‘S past performance. With some knowledge of ACP‘S past performance the ability to fulfill objectives can be estimated and more efficient meth- ods of obtaining its objectives can be suggested; that is, methods which achieve a greater amount for a given cost, or which achieve a Specified amount at a lower cost. Therefore, rmeasures of performance are needed in the search for better programs as well as better combinations of practices within a program, such as ACP. Objectives Given this problem situation the first objective is to obtain a better perSpective of ACP and to determine its objectives. The second is to obtain an understanding of ACP politics and administration as well as the different groups involved in each. Here I will also attempt to delineate the objectives other than program objectives that may be ful- filled by ACP. The third task of the thesis is to compare ACP'S past performance and accomplishments with its various objectives and determine if the same results could have been accomplished at a lower cost. The final objective is to sug- gest guidelines that can be used to improve ACP’S performance so that it is directed towards the conservation and land—use adjustment problems of today as well as those of the future. Method of Analysis Before analyzing ACP two basic decisions had to be made: (1) what techniques and data should be used to measure ACP‘S performance, and (2) what should the performance be measured against? Due to the availability of cost and prac- tice use data dealing with ACP both at the state and national level, comparative analysis of time-series data was used. For the analysis of some Specific objectives and to determine how the program operates at the local level, data was col- lected from selected Michigan counties. Thus, there were three major sources of data: (1) Annual Statistical sum- maries published by the USDA giving practice use and cost according to state and practice, (2) Michigan county data published by the state ASC Committee according to groups of practices and (3) data collected from 16 Michigan counties Showing how a sample of 265 farms used ACP. The question that had to be answered first was what should the performance be measured against. Two alternatives were considered: (1) the peeds for conservation and land—use adjustment and (2) the program objectives. The latter was selected partially due to the difficulty of establishing something called conservation needs. The Conservation Needs Inventory (CNI) conducted by SCS attempts to Specify conser- vation needs but is much too general to use in determining the Specific types of conservation practices needed. CNI gives the number of acres not meeting SCS standards though it does not say how far these acres are from meeting the standards. The sampling procedure used for CNI does not allow one to Specify conservation needs for individual coun- ties. On the other hand, program objectives have been set down by Congress and provide a relevant measure of perfor- mance. But the objectives are very difficult to quantifg placing limits on the analysis and the conclusions that can be drawn. The next step was to determine the eXplicit and implicit program objectives. Following a brief review of soil conservation and ACP studies in Chapter II, Chapter III presents an analysis and discussion of the eXplicit program objectives. Here ACP‘S development is traced from 1936 through 1964 showing how the various objectives have changed. Chapters IV and V indicate how implicit objectives are inter- jected into the program through politics and those adminis— tering ACP. To begin with, the discussion will center on the importance of politics and its influence on ACP policy. Then, based on interviews with Michigan state and county administrators, the administration of ACP is evaluated. The second section includes an analysis of ACP‘S past performance and compares it with various objectives. Data giving the distribution of past ACP payments and their estimated physical accomplishments is used to analyze ACP. In most cases the data was not in categories or units that facilitated analysis. So the data was rearranged and re- grouped to provide insights into the program's performance. In Chapter VL:nine states and the total United States are studied from 1946 to 1963 to determine if the distribution of funds is consistent with program objectives and if there is a difference over time and between regions in the degree of fulfillment of objectives. The analysis will also attempt to determine the impact of Specific program changes on fulfillment of objectives, such as the change to a package practice in 1954. After the analysis of funds distribution indicates how ACP has Spent its money, Chapter VII considers whether the same could have been accomplished with lower eXpendi— tures. Here the analysis is limited to the cost Side since data is not available giving dollar practice benefits, as the question of how much to invest in ACP is not completely answered. First, have the ACP payments actually increased the use of conservation practices? Practice use under ACP is compared with the total conservation practice used over time to indicate if ACP has increased practice use without paying for practices farmers would do on their own. This will be followed by an analysis of ACP'S cost-share per unit of practice and practice use to determine if the same perfor- mance could have been obtained at a lower cost. The effect of changes in cost-share on practice use will be measured by a ”response elasticity.” If changing cost-share rates do not influence use,then this will have profound implications for ACP'S minimum cost objective. The final section in Chapter VII considers other objectives to ascertain if attempts to fulfill them have increased ACP costs. Here participation, the proportion of temporary practices, Size of payments, and farm size are analyzed to determine the impact of alternative objectives on costs. Then in the final chapter the conclusions are summarized and guidelines are suggested for ACP'S future Operation. CHAPTER II STUDIES EVALUATING SOIL CONSERVATION AND ACP To date no study provides a comprehensive analysis of ACP‘S performance, but there are a number of related studies that can be grouped very generally into two catego— ries: (1) soil conservation studies that analyze the effect of conservation practices on the farm plan and (2) studies that Specifically consider some aSpect of ACP. A review of soil conservation studies in a book by Held and Clauson has just recently been published,but at present no review is available on the latter category.1 This chapter will first evaluate the more recent soil conservation studies followed by a brief review of the studies that consider ACP Specifi- cally. Both the United States Department of Agriculture and the land grant colleges have analyzed the problems of soil conservation. Some have tried to find the factors that inhibit the adoption of soil conservation practices while lR. Burnell Held and Marion Clawson, Soil Conserva- tion in Perspective (Washington: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965), 344 pp. 10 11 others have attempted to estimate costs and returns on soil conservation practices or plans; the latter group will be evaluated in this chapter. First a very general model is presented for evaluat— ing soil conservation practices. The variables that should be considered in analyzing soil conservation are brought together within the model. After the model is presented and briefly discussed it will be followed by the review of the soil conservation studies. The review considers (1) how the important variables were treated, (2) how the soil conserva- tion practices or plans were evaluated, and (3) how the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) was included in the analysis. The model suggested for evaluating soil conservation practices discounts returns over time to obtain the present value of a soil conservation practice. It Should be noted that an implicit assumption is involved in using a discount— ing procedure to cumulate returns. Any rate of discount greater than zero assumes that future consumption or income is of less value than present consumption or income. This, however, may not always be true for at some level of consump- tion the consumer or society places an increasingly lower value on present than on future goods and vice versa. 2E. O. Heady and C. W. Allen, Returns From and Capital Requirements for Soil Conservation Farming Systems: ASStudy of a Specific Population of Farms and Soils, Research Bulletin 382 (Ames, Iowa: Iowa StateUniverSity, 1951), pp. 316-60. 12 The Model n r w z y u 7 z: E Z QiPi - 2 ijj - Z Qipi‘ E ijj ':1 '21 ‘:1 ':1 k=1 1 J 1 J k (1 +r) u _ Z = Present value of a soil Conservation practice Pi = Prices of products 1 to w with conservation and l to y without conservation Qi = Quantities of products 1 to w with conservation and l to y without conservation R. = Rate of use of inputs 1 to z with conservation and J l to u without conservation V. = Prices or values of inputs 1 to z with conservation and J l to u without conservation r = Discount rates k = Years the conServation practice is in use 1 to n. The model includes the variables that should be con- sidered when evaluating soil conservation practices at the farm level. The farmer is interested in the difference in net income between farming with a conservation practice as compared to farming without the practice. Hence,the vari- ables to consider are the present and future prices of in- puts and products, the quantities of products produced, the rates of use of inputs and finally the length of the plan- ning period and the rate at which future income will be discounted. With this information the farmer can determine 13 the value to him of a particular soil conservation practice be it zero, negative or positive. Once the present value of the soil conservation practice has been determined,the farmer can make his decision as to whether or not the pres- ent value is large enough for him to initiate the practice. The use of soil conservation practices may or may not require a reorganization of the farm. Thus, the prod— ucts produced (1 to w) with the soil conservation practice may or may not be the same as the products produced (1 to y) without the practice. For example, planting more pasture to conserve the soil may require livestock in the farm plan to maximize profits; contouring, on the other hand, may not require any change in the farm production plan. How does the model differ from that which would be constructed if one were determining the present value of a soil conservation practice for the nation as a whole? To take into account the national view one must modify several variables and add others that consider the benefits and costs accruing to individuals other than the farmer. Exter- nal effects would include benefits to ,downstream farmers living on flood plains, Sports— men who desire clean streams for recreation, pass- ing motorists who like to see a countryside covered with kinds of vegetation, owners of downstream reservoirs who wish to minimize silting, city dwellers and businessmen who desire a clean source 14 of water from streams, and all who are interestgd in preserving resources for future generations. Consideration of national welfare may also influence variables in the model. Both the planning period and inter- est rate for discounting may be different from the nation‘s point of view as compared to the farmer‘s. Marglin argues that society is more likely to have a planning period greater than one generation and may value future consumption more highly than does an individual.4 To have a complete model for evaluating conservation practices one Should consider a range of possible interest rates and planning periods. Review of Soil Conservation Studies To facilitate evaluation,the soil conservation stu— dies, with one exception, can be grouped under the general heading of those that consider the complete farm Operation. In other words, they were mostly concerned with the total farm plan rather than with any particular conservation prac— tice. In most cases it was difficult to separate the in- crease or change in income due to soil conservation practices 3H. A. Henderson, F. F. Bell, and M. D. Cunningham, Economics of Farming Systems for Conservation on a Low Pro— duction Farm in the Upper East Tennessee Valley, Bulletin 362 (Knoxville, Tennessee: University ofITennessee, 1963), p. 21. 4S. A. Marglin, ”The Social Rate of Discount and the Optimal Rate of Investment,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 1963, pp. 95-111. 15 from the increase or change due to management or other inputs. Most of the studies considered the costs and returns to the farmer under very restrictive conditions, while a few went further and considered the effects on net income of changes in the discount rate, price relationships, yield differences and planning periods. But none of the studies tried to include external benefits or costs that did not affect the farmer directly. To begin the evaluation, how were the variables included in the above model handled in the studies reviewed? In all but one case, base periods were used for the relative price relationships of inputs and products. Only one study tried to project the future price relationships, although several studies did use different base periods where the relative prices had changed.5 This at least allowed a com- parison of net incomes under different sets of relative prices and brought out their importance in determining the returns to soil conservation practices. Most of the re- searchers were content to select one set of prices, conse- quently assuming away one of the key problems in evaluating conservation. Further work is needed to determine the rela- tive price relationships to be used in evaluating soil 5N. E. Landgren and J; C. Anderson, A Method for Evaluating Erosion Control ianarm Planning (Ames, Iowa: 1962), pp. 57-65. 16 conservation practices. Will prices of inputs used on the farm tend to go up while agricultural product prices tend to go down? This may well happen, particularly if farm price supports are lowered or dropped. It is also important to note that the lowering of agricultural product prices may be one of the big external benefits that society obtains from programs like ACP and SCS. Yield changes due to soil conservation practices are another important variable not handled satisfactorily in most of the studies. No one has actually carried out exten- sive tests to determine yield differences between land with soil conservation practices and the same quality of land without. Some of the studies made farm surveys grouping the farms into low, medium and high conservation farms. The dif- ferences in yields on these farms were attributed to conser- vation. Others used expert advice from agronomists and available research data to make estimates of yield changes due to soil conservation. Still others made projections of yield decrease from estimates of soil losses on land not protected by soil conservation. Although some data are available along with eXpert adyice, there seems to be a need for research to determine how much of the yield increases can be attributed to conservation and how much is due to a greater use of management or other inputs. 17 The second component of the quantity variable, acres, was not important in all the studies. In the study by Coutu and others only cotton-tobacco farms were studied and the number of acres devoted to one crop was assumed to be the same with soil conservation practices as without.6 1n the majority of other studies, changes in acres or number of animals became an important aSpect since Soil conservation required a farm reorganization. More pasture might be planted at the expense of corn or other cash crops. Studies that required a farm reorganization found it very difficult to separate soil conservation returns from returns due to other inputs. Another important variable is the quantity of inputs added by the use of a soil conservation practice. Sauer and Case indicate the difficulty involved in separating out the extra management required when using soil conservation prac— tices.7 Heady and Allen point out that the soil conserva- tion practices did not necessarily give rise to the increase 6 A. J. Coutu, W. W. McPherson, and L. R. Martin, Methods for Economic Evaluation of Soil Conservation Prac- tices, Technical Bulletin 137 (Raleigh, North Carolina: Agricultural Experiment Station, 1959), 48pp. 7E. L. Sauer and H. C. M. Case, Soil Conservation Pays Off (Results of ten years of conservation farming in Illinois), Bulletin 575 (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois, 1954), 24 pp. 18 in net income,since the high conservation farms used more inputs and had a larger volume of business.8 Each study handles the problem a little differently and those consider- ing individual soil conservation practices,rather than the total farm plan,were better able to designate the extra inputs necessary for soil conservation. In determining the extra cost of conservation,one should be careful to include all the extra inputs required for construction, maintenance and Operation of the Soil conservation practice. Certain studies appeared rather careless in their consideration of extra inputs required for the soil conservation practices and left out some of the costs. Another important point to considen that involves not only the input cost but the planning period and interest rate as we11,is the manner in which the costs are charged. The way costs of soil conservation practices are deducted will have an important effect on present values of the prac- tice. Some of the studies deducted the full amount of the installation cost in the first year,while others deducted the costs over time at a given percentage rate. The former method reduced income in the beginning years substantially more than did the latter. Consequently, one must know how 8E. O. Heady and C. W. Allen, Returns From and Capital Requirements For Soil Conservation Farming Systems: A Study Offia Specific Population Of Farms and Soils, Research Bulletin 381 (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College, 1951), pp. 316-60. 19 how the costs were deducted when looking at the net income reported, for some may be understated while others are over- stated. The effects of interest rate and the length of plan- ning period have already been partially discussed. These variables may differ depending on whether one considers the nation or an individual farmer; they will also vary among farmers. Coutu and others realized the problem involved and reported their results at several interest rates and planning periods. But for the most part, the studies considered only one or two possibilities or did not even worry about the problem. More work needs to be done along the lines of the study by Coutu and others where a range of possible planning periods and interest rates are used. The second group of problems to consider is that dealing with the methods Of comparing costs and returns. Many of the studies used more than one method for evaluating soil conservation, but as was already mentioned none of the studies considered external soil conservation benefits or costs. The costs and returns calculated were those a farmer would base his decision upon rather than those on which to base a public policy decision. 9Coutu, Op. cit. 20 Budget analysis was the primary technique used to determine the costs and returns,a1though linear programming was used in a number of the studies. One widely used and misleading comparison was to Show net income budgeted for a farm employing soil conservation practices as compared to the same farm without soil conservation practices. Such a comparison does not consider the transition period and the net income while the farmer builds up his conservation pro- gram. The transition period may be five or more years and has an important effect on the net income a farmer can expect. The reason for eliminating the transition period probably stems from a bias of Some researchers towards con- servation and a desire to show that soil conservation pays. What is needed is not a misleading picture Of net returns from soil conservation practices, but a complete designa- tion and consideration of all the costs and benefits, par— ticularly the external ones. Other methods of evaluating soil conservation prac- tices,giving similar misleading results,are comparisons Of high and low conservation farms. These studies compare net returns, labor income, returns on capital, net returns per variable costs or total receipts. This procedure forgets the transition period and compares farms using established soil conservation practices with those lacking such practices. The procedure may also attribute benefits to 21 conservation that properly should be allocated to management or other inputs. A better way to evaluate Soil conservation practices would be to consider the cost and returns accumulated or dis— counted over a given time period. Different time periods and discount rates could then be used to account for the various time preference of farmers and the nation. The important consideration is that the returns or net income are determined over the relevant planning period. Most farmers are interested in what their net income will be with- in a limited time period and not at some indefinite point in time, undefined in many studies. Linear programming was also used in a number of studies to obtain the Optimum plan for the farm. Two major criticisms can be levied against these studies. The first has already been stressed, that Of comparing the net income of the present farm with the net income of the same farm after having been completely reorganized under a new soil conservation plan. Here again the important matter, at least to many farmers, is the transition period. The second criticism stems from a restriction in these particular linear programs allowing only farm plans that maintain soil losses below 3 to 7 tons per acre per year; the exact soil loss allowed varied between studies. Similar restrictions appeared in some of the studies using 22 budget analysis that considered only those farm plans keep- ing soil losses to a certain level. Such restrictions elim- inate what may be the most profitable farm plans for the farmer, particularly if he has a Short planning period. Another question raised by such restrictions is how impor— tant is 7 tons of soil per acre if the top soil is deep and Subject only to Sheet erosion? The programming studies that relaxed the soil loss restriction found restrictions below 5 or 6 tons per acre per year sharply reduced the net income on the farm. Landgren and Anderson in their study of a Southwestern Iowa watershed found from the point of view of the individual farm operator, income consequences of formulating the farm around too low an erosion control goal would be far more serious than erring in the O d1rect1on of inadequate conservat1on planning. This tends to indicate the soil loss restriction must be considered carefully and should be further evaluated. Most of the studies considered the total farm pro- gram and did not evaluate individual soil conservation prac- tices, which in turn made it difficult to evaluate individ- ual ACP cost-Share arrangements. These studies were made in areas and on farms with considerable erosion problems. The results from such studies, therefore, hardly apply to flat 10Landgren, op. cit., p. 65. 23 areas with no erosion problems which, it should be noted, receive their share Of ACP payments. With the exception of one, those studies considering ACP in their analysis either included it in their cost calcu- lations, thus reducing costs, or just Speculated on the effect it would have on the profitability of soil conserva- tion practices. When ACP was incorporated in the cost cal- culations the costs were not calculated without ACP payments. This prevented any evaluation of the effect ACP might have on the adoption of soil conservation practices. Only one study really compared costs and returns including ACP payments against costs and returns without. In this study,Coutu and others compared three soil conserva- tion plans, including terracing. The cost of terracing was calculated for one conservation plan both with and without the ACP subsidy. A rather low cost-share figure of 60 dol- larS per linear mile Of terrace was used and found to have little influence on the break-even point.11 In another study, Ball and others, speculating on the effect ACP would have on adoption of terracing, suggested terracing might be made more profitable than other non-ACP 11Coutu, op. cit. 24 conservation practices, though a similar job of soil conser- vation would be achieved.12 This suggests that at times ACP payments promote the use of certain soil conservation prac- tices at the eXpense of others, rather than promoting soil conservation and paying society's Share of the cost. In summary this review, although not inclusive, has brought into better focus many of the problems involved in the evaluation Of soil conservation. The review has also pointed out the neglect of ACP and the difficulties involved in using these soil conservation studies to evaluate the pro- gram. Thus, for any comprehensive evaluation of ACP, one must attempt a different method of analysis. Studies Of ACP The second category of studies reviewed provided useful ideas for developing a method of evaluating ACP'S performance. To begin with, works by Knapp, Hardin, and Parks analyze the politics Of ACP. Knapp discusses the leg- 13 iSlative action taken on ACP from 1940 to 1950. He uses 12Gordon A. Ball, E. O.Heady and R. V. Boumann, Economic Evaluation Of Use of Soil Conservation and Improve- ment Practices in Western Iowa, Technical Bulletin 1162 (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, 1957), 87 pp. 13David Knapp, "Congressional Control of Agriculture Conservation Policy,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 71 (1950), pp. 257—81. 25 ACP as a case study that reviews the role played by the con- gressional appropriation and agricultural committees in for- mulating ACP policy. He also points out,rather vividlg how the apprOpriation committees can dictate policy by their appropriation bills. Hardin considers ACP and how it relates to various other conflicting groups,such as Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Farm Bureau and Extension Service.14 He points to possible ways of improving the USDA conservation programs and their objectives, besides bringing out the importance of political institutions in shaping policy. But his discussion of ACP covers only the period before the coordination of activities between SCS, ACP and the Forest Service (FS),as well as the change to the package practice approach. Parks also considered the interrelationships and overlapping duties of the various USDA conservation agen- cies.15 His analysis, however, was concerned mostly with SCS and only with ACP in relationship to SCS. Hathaway in a more recent analysis of agricultural policy commented on 4Charles M. Hardin, "The Politics Of Conservation: An Illustration,” Journal of Politics, November 1951, p. 478; ”Land or PeOple?” Land Economics, Vol. 27 (May 1951), pp. 133-142; and The Politics of Agriculture (Illinois: The Free Press, 1952), 282 pp. 15W. R. Parks, Soil Conservation Districts in Action (Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State College Press, 1952), pp. 1-231. .an A f- 1.4 .~ 26 . 16 . the Shortcomings of ACP. He also presented a deta1led analysis of the importance of the apprOpriationS committees, discussing their role in agricultural policy. Benedict and Schickele in books written in the early fifties discuss some of the shortcomings of ACP. Benedict questions whether ACP payments, as now handled constitute an efficient way of promoting conservation activities. Good practices are already in use on many farms, and some areas are far less subject to soil deterio— ration than others. It would seem logical that if a given amount of public money is to be spent for conserving soil it Should be Spent where the returns per dollar will be largest. 7 He also suggests that ”public expenditures on conservation should be held down in periods of heavy demands on the . . .1 budget and when manpower and materials are in short supply.” Schickele found ACP needed overhauling in two reSpects: ”(1) by redefining its objectives more precisely in terms Of erosion control and (2) by directing conservation payments much more Specifically to induce additional conservation . . l9 practices on those lands most in need of them.” He l6 Hathaway, Op. cit., pp. 183-286. 7Murray R. Benedict, Can We Solve the Farm Problem? (New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, 1955), p. 329. 18 Ibid. 19Rainer Schickele, Agricultural Poligy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954), p. 117. 27 further suggests that ACP eXpenditures would reap greater returns if they were split in halves and one used for income support while the other for conservation. He feels the income support is an implicit objective whose needs are dis- tributed quite differently than conservation‘s. Pickrel and Hathaway in a study of ACP during the earlyfiftiesattempted to determine whether ACP payments led to a more efficient use of resources.20 They concluded ACP did promote the use of lime, particularly in times of tight money, and if ACP were discontinued liming may drOp further below a desirable level on many farms unless there was an intensified education program regarding the value of lime. In another study,Lee and Schallau discuss the for- estry accomplishments under ACP in terms of cost-share pay- ments, acreages affected, and the magnitude of the job nec- essary to meet long-range timber goals as set by the Forest Service.21 They call for an increased use of ACP in for- estry conservation, but may put too much faith in the abil- ity of small private holdings to increase the output of 20Luther Pickrel and Dale E. Hathaway, ”Agricultural Conservation Payments and Farm Practices,” Michigan Agricul- tural Experiment Station Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 36, No. 3, (February 1954), pp. 318-330. 21Lee M. James and C. H. Schallau, ”Forestry Prac- tices Under the Agricultural Conservation Program,” Land Economics, Vol. 37, No. 2 (May 1961), pp. 142-49. ~.\- \4\ ail. .1. D. C G a. 28 timber to meet future needs. There is also some question as to whether or not they overstate future timber needs. Two fairly current studies by Schmid and Cotner Suggest the need for further evaluation of ACP. Schmid ana- lyzed the effect of the 1954 change in policy on Michigan‘s ACP.22 He Showed that a shift occurred towards the long- term conservation practices, principally drainage, and that fewer people were getting greater assistance after the reorganization. His analysis was based on data published by the agencies administering ACP. Cotner tried to deter- mine the degree of conflict between ACP and the Surplus dis- 23 He found both discord and posal programs of the USDA. agreement between the conservation assistance, surplus com- modity and income problem policies. His conclusions were drawn from an analysis of various states in different regions of the United States. Finally, Held and Clawson in their very recent book devote a section of one chapter to ACP, as the primary empha- sis of the book was on other apsects Of Soil conservation. 22A. Allen Schmid, ”Public Assistance to Land Resources in Michigan Under the Agricultural Conservation Program,” Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 44, No. 1 (May 1961), pp. 2-14. 23Melvin L. Cotner, The Impact of the Agricultural Conservation Program in Selected Farm Policy Problem Areas, Agricultural Economics Mimeo 943 (East Lansing, Michigan: Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1964), 23 pp. .61.. 29 ACP was found to be a costly program with eXpenditures about four times those of SCS. They concluded, ACP has probably contributed something to soil conservation, but is impossible to demonstrate that more soil conservation had been purchased by eXpenditure of funds in this way than could have been obtained by use of the same funds in another way.24 In conclusion,these studies provided much of the background necessary for the development of this thesis. From the discussions of politics and objectives came ideas for the next three chapters and from the studies evaluating ACP came ideas for the two chapters analyzing the program objectives. It is hOped that this thesis will build on the work already completed and provide a better background for future research. 24Held, op. cit., pp. 175-92. 71 «an «‘5 t“: CHAPTER III PROGRAM OBJECTIVES This chapter reviews ACP’S historical development to provide a better understanding of how its Objectives have evolved. The primary emphasis will be on when and why ACP and its Objectives have been altered. During ACP'S three decades of operation the program has been modified considerably. But some of the Objectives stated in the preamble of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936, technically an amendment to the Soil Conservation Act of 1935, apply today as they did thirty years ago. The five purposes set forth in the preamble are: l. preservation and improvement of soil fertility 2. promotion of the economic useznmiconserva- tion of land 3. diminution of exploitation and wasteful and unscientific use of national soil resources 4. the protection of rivers and harbors against the results of soil erosion in aid of main- taining the navigability of waters and water courses and in aid of flood control 5. re-establishment, at as rapid a rate as the Secretary of Agriculture determines to be practicable and in the general public inter- est, Of the ratio between the purchasing 30 31 power per person not on farms . . . and the maintenance of such ratio. The purposes that applied to ACP were grouped into two general objectives. First were reestablishment and maintenance of farm income at fair levels. This parity income Objective at first played the major role but later was dropped as an explicit objective. The second objective, soil conservation,2 involved the maintenance and improvement of soil fertility to meet the present and some future con- sumer demand for food and fiber. And soil conservation or just conservation has remained an Objective throughout ACP'S Operation,although its definition and importance have changed. After the program operated for several years,its purposes were translated into the two objectives of soil con- servation and crop adjustment. Major emphasis was placed on 1U.S.D.A., Complication of Statutes Relatigg to Soil Conservationj Marketing Quotas and Allotments, Soil Bank, Crop Insurance, Sugar Payments and Quotas, Price Support, Commodity Credit, Corporation and Related Statutes as of January 1, 1957 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1957), 246 pp. 2Conservation is an ambiguous term which has been used to mean many things to many peOple. In this discussion conservation might be best considered as a program Of action and not a body of scientific principles or a Scientific discipline. In other words,conservation is just one pos- sible plan for resource allocation and its definition will vary with the person or agency defining the particular pro- gram of conservation. 32 crop adjustment to reduce surpluses and hOpefully to in- crease farm income; soil conservation remained the secondary objective. To meet these Objectives farmers were paid to increase soil-conserving crops and soil—building practices and to restrict soil depleting or surplus crops. During the first four years Of program operation,the USDA determined acreage restriction and soil-conserving practices in Washing— ton, as they attempted to obtain a balance between supply and demand of food, feed and fiber crops. In 1940, the program objectives shifted to a major emphasis on conservation. ”They called Specifically for more soil-conserving crops and for various other methods of conserving soil fertility.”3 Also in l940,provisions were made to increase the Opportunities for participation by small farmers and to give greater administrative reSponsi- bility to farmer committees. Here was recognition of two implicit program objectives; maintenance of the small family farm and local program administration. Both are still impor- tant in the program today. Their importance is Shown by con— gressional maintenance of the small payment increase and insistence that program changes must come from the states and local committees. 3H. 0. Wallace, Report of the Secretary of Agricul— ture, 1940 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1940), p. 30. ‘4- a“ {fix .\\ .6. G 33 By 1941 emphasis had again shifted. This time the major objective was production for defense with some consid- eration for conservation; emphasis on production continued throughout most of the war. Baker and others describe the Situation. By changing the definitions of soil-depleting and soil-conserving crops, the Department was able to continue to make some agricultural conservation payments to farmers throughout the war period. For example, peanuts which were hogged off were classified as a soil-building crop, cotton of staple length of more than 1-1/2 inches was not classified as cotton, and wheat and cotton acreage allotments planted to war crops were considered to have been planted to wheat and cotton for purposes of determining agricultural adjustment and soil conservation payments. Thus, the adjustment machinery of the depressed thirties was able to promote increased production to meet the new con- ditions of the forties. The production Objective has since been dropped,but many of the production aSpectS still remain in effect. Con- sequently, the question arises as to whether the program has been changed enough to fulfill the changed objectives. Most of the ACP practices might be classified as practices that increase production, but the important question is what kind of production do they encourage; is it production of legumes or grasses that conserve the soil and shift land out of cr0p 4G. L. Baker, W. D. Rasmussen, Vivian Wiser, and J. M. Porter, Century of Service: The First 100 Years of the United States Department of Agriculture (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963), p. 305. n 1. 34 . . . . 5 production or is it production of surplus crops, such as wheat and cotton? Conservation Becomes Major Objective In 1944 a ”rider” was attached to the appropriations bill that restricted ACP to a program Of 300 million dollars based solely on soil and water conservation practices. To quote Knapp: The effect of the provision was twofold. From the standpoint of program administration; author- ity to plan the necessary size and sc0pe of the ACP was shifted from the Secretary of Agriculture to the Congress. At the same time, the basic objectives of the ACP were reoriented from a com- bination of acreage control and conservation to conservation alone. AS corollary to these changes, a Specific prohibition against the use of appropri- ations funds for incentive payments [to increase production] was included in the bill. Since this change, payments could no longer be earned by meeting set acreage allotments and conservation became the major eXplicit program Objective. With the limitations on size and scope of ACP,came some changes in its administration. The farmer committeemen were given greater responsibility in selecting practices that might qualify for payments as well as in determining the amount each farmer could earn. These operational changes 5Surplus crops are defined here as those involved in federal support programs. 6Knapp, Op. cit., p. 265. 35 were followed by a reorientation of the soil conservation effort towards an emphasis upon long-range or ”permanent” practices for checking erosion and restoring soil fertil- ity.7 In the 1946 program, conservation was defined so as to include: (1) maintaining or increasing soil fertility, (2) controlling or preventing erosion, (3) making better farm use of water and (4) improving or maintaining range and pasture. ACP was further restricted in 1947 to conservation practices that would not be applied without assistance. Assistance was not to continue on conservation practices that had become established.8 Throughout this post war period,conservation,or more Specifically soil conservation, was considered a means ”to increase production immediately, and while doing so build renewed strength in the land so as tO be able to meet future needs.” To accelerate the program of soil and water conserva- tion, new program provisions were initiated during the late forties. The Conservation Materials and Services (CMS) 7U.S.D.A., Report of the Chief of the Agricultural Adjustment Agency (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1944), p. 8. 8C. P. Anderson, Report of the Secretary of Agricul— ture, 1947 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1947), p. 71. 9C. F. Brannan, Report of the Secretary of Agricul- ture, 1951 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1951), p. 15. 36 procedure was set up to further the use of permanent prac- tices. Under this procedure county committees would take over many of the administrative details involved in Obtain- ing and applying certain conservation practices. This made the use and application of practices more convenient to both the farmer and the local contractors. In 1949 ACP initiated an experimental program called the "Farmer and Rancher Conservation Program.” Here again emphasis was on "permanent” practices but they were included in a total farm plan much like those of the Soil Conserva- tion Service.10 This was apparently part of ACP‘s attempted eXpansion plan of the late forties and early fifties in which they tried to take over all aSpects of the USDA conservation program. During this period ACP was the only reason for the existence Of the farmer committees, who, consequently, tried to eXpand their reSponsibilities. Two actions by the Agricultural Appropriations sub- committees helped stOp this eXpanSion program. One had only a temporary impact while the other is still in effect today. The temporary act occurred in 1948 when the Republican Con- gress approved a cut in ACP‘S appropriations; however, it only lasted for one year. The permanent change came in the 10C. F. Brannan, Report of the Secretary of Agricul- ture, 1949, p. 18. 37 1951 appropriations bill that authorized a 5 percent trans- fer of funds from ACP to SCS. This transfer was negotiable and was for technical services provided by SCS on ACP prac- tices. During the first year of the transfer provision, both agencies dragged their feet and few agreements were negotiated. But in February of 1951,the Secretary of Agriculture finally acted; he issued Memorandum No. 1278 that directed the state farmer committees to take the initiative in coordi- nating activities between federal agencies and in negotiating agreements with SCS. The SCS state conservationist was given the responsibility for all technical phases of the permanent soil-conservation practices undertaken by SCS and ACP with the exception of forestry work. The Forest Service was directed to assume similar reSponsibility for forestry prac- tices. 'The technical phases Of ACP were transferred wherever possible to SCS and the Forest Service. ACP'S attempt to assume the technical services of SCS was blocked and some Of the duplication of services was removed. Memorandum No. 1278 also gave futher emphasis to permanent as compared to temporary conservation practices. "Major emphasis was on practices of a lasting nature and those requiring financial assistance to assure the desired 38 results."11 And during the 1951 and 1952 programs grassland agriculture was given Special emphasis. New Administration The Republican Administration took over in 1953 and in 1954 introduced the ”package practice” approach,which was the first real change in ACP policy since 1946. Instead of paying for that part of the conservation practice completed, the cost-share was only offered on the basis of a complete job. In other words, a farmer could no longer receive pay- ment for just applying lime or fertilizers; he must complete some conservation practices in conjunction with the applica- tion Of lime or fertilizers, such as planting grass or legumes, in order to Obtain payments. The 1954 handbook Spelled out for the first time the Specific principles under which ACP was to be adminis- tered: (1) to confine the conservation practices to those most needed to achieve the maximum conservation benefit, (2) to encourage those practices with the most enduring benefits, (3) to limit cost-sharing to those practices that it is believed would not be carried out to the extent needed without assistance, (4) to cost-share the minimum required to result in substantially increased performance of needed 11C. F. Brannan, Report of the Secretary of Agricul- ture, 1952, pp. 15-17. 39 practices, and finally (5) the farmers were given the responsibility for the upkeep and maintenance of the prac- tices.12 These program principles were to direct the pro- gram towards achieving additional conservation. To help achieve the basic principles set forth in the 1954 Agricultural Conservation Program,the USDA attempted to drop or modify a large number of practices. The practices to have been eliminated included those considered as recur- ring practices.l3 While a large list of recurring practices were excluded from the tentative list of ACP practices for 12E. T. Benson, Report of the Secretary of Agricul- ture, 1958, pp. 31-32. 13The practices not included in the tentative list of practices for 1954 were: minerals used in connection with ”recurring” practices, applying fertilizer to coffee groves, green manure, cover crops, contour farming, cross-Slope farm- ing, contour listing, furrowing, pitting, deep plowing sandy crOpland, stubble mulch, leaving stalks or stubble, vegeta- tive barriers planted to control erosion, mulching low land to control wind erosion, deep plowing irrigated crOpland, controlled application Of irrigation water, reseeding range land by deferred grazing, pasture reseeding, grazing-land man- agement, small-pasture management, fencing to protect wood- land and permanent cover or pasture, supplemental-water stor- age development for livestock water, stock trails, fireguards to protect range land, mowing weeds on pasture and range, field strip-cropping, protecting summer fallow, subsoiling, increasing acreages of legumes and grass for seed, maintain- ing a stand of trees in windbreaks, firebreaks constructed to protect woodland, weed control by tillage, weed control by chemicals, mulching materials applied to coffee trees, applying sugar-mill refuse, applying shredded pineapple to pineapple fields, organic manuring, nitrogen, seeding hay crops, maintaining a permanent cover in orchards, and removal of brush prior to ditching. U.S. Congress, Senate, Subcom- mittee on Appropriations, Hearing§i_Department of Agriculture Appropriations for 1954, 83rd Congress, lst Session, p. 636. 40 l954,many of them reappeared on the final list due to con- gressional pressures. Yet many cost-Share rates were reduced from a maximum of 70 percent to 50 percent, which was set as maximum for all practices. Other practices,like fertilizer and lime applications,were not drOpped but were restricted to use in the improvement or establishment of vegetative cover. Hence, some of the production and recur- ring practices were drOpped while others restricted. Even so, this was the last major reduction in ACP practices and cost-share rates. In conjunction with these changes,the Secretary of Agriculture asked for and received a reduction in ACP appro- priations with the help of the Republican Congress. This reduction only lasted for a year, as in 1955 the Secretary asked for and Obtained an increase in apprOpriations to help farmers make temporary and long-term land-use adjustments. The 1954 apprOpriations reduction became the 1ast,deSpite attempts by the Bureau of the Budget and subsequent Presi- dents to cut ACP'S funds. 4 . . . Senate, Subcommittee on Appropriations, Hearings, Department of Agriculture Apprgpriations for 1955, 83rd Congress, 2nd Session, p. 706. 41 Only minor changes in ACP were attempted from 1954 to l958,while permanent or enduring practices15 were empha- sized and practices considered normal farm management prac- tices were deemphasized. Cost-share rates higher than 50 percent were authorized in 1956 for practices with long- lasting conservation benefits that were remote to the farmer or rancher.16 Since many of the practices considered farming practices could not be dropped, increasing the cost- Share rates on other practices was another way to achieve the desired emphasis. The 1957 program offered payments for measures that when applied near the end of a practice's usual life Span could materially extend its life. Farmer committees were also authorized to make payments to replace practices that had served their life Span. This approach seemed to indicate that for these practices either the demon- stration effect was quite limited or the farmer did not cap- ture many of their benefits. Presumably, if the demonstration 15The permanent or enduring practices were defined by Mr. Williams as mechanical and vegetative practices whose benefit will continue through a period of several years. They must be needed for conservation but not likely to be initiated without assistance. They must be essential to the public welfare but not returning sufficient short term eco- nomic benefits to the farmer to provide the necessary encour- agement to him to install them. Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations, Hearings, Department of Agriculture Appropri- ations for 1954, 83rd Congress, lst Session, p. 662. 16Senate Subcommittee on ApprOpriations, Hearings, Department of Agriculture ApprOpriations for 1957, 84th Con- gress, 2nd Session, p. 277. 42 effect worked and the returns exceeded practice costs,the farmer would not need any assistance the second time. During the late fifties,the Administration finally realized surplus agricultural commodities were something other than a temporary problem. In 1958 ACP began to be stressed as a program with a twofold value of conservation and surplus control through the encouragement of sound land- use adjustments away from intensive crOp production.17 To fit the new twofold objective and to stay within the Budget Bureau's proposed appropriation of 125 million dollars,a number of practices were tentatively drOpped and others modified. These practices included those considered as normal farming practices, reoccurring practices or prac- . . . 18 tices that brought new land into production. The new 17E. T. Benson, Report of the Secretary of Agricul— ture, 1958, p. 27. 18"It is prOposed to omit practices A-3, B-4, B-8, B-9, C-3, C-8, C-ll, C—l4, and D—3 from the 1959 national bulletin. ”It is prOposed that no cost-Sharing be authorized for land-clearing Operations under practices A—2; to omit rock phOSphate from list of eligible materials under A-4; to limit cost-Sharing for practices C-9, C-lO, C-12, and C-13 to land which was devoted to production of cultivated crops or crOpS normally seeded for hay or pasture in areas during at least 3 of last 5 years. "It is prOposed to reduce maximum rate of cost- Sharing for practices B-3, C-9, C-lO, C-12, C-l3, C-15, E-l, E-2, and E-3 from 50 percent of average cost of performance to 35 percent. Similar reduction proposed for eligible mate- rials applied under practice A-4, in connection with annual and rotation vegetative cover.” Senate Subcommittee on ApprOpriations, Hearings, Department of Agriculture Appro- priations for 1959, 85th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 548. 43 restrictions ranged from a 35 percent maximum cost—share rate on certain practices to a 3 out of 5 year cropping requirement for drainage practices. This latter restriction was an attempt to remove some of the obvious production in- creasing aSpects of ACP. As might be eXpected,these changes never appeared in the final list of practices due to the combined efforts of both agricultural apprOpriation subcom— mittees and other supporters of the program. The last attempt to significantly change ACP prac— tices came in 1960 and was reviewed in the 1961 apprOpria- tion hearings. These changes were aimed at removing some of the production increasing aSpects of ACP as well as stopping practices with low returns compared to costs. An attempt was also made to eliminate normal farming practices or those using water rather than conserving it.lg 19The proposed changes included the following: First to ”discontinue the offer of cost—sharing for land clearing, removal of stone walls and hedgerows, and installa- tion of fences, as components of approved practices. The cost of these measures is Often high in comparison with the conservation benefits resulting from their application. ” Second, to limit drainage and irrigation practices to land that has been used for agricultural production or has been under irrigation for at least 4 out of the last 5 years in- stead of the present 2 out of 5 years. ”This change would emphasize the ACP policy Of not bringing more land into agri- cultural production, and would also prevent the possibility of a farmer installing a poor irrigation system at his own eXpense with the exception of getting cost-Sharing help to reorganize it soon after installation.” Third, ”to discon- tinue the offer Of cost-sharing for rock phOSphate applied on normal seedings of vegetative cover in crop rotations.” Fourth, ”to require more careful consideration of the 44 Such efforts to alter practices appeared as an attempt to move ACP closer to fulfilling its twofold objec- tives Of soil conservation and land-use adjustment. The apprOpriation subcommittees, however, blocked these attempts that ran contrary to their objectives. As a result of these attempted changes, provisions were written in the 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962 appropriation bills that Specifically prohib- ited any changes in eligibility, cost-Share rates or prac- tices. These restrictions along with previous restrictions meant that the Secretary of Agriculture no longer had any authority to change ACP; all changes had to come from the state and local level. Practices could be added to the national bulletin, but none could be dropped or restricted. ACP that was once formulated completely by the Secretary of amount of fertilizer needed to establish green manure and cover crops and to approve cost-sharing only for the minimum quantity of fertilizer needed to establish the cover." Fifth, to ”require - as a condition Of eligibility for cost- sharing for the application of liming materials, gypsum, and other sulfur-bearing materials - that eligible grasses and legumes occupy the land for at least two growing seasons.” Sixth, to ”approve cost-sharing for wells for livestock water and cost-sharing for deferred grazing of rangeland, only after receiving individual county or area recommendations and justi- fications." The change in cost-sharing for wells is intended to encourage construction of ponds for livestock water rather than wells. Deferred grazing tends to be continued longer than needed,thus restriction Of its use is needed. Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations, Hearings, Department of Agriculture Appropriations for 1961, 86th Congress, 2nd Ses- sion, pp. 250-51. 45 Agriculture was now formulated almost entirely at the state and local level. The New Democratic Administration After the change to the Democratic Administration in l961,no major attempts were made by the USDA to alter ACP, although a few new practices were incorporated. Wildlife practices were introduced into the 1962 program as the admin- istration broadened its conservation Objectives and by 1965 the wildlife practices were expanded from three to four. These practices appear to facilitate small land—use adjust- ments and possibly use funds that might otherwise be Spent for practices increasing present crOp production. ACP continued to stress practices with enduring benefits and in 1964 Special preference was given to those helping to establish permanent vegetative cover. Emphasis continued on the program's conservation aSpects,although practices remained that increased present crOp production and provided only minimal conservation benefits. These latter practices remained at least partially due to the Appropriation Subcommittees' refusal to approve any changes in the program that might restrict ACP. The administration could only change by stressing certain practices or adding new ones . 46 The Democratic administration has continued the emphasis on conservation and land-use adjustment. In the 1965 apprOpriation hearings, the Secretary of Agriculture accentuated the long-term land-use adjustment aspects of ACP. I would say that I believe that the ACP program, which is increasingly directing itself to perma- nent land-use adjustments, will, as it builds into this basic, long-term land-use adjustment increasingly prove itself as a critical and important program. Land-use adjustment may prove to be the objective that receives major eXplicit emphasis in the future. But, the broadened conservation objective should remain important with all its public appeal. Summary There is a Similarity between the program Objectives of the thirties and those of the sixties. The major emphasis is now on conservation and land-use adjustment,while in the late thirties it was on crOp adjustment and soil conserva- tion. The present surpluses of agricultural commodities are much like those of the late thirties; the objective of land- use adjustment is directed at this problem as was crOp adjust- ment. Soil conservation of the thirties included conserva- tion of soil and water,while the objectives of today include 20Senate Subcommittee on ApprOpriationS, Hearings, Department of Agriculture ApprOpriations for 1965, 88th Con- gress, 2nd Session, p. 187. 47 soil, water, forest and wildlife conservation. Since World War II, when production increasing Objectives received major emphasis, conservation with enduring benefits has maintained its tOp billing. ACP'S objectives have changed very little since about 1946, although the policy used to fulfill them was changed in 1954. Consequently, an eighteen year period (1946-63) is available to compare its performance in fulfill- ing these objectives. The question that now needs an answer is whether or not the program has changed enough to meet the changing conservation needs. This and other questions will be considered in Chapters VI and VII that analyze ACP over the eighteen year period. CHAPTER IV NATIONAL ACP POLICY FORMULATION In addition to the program objectives of conservation and land-use adjustment,other less eXplicit objectives in— fluence ACP'S Operation. To gain an understanding of these other objectives and the manner in which they enter,the pro- gram requires a discussion of ACP policy formulation. This chapter will consider the various groups that influence ACP policy at the national level and point out the objectives they introduce. The first section of this chapter will discuss the three main policy making bodies that affect ACP policy. The second examines the objectives of the key individuals and agencies that form ACP policy. The last section evaluates the consequences of such a policy process and discusses the possibilities for future improvement of ACP. ACP Policy Process ACP policy has stemmed mainly from three sources: (1) the apprOpriations, (2) the legislative amending of the authorizing statute, and (3) the program administration. 48 49 The key policy making bodies in the first two are the con- gressional committees, while in the third it is the USDA. Knapp has Shown that in the appropriations the subcommittees on agricultural apprOpriationS, particularly the House Sub- committee, have been the important policy making bodies. In legislation, the committees on agriculture have been the crucial factors. Talbot has pointed out the importance of the committees on agriculture in obtaining congressional approval of legislation. Although the Congress has been (and still is) the major policy maker, the administration of ACP provides impor- tant opportunities for making policy changes. Policy deci— sions made by the ACP administration, however, are subject to Congressional review, particularly by the House Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations. Many times these subcommit- tees have reversed USDA policy decisions, eSpecially if the change in policy is contrary to their objectives. The most important of the three policy making bodies are the subcommittees on agricultural appropriations; their importance during the forties has been well documented, and 1Knapp, op. cit., pp. 257-81. 2Ross R. Talbot, "Farm Legislation in the 86th Congress," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 43 (August 1961), pp. 582-606. 50 during the fifties and early sixties it has not lessened. Hathaway Shows how these subcommittees make the key decisions in both houses of Congress.4 He points out that the Senate Subcommittee decisions are not likely to be reversed by the full Committee on Appropriations because its membership con- tains the chairman and five of the nine leading Democrats on the full committee. The House Subcommittee's decisions have rarely, if ever, been reversed by the full committee. This is probably due to the composition of the subcommittee and the strength of its chairman, Mr. Whitten.5 The composition of the subcommittees on agricultural appropriations has changed very little since the fifties (see Tables 1 and 2). Only in 1953 and 1954, when the Republicans controlled the Congress, did the make-up of the subcommittees change significantly. It is important to note that a 3”In the early years, most of the policy changes, particularly with reSpect to acreage allotments for basic commodities, were made as amendments to the authorizing statute. Between 1940 and 1950, however, the Congress relied in large part upon the appropriations process for reviewing the operation and policies of ACP. In all, nine basic changes in agricultural conservation policy were made by way of appropriations legislation during this period. In con- trast with relative routine changes made by amending basic legislation after 1940; the issues which were resolved in the appropriations process.were in large part controversial in nature.” Knapp, Op. cit., p. 259. 4Hathaway, Op. cit., pp. 191-92. 5Ibid., pp. 195-96. 51 Table 1. Composition of the Subcommittee on Agriculture and Related Agencies of the Senate Committee on Appropria- tionS Region1 and Party South East West Midwest Plains Total Year Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. 1964 5* l 1 2 2 3 10 4 1963 5* 1 1 .. 1 2 3 9 4 1962 5* l 1 1 1 1 3 8 5 1961 5* .. .. 1 1 1 1 4 8 5 1960 5* .. 1 1 1 l 3 8 4 1959 5* .. 1 .. l l .. 1 3 8 4 1958 5* .. .. l 1 1 1 2 6 5 1957 5* l 1 1 2 6 4 1956 5* 1 1 2 2 6 5 1955 5* 1 1 2 2 6 5 1954 2 1 2 1 3 1 2* 5 7 1953 2 l 2 1 3 1 2* 5 7 1952 2* 2 1 2 2 1 6 4 1951 2* 2 1 1 2 2 6 4 1950 4* 2 1 1 2 3 8 5 * Chairman was from this region. 1South--Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Virginia, Kentucky, West Virginia; East--Maryland, Dela- ware, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts; West-- California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Utah, Arizona, Hawaii, Alaska, Idaho; Midwest--I11inois, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin; PlainS--South Dakota, North Dakota, Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska. Source: Congressional Index (Washington: Commerce Clearing House Inc., 1949-1964). Table 2. Composition of the Subcommittee on Agriculture and Related Agencies of the House Committee on Appropria— tions Region1 and Party South East West Midwest Plains Total Year Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. 1964 2* 1 3 2 1963 2* 1 3 2 1962 3* 2 4 3 1961 3* 2 4 3 1960 2* 1 2 4 3 1959 2* . 1 2 4 3 1958 2* l 2 4 3 1957 2* 2 2 .. 4 3 1956 3* 1 2 4 3 1955 3* l 2 4 3 1954 2 1 2* 3 4 1953 2 1 2* 3 4 1952 3* 1 3 2 1951 3* 1 3 2 1950 2* l 1 3 2 * . . . Chairman was from this region. lSame regional divisions as in Table 1 (see Table 1). Source: See Table 1. 53 sizeable reduction in appropriations was accomplished during the 1953-54 period.6 Moreover, it was at this time that the only major change in the list Of agricultural conservation practices was made. With this brief background on the three policy sources, we return to a more detailed discussion of each. First, the House Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations has been chaired by Mr. Whitten since 1949 with the excep- tion of 1953-54. There has been at least one other southern Congressman on the five to seven man subcommittee. On the larger Senate subcommittee of ten to fourteen, the southern Congressmen have even stronger representation. The chairman has been from the South since 1949 except for 1953-54 and Since 1955,five leading southern Democrats have been on the subcommittee. With this strong SOuthern influence the Subcommittees on Agricultural Appropriations have affected ACP policy by writing provisions into the appropriations legislation and 6”Thus the annual budget appropriations act does two things: it makes appropriations for ACP which were author- ized in the previous session, and it authorizes apprOpria- tions to be made the following Session for the same program. ”This means that any serious reduction in the ACP program has to be made a year in advance; any given session of Congress is apparently stOpped from reducing the appro- priations which is not merely authorized but apparently bound to make.” Knapp, Op. cit., p. 163. 54 by giving or not giving support to policies of the USDA. For example, they have written the following restrictions: (1) a limit on the administrative funds, (2) a 5 percent fund transfer to the Soil Conservation Service for technical work performed for ACP and (3) a provision not allowing any funds for salaries of information personnel. The subcommit— tees‘ support of USDA policies has also been important in forming ACP policies. For example, the Secretary of Agri- culture‘s reorganization and consolidation of SCS and ACP in 1951 would not have been possible without the Support of the House Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations.7 In 1958 the reverse occurred; the apprOpriations committee vetoed a prOposed major overhauling of agricultural conservation . 8 . . practices. This clearly Shows how the subcommittees can 7“Reorganization was accomplished, nevertheless, in 1951 through a combination of the sustained and courageous efforts Of Secretary Brannan and the vigorous persistence of the House Committee on Appropriations (and eSpecially of its subcommittee on agriculture). . . . It could hardly have been done without the willing cooperation of the Secretary; yet cultflua evidence of recent history, the Secretary would would have been unable to act without the backing and insis- tence of the House Appropriations Committee members” partic— ularly those on the Subcommittee on Agricultural ApprOpria- tions. Ibid., pp. 161-62. 8”Assistant Secretary Of Agriculture Ervin L. Peter- son wrote a confidential memo to officials directly in charge of ACP. Peterson said that the 1958 program Should drOp nine practices that have only a temporary conservation effect — and which step up farm production at the same time we‘re battling to reduce surpluses.” The memo somehow got to the Senate-House Conference Committee that was ironing out the USDA apprOpriations. "Committee members rewrote their report 55 either assist or block policy changes initiated by the USDA. The Subcommittees on Agricultural Appropriations hold the power to initiate, review, and approve or disapprove ACP policy. Second, as was pointed out earlier, since 1940 few basic changes have been initiated through the legislative process of amending the authorizing statutes. One of the important reasons for this is the change in composition of the Congress and the lack of any substantial change in com- position of the committees on agriculture. The ”farm bloc” is no longer of prime importance in deciding agricultural policy, chiefly because, prOportionately, farm pOpulation has declined sharply.9 Since the original large number of Congressmen representing only rural interests have been supplanted by Congressmen with strong urban interests and support, it has become increasingly difficult to get changes through Congress that will increase payments to farmers. On the other hand, southern and other Congressmen representing '0 predominately rural interests, still control agricultural to include stern warnings against the ACP changes. Further, it charged the USDA to bring any proposed changes for 1959 before the House and Senate Agricultural ApprOpriations Sub- committees next year.” "A Confidential Memo," Farm Journal, Vol. 81 (August 1957), p. 10. 9Hathaway, Op. cit., p. 187-88. 56 committees (see Tables 3 and 4). The result is a stalemate, even with ACP, as appropriations and eXpenditures have changed very little in the past decade. Because administrative policy changes are subject to review by Congress, the administration has great difficulty making changes in ACP that are contrary to the Objectives of the apprOpriations subcommittees. The administration is even prevented by Congressional stipulation from changing the prOportioning of funds between states by more than 15 percent per year. Although the administration seldom makes major changes without the support of the subcommittees, it does, however, make important minor changes. For example, according to the Secretary of Agriculture‘s Report of 1962, State, county and community committeemen were asked to encourage those farmers, who had not been doing conservation work, to undertake a needed conservation project in 1962, and to acquaint them with the publicly provided re- sources available.10 This is the kind of administrative decisions made by the USDA that affect ACP policy and is usually not questioned by the appropriation subcommittees. The state and county committees which administer pro. grams on the state and local levels are another important part of the administrative process. These committees are 10Orville L. Freeman, Report of the Secretary of Agriculture, 1962 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1962), pp. 16—17. 57 Table 3. Composition of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry R‘l egion and Party South East West Midwest Plains Total Years Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. 1963- 1964 8* l .. 2 l .. 1 1 l 2 11 6 1961— 1962 6* 1 .. 2 1 .. 4 l .. 2 ll 6 1959- 1960 7* l .. l .. .. 4 l .. 3 11 6 1957- 1958 6* .. .. 2 .. .. i 2 2 .. 3 8 7 1955- 1956 7* .. .. 2 .. .. l 2 .. 3 8 7 1953- 1954 5 2* 1 l 2 l 3 7 8 1951- 1952 5* .. .. 1 .. .. 1 3 1 2 7 6 1949- 1950 5* .. .. 1 .. .. 2 3 l l 8 5 -} {Chairman was from this region. lSame regional divisions as in Table 1 (see Table 1). Source: See Table 1. 58 Table 4. Composition of the House Committee on Agriculture R'l egion and Party South East West Midwest Plains Total Years Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem. Rep. 1963- 1964 12* 1 l 2 5 2 3 6 3 21 14 1961- 1962 14* l .. 2 3 2 3 5 1 4 21 14 1959- 1960 14* 1 .. 3 1 3 5 3 2 2 22 12 1957- 1958 13* l l 3 l 2 4 5 . 4 19 15 1955- 1956 13* 1 1 4 1 1 4 5 4 19 15 1953- 1954 12 3 .. 4 .. 1 2 4 4* 14 16 1951- 1952 12*' l- l 4 l l. 3 4 3 17 13 1949- 1950 10* 1 2 2 2 l 2 4 1 2 17 10, *Chairman was from this region. lSame regional divisions as in Table 1 (see Table 1). Source: See Table 1. 59 not only instrumental in deciding what conservation prac- tices to cost-Share with farmers and how much of the cost to share, but they also determine the allocation of funds among counties and farms. Once the funds have been allo- cated,it is up to the state and county committees to allo- cate the funds within the state and the counties. The impor- tance of selecting conservation practices cannot be over emphasized. Mr. Peterson, Assistant Secretary of Agricul- ture, has eXplained the general procedure. Each year . . . , we ask county committees and the State committees to review their program and make their recommendations to the Department here in Washington as to any changes they think Should be incorporated in the program. State recommendations are reviewed here in Washington. A national program is then put together which becomes the authorized program for that particular year. That goes to the States, and from whatever is in that bulletin the States then make their program. The State program goes to the counties, and the counties then make their program within the State framework.11 The importance of suggestions from the state and county committees can only be appreciated when one realizes that the subcommittees on appropriations place a high value on state and local program administration. These Subcommit- tees stress the fact that cuts or other changes in ACP should ll . . . . Senate Subcommittee on ApprOpriations, Hearings, Department of Agriculture Appropriations for 1959, 85th Con- gress, 2nd Session, p. 545. 60 come from the states or at least be approved by the states. In fact, at times the subcommittees have eXplicitly recom- mended that the department "get suggestions from the states to be predicted on the recommendations of various county . 12 committees.” Objectives of the Policy Making Bodies With an understanding of the importance of the var- ious committees forming ACP policy, let us examine their objectives. Significant factors, of course, are the objec- tives of key congressmen on the apprOpriations Subcommittee and the objectives of the Administration. The key congressmen on these committees are the southern congressmen and congressmen representing large rural populations, particularly those who are committee chairmen. Mr. Whitten, the chairman Of the House Subcommit- tee on Agricultural Appropriations, is clearly a key con- gressman. In fact, it has been said that in agriculture policy his power is second to none.1 Mr. Whitten has been a strong supporter of ACP and has fought to prevent reduction in the program. He realizes that ACP funds are not used Optimumally, but feels that this 121610., p. 546. l3Hathaway, Op. cit., p. 195. 61 is necessary in order to get the programs through Congress. A program of conservation payments made just to the southern states would not be passed by Congress. Consequently, Whitten has worked hard to maintain ACP and the southern states' share of it.14 Senator Russell, who has been chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Agricultural ApprOpriationS; Senator Holland, now chairman; and Senator Ellender, chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, are all from the South and have been strong supporters of ACP. The chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, Cooley, is also from the South and a supporter of ACP. Senators Russell and Ellender have both made statements praising ACP‘s worth to the people of the United States and indicating that the pro- posed cuts in appropriations will kill this wonderful pro- gram.15 These southern congressmen still represent large 1 . . . . . . 4“If we were to write into this bill that it applied only to the needy or worn-out sections of the United States (the South), you could not get enough votes in the Congress to pass it, judging from my eXperiences in the past. Of course, when it has broad application, then it is allocated to sections which do not have any Special need for it on a comparative,basis. But I do not know any other way to get around that.” U.S. Congress, House, Subcommittee on Appro- priations, Hearings, Dapartment of Agriculture Appropria- tions, 1954, 83rd Congress, lst Session, p. 1843. 15Senator Russell stated the following: ”This soil conservation program (ACP) in my judgment has been one of the most beneficial things that has ever happened to the American people. For a number of years we appropriated $500 million a year, then we got involved in a war in 1941 or 1942, and we were demanding that farmers plant everything to 62 rural interests who make use of ACP. Over 40 percent of the farmland in these senators‘ states is under ACP while in Cooley's home state of North Carolina over 61 percent of the farmland was under ACP in 1961. Senator Carlson of Kansas summed up the beliefs of many of the strong congressional supporters of ACP when he said: The entire public benefits from conservation work, and they Should bear a part of the cost. Conservation work induces eXpenditures that cre- ate greater markets for machinery; fuel, lubri- cants, seeds, minerals; and many other supplies. 16 Not only do the congressmen think of ACP in terms of what it will do for conservation, they also consider what it will do for businesses dealing with farmers. They consider it both a stimulus to conservation and an income support. Au. Whitten cultivated crops, and we reduced the program very drastically. but nobody heretofore prOposed a cut aS low as $110 million. I frankly doubt whether we can provide the incentive that is necessary to have a real soil-conservation program with that Small amount of money.” Senator Ellender commented that: ”it is my consid- ered judgment that the best program ever started was this soil-conservation program (ACP). It has been a savior to our country, and I am very much disappointed that the depart- ment under the new administration is curtailing it to such an extent that in my opinion it will defeat it. Senate Sub- committee on Appropriations, Hearings, Department of Agricul- ture Appropriations for 1954, 83rd Congress, lst Session, pp. 35, 634. l6Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations, Hearings, Department of Agriculture ApprOpriations for 1964, 88th Con— gress, lst Session, p. 271. 63 views it as both an income support and a source of capital for resource development on southern farms.17 He appears to say that farmers need an income supplement so they can under- take the practices necessary for the upkeep of their farms; otherwise,the farmers will allow their resources to deplete. Some southern congressmen may also feel that their section of the country should at least have ACP payments to help develop their resources,since the 17 western states already receive funds from the Bureau of Reclamation. The western states can use the Bureau funds plus ACP funds to develOp their resources while the rest of the country gets only ACP funds. This may be one reason why ACP does not receive strong support from western states. Southern congressmen on the appropriations subcom- mittees are also purported to be strong states‘ rights men who try to limit federal control over the programs. AS already has been shown,they want states to have as much 17"So to say that we have learned our lesson in the use of fertilizer-will not apply when prices fall. It is my view that we have had a free market for agriculture through the years. And much Of this declining of soil, from my Observation in at least 3 or 4 states as a youngster growing up, comes from the fact that the average farmer did not have enough, after he paid his taxes and did reasonably well by his family, to keep his house painted and to keep the farm improved. Of course there are exceptions. Those who are close to the city markets, or those farmers with exceptional ability, or those farmers who might have had a little extra capital, are the exception.” House Committee on Appropria- tions, op. cit., p. 1847. 64 voice as possible in administering ACP. The objective of limiting federal control is indicated by the limitations on ACP administrative funds which were written into the appro- priation bills from 1945 to 1961. Some congressmen also favor ACP because they think it helps small family farms. They feel that such farms receive more benefits from ACP than they do from other farm conservation programs.18 The strong support for the small family farm is exemplified in the provision for bonus pay- ments to farmers when their payments are less than 200 dol- lars. The Department of Agriculture has tried to eliminate this provision, which costs 10 million dollars a year, but Congress has maintained it. Congressional support for ACP has not been wholly southern, Republican congressmen from the plains and eastern states have also supported it. Senator Aiken from Vermont, the leading Republican on the Senate Committee on Agriculture 8Dworohak: ”Mr. Secretary, will this proposed reduc- tion have an adverse effect upon the small family-sized farm in view of the fact that most of the benefits from your farm- conservation program go to the larger farmers? . . "That is the point of the question, to determine whether the cutback in ACP conservation practices will dis- criminate against the small Operator, this family—Sized farm Operator?" Senate Subcommittee on ApprOpriations, Hearings, Department of Agriculture Appropriations for 1959, 85th Con- gress, 2nd Session, p. 660. 65 and Forestry and an ex Officio member of the Appropriations Subcommittee, is a strong supporter Of ACP. It is easy to see why, since 65 percent of the farmland in Vermont was under ACP agreements in 1961. Strong support can also be expected from Senator Young of North Dakota and Senator Mundt of South Dakota, the two leading Republicans on the Senate Subcommittee on ApprOpriations. With 75 percent of North Dakota‘s and 47 percent of South Dakota‘s farmland under ACP in 196l,it seems highly unlikely that Senators Young and Mundt would Support a cut in ACP. Against this strong support for ACP, the USDA tries to maximize the objective of conservation and land-use adjustment. The USDA has attempted to obtain maximum returns from its several conservation programs,given a set budgeted amount of money for conservation. In the past eight to ten years the USDA has felt that ACP could be cut anywhere from 100 million to 150 million dollars and the . 19 . . funds put to better use in other programs. This cut is lng. Peterson stated: ”It seems to me that Con- gress and we in the Department of Agriculture are in about this position: We have a certain estimated maximum amount of money that can be devoted to all conservation activities, whether they be in the Forest Service or soil bank or SCS or ACP or what have you, and it is a matter of judgment as to how those funds are distributed. ”Anticipating the kind of funds that would be avail- able to us to distribute in the ensuing budget, it seemed to us we might still keep a pretty sound ACP program and make a reduction, although this is a fairly Sharp reduction.” Ibid., p. 543. 66 partially due to an attempt to use budgeted conservation funds on those programs complementary to the Objective of reducing present crop production. Even though the USDA officials realize that ACP adds to crop production, the main impetus for a cut in appropria- tions has not always come from the USDA. The Bureau of the Budget with the backing of the President has been the main force trying to cut ACP funds. The USDA would just as soon have enough funds to maintain all the conservation programs, but the Presidents since 1947 have shown a preference to use the funds elsewhere as they have tried to balance the budget. The conflict between the Bureau of the Budget and the USDA is carried over into the apprOpriations process. The USDA officials let the appropriations subcommittees know that the cut in the ACP budget was prOposed by the Bureau of the Budget.20 The support of the USDA is behind the appro— priations Subcommittees as they maintain ACP‘S appropriations. 20“Senator Russell: They made a case here for about $400 milliOn but they are defending the budget estimate for $150 million. It is a rather ludicrous situation. How much did the Department request for the 1963 program?” "Secretary Freeman: $250 million.” Senate Subcom- mittee on Appropriations, Hearings, Department of Agriculture ApprOpriationS for 1963, 87th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 686. ”Senator Holland, I might state to you that when the Department came before us and was questioned by the committee it appeared they had requested $250 million, and it was the Budget Bureau that reduced it to $150 million.” Senate Sub- committee on Appropriations, Hearingsy Department of Agricul- ture Appropriations for 1964, 88th Congress, lst Session, p. 1205. 67 Prospects for the Future Given the above ACP policy process and the objectives introduced by these important congressmen, it seems reason- able tO conclude that it will be difficult in the future to improve or even change the Agricultural Conservation Program at the federal level. NO major changes in ACP policy or appropriations can be eXpected unless there is a substantial change in the distribution of power in Congress or a change in the Objectives held by certain congressmen, neither of which seems likely.21 The important positions held by the apprOpriations subcommittees and the committees on agriculture in the formu- lation of ACP policy prevent any changes in ACP that would reduce payments. These committees cannot be eXpected to approve any changes in ACP that are contrary to the objec— tives they hold for ACP, which include income support, flexibility in the state program administration, maintenance of the family farm and rural resource development. Counter balancing this strong support for ACP are the congressmen 21”As long as farmers have permanent legislation on the books which is preferable to the alternatives upon which nonfarm groups will agree, the farm groups will be able to maintain the status quo in policy for sometime. . . . To bring about a major change in policy will require either a significant change in economic conditions or a complete change in the distribution of political power of the rele- vant decision-making groups in Congress.” Hathaway, pp. cit., p. 198. 68 and the President who represent strong urban interests. This Situation has led to an Agricultural Conservation Pro- gram that has been changed very little in the past decade. Improvements in ACP will have to be made within the framework dictated by the policy process. Changes in the programs‘ apprOpriations or even their distribution among states will have to be taken as given for the near future. Improvements in ACP, if any are to be made, must then be made at the state and local levels. The USDA, which has generally given support to ACP, can be an important factor in determining whether or not ACP is altered. By working through the state and local committees the USDA could direct changes in the conservation practices and cost-share arrangements. At present, the USDA seems either unwilling or unable, due to congressional restrictions, to provide the leadership. Consequently, the leadership may have to come from other institutions, possibly the land grant colleges. CHAPTER V STATE AND COUNTY POLICY FORMULATION With the conclusion that changes in ACP will prob- ably have to come at the state and county level, the next step is to study policy formulation at the local level. This chapter first considers the groups involved in develOp- ing and implementing state and county programs. Secondly, it develops two important aspects of policy formulation and finally it evaluates the impacts of policy formulation on program Objectives and program changes. Sixteen county office managers and/or the persons in charge of the county ACP were interviewed in the South Cen- tral and Thumb areas of Michigan. These interviews along with interviews of other individuals involved in ACP‘S develOpment and implementation of the state and county ACP provide the basis for much of this analysis. Particular reference will be made to the sixteen counties surveyed as well as general references to the over all state program. While the general organization and duties of the policy mak- ing bodies are Similar for other states and counties, the same cannot be assumed for policy formulation. 69 70 The Policy Making Bodies Two groups are important in develOping and implement- ing ACP in the states and counties. First are the Agricul- tural Stabilization and Conservation (ASC) committees who administer the state and county programs. The county ASC committees also approve or disapprove applications for ACP cost-sharing and authorize the payments to farmers. The second policy making body, the develOpment groups, selects the practices to be included in ACP. The State Development Group selects practices to recommend for the national program and determines which practices in the National ACP Handbook Should be included in the state pro- gram. They Specify practices, cost-share rates and steps to follow in applying the practices. Each county also has a development group that has much the same duties as the State Development Groups, but makes their suggestions to the state and selects their practices from the State ACP Handbook. The County Development Group can set cost-share rates at less than those offered by the state but cannot offer higher rates without approval of the ASCS Deputy Administrator of Conservation. Similarlx the State Development Group cannot offer cost-share rates higher than those Offered in the National ACP Handbook without approval of the Deputy Admin- istrator. 71 Also of importance is the composition of these two policy making bodies. State ASC Committees are made up of the State Director of Extension, an ex officio member, and three farmers, appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. The county ASC committees are composed of the County Director of Extension, an ex officio member, and three farmers elected by their fellow farmers. The State ASC Committee thus may feel a stronger allegiance to the Secretary of Agriculture, who appointed it, than does the County ASC Committee who may feel its allegiance should go first to the farmers in the county that elect it. The members of the State Development Group include the State ASC Committee, the State Conservationist of the SCS, and the Forest Service official having jurisdiction over farm forestry in the state. Others with conservation interests, such as representatives from the land—grant col- leges, FHA and the State Soil Conservation Committee are invited to counsel with the group. The County Development Group consists of the County ASC Committee, the designated representative from the SCS in the county, and the Federal Forest Service representative having jurisdiction over farm forestry in the county. County Development Groups are also to work with those interested in conservation,such as the county extension agent, FHA County Supervisor, community committeemen and the governing body of the Soil Conservation District. Tile companies and other contractors who benefit 72 as much or more from ACP than the farmers are at times in- cluded among those interested in conservation,though their representation on the development groups may lead to a conflict of interests. Policy Formulation With this general background on the groups setting ACP policy, the next step is to study the actual formation of policy in Michigan. Two important parts are involved: first, selecting practices and second, approving farmer applications. Decisions concerning practices to include in ACP are made both at the state and county levels. The ques— tion is, what factors influence the decision makers when they select practices and set cost-share rates and restric— tions? The factors vary somewhat between the sixteen coun- ties surveyed, but at least five were significant. In some counties, however, only one factor was important while in others all five had an influence. At the county level the single most important factor was farmer acceptance and use of the practices. Practices heavily used by farmers,such as liming, drainage and tempo— rary cover,umre the first included in the program. Yet some practices included are used very little but have a high conservation value. The main consideration, however, par— ticularly in counties with excess appropriations, was the 73 inclusion of practices farmers would apply so the county could use all of its appropriations. Another factor affecting the program‘s develOpment is the prOportion of county ACP funds used in past years. Counties short on ACP funds tend to include restrictions into their program on expensive and heavily used practices. These restrictions make funds available for other practices and allow more farmers to use the program. Individual pref~ erences or interests of persons involved in the ACP develop— ment group meetings constitute a fourth factor. Those attending will be concerned about the practices they think have particular merit or benefit. Tile company representa— tives will be interested in the drainage practices, the forestry official will be concerned about the forestry prac- tices and the sportsman will be interested in wildlife prac— tices. A fifth factor important in developing the new pro~ gram is the previous program. The past program can provide a good basis for building the new program but not if it prevents change. Conservation needs change and objectives such as land-use adjustment receive added emphasis. Alter— ations in the program may be necessary to meet new conserva— tion needs and provide new emphasis on particular objectives. Approval of last year‘s program for this year may be too easy and may prevent a much needed program reappraisal. 74 The second important aSpect of formulating ACP policy is the county ASC committee‘s approval or disapproval of applications for ACP payments. The survey indicated that five criteria were used in allocating funds when apprOpria- tions were limited. Where the counties had adequate funds, the county committees approved all practices meeting the minimum requirements as set out in their county handbook, since they did not need any method for distributing the funds among farmers. On the other hand,some of the counties, with insufficient funds to approve all applications, used all five criteria in determining the distribution of ACP payments. One criteria used was the placing of priorities on practices applied for by the farmer. If the county committee could not approve all the practices applied for, it would first approve the practice given the highest priority by the farmer. The farmer on his application for payments might list tile drainage first and the construction of a sod water~ way second, thus tiling would have first priority for approval. A second criteria used is the farmer's previous ACP payments; if he has obtained payments exceeding a set amount in the past two to five years he may not be able to obtain any this year. In some counties this restriction applied only to certain practices. For example, a farmer could get 75 payments for tiling once out of every three years,while he could receive them every year for such less eXpensive prac- tices as green manure. Size of farm constitutes another criteria used in deciding how much to cost—share with a farmer. The larger farmers are generally able to obtain payments on more land because, it is reasoned, they have more acres to conserve even though they may be those best able to carry out the practice without assistance. Individual preference of the county committee members for certain practices is still another criteria. When it is important, farmers applying for the committee's preferred practices can eXpect first priority in obtaining approval. The final factor, that is at times not even considered, is the conservation and land- use adjustment needs of the area. These are the general objectives of ACP but they seem to find too little consider— ation at the county level of program implementation. This is possibly due to a lack of communication of objectives from the Secretary of Agriculture to the individ- ual county committees. At the county level, too often, there was a lack of any real idea of what ACP was to achieve. Accomplishments were measured by the amount of funds distrib- uted to farmers within the county. If the program got more funds to the farmer, it was fulfilling its purpose. Lack of communications may not be the fault of either the state or federal administration but rather due to the administrative 76 organization, where the county committees give their alle- giance to their county‘s farmers. If this is true, then the best measure of benefits to the county committee may be the amount of ACP funds distributed in their county. There may be a good reason to ask whether ACP is implemented to obtain income payments for farmers or whether it is to obtain con- servation and land-use adjustment. Objectives In the analysis of practice selection and approval, at least two objectives, other than the program objectives, were shown to be involved in the actual program develOpment and implementation: (1) income support and (2) political support. Their importance is shown by the factors consid— ered in selecting practices and by the criteria used in approving practices. In the counties where funds are limited, practices are promoted that are less eXpensive and restrictions are placed on expensive practices. This is done in order that more farmers can get ACP payments, indicating a desire to allow more farmers to obtain an income payment. In fact, one administrator suggested that a better way to distribute ACP funds might be to divide it up between all farmers. He felt ACP did not reach the farmers who really need the money and an even distribution of funds would at least give some— thing to those in need. Another indication of the income 77 support objective is the use of a past history of payments to determine who should receive payments. Counties seemed to attempt to distribute funds such that all farmers got their fair share as income supplement appeared to be more important than conservation or land-use adjustment. Spreading funds among as many farmers as possible, seeing that the farmers get their fair share and selecting practices that the farmers want and use, indicate an effort to fulfill the objective of political support. The county committeemen are elected and their jobs depend rather direct- ly on the farmers in their county. Consequently, it is to their advantage to set up ACP so that as many farmers as possible can use it. The ASC Committee members shy away from programs that attempt to emphasize any particular prob— lem area within the county, since farmers from the other areas in the county might feel they were not getting their fair share. The desire to remain on the ASC Committee and keep the farmers happy can prevent the county ASC committee- men from initiating a program fitting the conservation needs of a county. The State ASC Committee may have good reason not to push for any program changes that would bring strong objec- tions from the farmers. This committee is appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture and its tenure depends on the polit— ical party in power. It, therefore, may not be in the State 78 ASC committee members' best interest to cut practices con- flicting with other federal programs or to design the pro- gram such that it gets at the real conservation and land- use adjustment needs; farmers‘ use of the program may be more important. Increased crop production is another objective ful- filled by certain ACP practices. The reaction to this objec- tive can be placed in two general groups. First, several county office managers felt it was inconsistent for a farmer to come in, turn to the right and receive payments for reduc~ ing crOp production, then turn left and receive ACP payments for liming, fertilizer, green manure or tile drainage that will increase crOp production. Yet, others felt ACP was promoting practices that conserve the soil and increase pro» ductivity needed in the future to meet the increased demand for food and fiber. The former appears to be a fairly frank view of ACP, while the latter is the standard attempt to rationalize ACP with the surplus disposal program. Program Changes Turning to the question of modifying ACP, several problems became apparent in the previous discussion. First, what are the conservation and land-use adjustment needs of any particular county? Such needs are not well spelled out. As a result, it is difficult to convince either the ASC Committee or the Development Group that certain program 79 changes are badly needed. On tOp of this, it is too easy to reapprove the previous year‘s program; hence the state and county programs tend to stay the same,even though the program needs change. Against these and other barriers that inhibit change, Michigan‘s state and county programs have undergone some important modifications. Two events seem to bring about changes in the program at this level; first, too high a con- centration on certain practices and second, limited funds. Too high a percentage of ACP funds Spent on tile drainage, in some counties as high as 99 percent, caused the State DevelOpment Group to drOp the cost-share rate in eight coun- ties from 50 to 30 percent in 1957. The general policy is to lower the cost-share rate to 30 percent in counties spend" ing over 50 percent of their apprOpriated funds on tile drainage. By 1964, 22 counties were restricted to a 30 per- cent cost-share. On the other hand, practices with high social benefit but low private returns, have had their cost- share rates increased to 80 percent. However, further changes along this line have not been attempted. Cost-share rates for lime might be reduced while those for permanent cover, sod waterways and terracing might be increased to provide a greater fulfillment of the program objectives. Changes at the county level have for the most part been brought about by fund shortages. When counties found they could not approve all requests for ACP payments, due to 8O fund shortages, changes began to appear in their programs. Restrictions, some eXplicit and others implicit, tended to make it possible for the counties to approve practices all year. Three general types of restrictions were used in the sixteen counties surveyed. The most common was to limit the total amount a farmer could earn in ACP payments during one or several years. A closely related limitation was to restrict the amount a farmer could earn for ”eXpensive” and/ or popular practices,such as tiling, wildlife ponds and establishing permanent vegetation. Another technique used was to budget the ACP funds such that a set prOportion would be available during different times of the year. A county would then have some funds left at the end of the year to cost-share on late practices. The third general type of restriction,and the one which seemed to best fit the program objectives,was to reduce cost-share rates or the number of components paid for under a practice. This was done with practices the County Develop— ment Group felt were used too extensively or would be used equally as much at the reduced rate. Examples of these restrictions include a cut from 50 to 40 percent for lime in Ionia county, a reduction from 4 to 3 cents a pound for grass seed in Clinton county and a complete dropping of fertilizer payments for the green manure practices in Lenawee county. 81 If the cuts in cost-share rates do not significantly reduce participation, they would allow ACP to achieve essentially the same practice adoption at a lower cost. Another program change that seems worth further trial is the higher cost-share rates for farmers using a practice for the first time. Huron and Sanilac counties will cost-share 50 percent for the first ten acres a farmer tile drains. This gives an added incentive to those who have not previously used the practice,since both counties normally cost—share only 30 percent. Such a technique relies on the demonstration effect which states that once a farmer discovers the worth of a practice he will continue it without further payments, but further study is needed to determine if this is actually the case. Summary It appears at least three additional objectives are important at the local level: (1) income support, (2) polit- ical support and (3) increasing productivity to meet future needs for food and fiber. Where these are given major empha— sis ACP may fall short of the program objectives. And where these objectives are in conflict with the surplus disposal programs, ACP will help cause other federal programs to fall short of their objectives. 82 The many objectives held for ACP point out the need for an improved definition of objectives along with a better job of communication. In addition,an improved designation of conservation and land-use adjustment needs is necessary so county and state ASC committees and develOpment groups can use them in developing and implementing their programs. This should include a general Specification of the major conservation problems within counties as well as a rather Specific designation of problem areas. Armed with this information,the county committees might be able to gain support for programs that concentrate on the particular conservation problem areas. CHAPTER VI PERFORMANCE AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF PAYMENTS The last three chapters have reviewed the politics and administration of ACE while develOping the objectives influencing its operation. The next step is to evaluate ACP'S past performance in light of these objectives. Chap— ters VI and VII compare both eXplicit and implicit objec— tives with the distribution of ACP payments and the result- ing practice use. To begin with, ACP is designed to fulfill the objec- tives of conservation of soil, water, forests and wildlife, and land—use adjustment. These objectives are to be met by: (l) confining the program to conservation practices on which federal cost-Sharing is most needed to achieve maximum con- servation benefits, (2) encouraging those conservation prac— tices that provide the most enduring conservation benefits, particularly the establishment of permanent vegetative cover, (3) cost-Sharing only on conservation practices that farmers would not carry out to the needed extent without program assistance, (4) setting cost-share rates at the minimum required to substantially increase performance of needed conservation practices, (5) excluding practices that develOp 83 84 new or additional farmland by measures,such as drainage, irrigation, and land clearing, and (o) requiring the farmers to assume reSponsibility for the upkeep and maintenance of the conservation practices. Before beginning the evaluation of ACP‘S performance relative to its objectives, the program objectives need fur- ther interpretation. What is actually implied by these restrictions under which ACP is to be fulfilled? First, a limited amount of money is available for payments, and prac- tices should be selected that maximize conservation and land— use adjustment benefits. For this reason, funds should be Shifted from practices and areas with lower benefits per unit of federal funds to those with higher benefits, assum— ing the practices receiving the additional funds also meet other program restrictions. Second, practices providing enduring conservation benefits, particularly practices pro— moting permanent vegetative cover, should have first claim on ACP payments. Third, payments should be restricted to practices the farmer would not undertake on his own. Hence, normal farming practices or established conservation prac- tices should be excluded from the program. The fourth restriction requires cost-share rates to be the minimum necessary to obtain needed conservation. Consequently, cost— sharing rates should be varied, encouraging practices giving the highest social returns. Fifth, conservation practices 85 are not to bring new lands into production,implying that the primary effect of ACP practices should not be to encourage increased crop production. Finally,the program should not include maintenance practices. Practices should be selected that give the highest increment of enduring conservation and land-use adjustment benefits per increment of government cost. These costs would include any surpluses caused by the program’s produc— tion increasing aSpects,as well as direct costs. Practices with high conservation benefit may not have a high priority due to their high cost or temporary effectiveness. The critical practices to promote would be those practices pre— venting irreparable damage or providing extensive downstream benefits. Practices of low conservation benefits would include those that could be undertaken at a latter date with— out causing any irreparable damage to the resource. For example, it makes little difference whether land is drained or irrigated now or twenty years hence, production is still substantially increased. ACP should attempt to promote those practices pre» venting damage to land—use capacity needed for the future that cannot be repaired at a reasonable cost. If the cost 1One exception to this statement is found in the West where drainage is necessary in some areas to prevent salt damage that would make land already in use unfit for crop production. 86 of the conservation practices is greater than the cost of repairing the damage,then it should not be promoted by ACP. But when the cost of repairing the damage is greater than the cost of the conservation practice, there may be a case for ACP assistance. ACP Policy (1946—64) Two general types of policies have been used in the administration of ACP since it became strictly a conserva— tion program; both have been used to fulfill essentially the same objectives. During 1946-53, payments were made for a wide range of practices including liming, fencing, land clearing, weed control and terracing. The emphasis was on increasing use of individual practices that might be used to promote soil and water conservation. This is contrasted with the package practice approach of 1954—65,which made payments for fencing, liming and fertilizer as part of other practices. The present policy emphasizes the conservation prac— tice rather than the individual parts. This has eliminated some uses of lime and fertilizer that led directly to in- creased production, although a farmer can still earn ACP pay- ments for lime and fertilizer by planting a green manure crop which when plowed under can be planted to corn or wheat. The farmer can then take advantage of both the minerals and the organic matter to increase production. 87 New restrictions,such as the soil testing requirement for lime and fertilizer,added to the inconveniences of obtain- ing payments and appeared to reduce participation. Hence, along with possible movements towards better fulfillment of program objectives, ACP was not meeting objectives held by those administering it. The state and local committees may well have desired higher participation rather than curtail- ment of production increasing practices. But before the Specific objectives are analyzed,a general picture is needed of ACP’S past distribution of funds and its performance under the two different policies. ACP’S use of funds is shown from 1946 through 1963 to provide a basis for comparing objectives with performance. The years 1946-53 will be fairly representative of the old policy, while 1954—63 will represent the present package practice approach. A few changes occurred during 1961-63, since a new administration took over in 1960. Also, 1953 represents the transition year when the old policy was being directed by a new administration and the new policy was be- ing developed. Therefore, the two seven year periods, 1946— 52 and 1954-60, will provide the best basis for comparing the two policies. 88 Distribution of Funds To evaluate the past distribution of ACP funds, practices have been grouped according to their ability to fulfill program objectives. Such a grouping will indicate whether the prOportion of funds has changed since 1946 and if it has, whether the change has been towards a better fulfillment of program objectives. Practices were placed in three general groups: Group I, practices least fulfilling objectives; Group II, practices most fulfilling objectives; and Group III, prac- tices not in the previous groups. The dividing line between these three groups is admittedly fuzzy, but in order to con- sider the total program, practices were placed in the group they seemed best to fit. In categorizing the ACP practices, a Specific crite— ria was derived from the program objectives. Practices least fulfilling objectives, Group I practices, fell under three general headings. First are those practices that caused Substantial increases in cr0p production while con- tributing little to conservation or land—use adjustment. Here the increase in production is generally sufficient to pay off the investment within a fairly short period of time and the farmer generally undertakes these practices if he is aware of their profitability and has sufficient capital. 89 The benefits accruing to the nation and not the farmer are usually less than the cost-share. Second are those prac- tices having low returns to both the farmer and the general public relative to their cost. A calculation of the costs and benefits would show these practices as not profitable, no matter what benefits are considered. And finally,there are normal farming practices or established practices that farmers would generally undertake without assistance. For the most part, these practices benefit the nation, but the farmer receives early returns, usually sufficient to encour- age practice adoption. Group II practices, those most fulfilling program objectives, tend not to increase present crOp production while they help bring about needed land-use adjustment and conservation. As part of the land-use adjustment objective, practices are included that help prevent shifts from the production of permanent cover or trees to the production of crops. Returns from the Group II practices are usually low as compared to their cost, or the returns are a long time in accruing to the farmer. In addition, many of the returns or benefits may not be captured by the farmer but are captured tux other downstream farmers or the nation as a whole, partic— iilarly future generations. Finally Group III practices, those not in the other tum) groups, include some fairly ineXpensive practices that 90 may be established or normal farming practices. Returns to the farmer from these practices may be hard to see but are generally not long in accruing. The nation benefits from the soil and water conservation aSpects of these practices since they prevent damages to our resources. This being the case, there may be reason to subsidize these practices in areas where they have not become established and where the returns, not captured by the farmer, are in excess of the federal cost-share. In other areas,these practices Should not be subsidized since farmers will apply the practices without assistance or the returns to the nation are low relative to their costs. The returns may also vary from year to year so that payments should only be offered in Specific years, such as drought years. Hence, most of these practices should be offered only as Special practices and included where they are not established and their national benefits are shown to exceed the cost-share. Although some practices do not fit neatly into one category or anothen,they were placed in the group where their largest percentage fell. For example, all the temporary cover practices were put in Group III,although year around cover might fit in Group II and green manure would go in Group I. Data was not available giving the breakdown of each type of temporary cover before 1954 nor in 1963, there— fore, they were taken as a group, The only practices divided ‘were fertilizer and lime since they were reported separately 91 before 1954. The minerals used in cover crops and other vegetative practices were included as part of the cost of vegetative practices from 1954—63, though not from 1936-53. Thus,lime and fertilizer were divided up among the three groups for the years previous to 1954, based on the 1954—63 distribution. The effect of placing the total practice in one group rather than dividing them should balance out. That portion of the liming practice not belonging in Group I will be balanced by the portion of temporary cover not belonging in Group III or the portion of improvement of pasture not belonging in Group II. The classification was not designed to condemn any particular practice but rather to show gen- eral relationships between certain aSpect of ACP. For a more detailed analysis, each group was divided into 5 to 7 practice subgroups. The ACP practices included in each subgroup are listed in Table 5. References should be made to this table before preceding to the analysis and discussion of ACP‘s distribution of payments. 92 “cmEm>OHQEM >uummhow .mzmmuDUCHS pcm HOMHCOU 20amoum .wowOQuSQ >uwmmuom How mcdpcmfid Daucm uo wouh mpoawzo co :ofiumumwm> unmeasuom mcfinmfifinmpmm new acupusupmcoo mm>ma .mucmummfio Homemco .mEmp Houweoo :ofimoum wefi Ipafisn .cofipoououd pmfiuzo .m>m3umum3 pom mcfinmflfinmpmm rwcfiomuuoH mpum>mca> new mpumnouo :fi uw>oo pcmcmsumd .pcosumshpm omnipcmfi pew :oflum>uom:oo How uo>oo o>fipmpmmm> wcocmsumd mo peoecmfiHQMPmm >upwouom Hougqoo coflmouo Rocco pew mmomuumH uo>oo o>flwmeomm> poocmEuom I‘\ .o AHH msouoo mm>upummno wcuaadwasa “mo: mmuuuumcm pcmHQOHU pmumwfluufincoc mo mafiam>oa pcm mpmnmumwmz Hmfiofimfiuum .Hm>osou Boummpoc .wcfiocmm .mxcmp ommHOFm new woman mafiaamwm:fi .mHSHme co mcofiumuodo mwmaafiw .COaposuwmcoo Ham: puma popoum wcfisdmaomu pew ovum you wcfipcmad .pomm mmmuw pew msswoa mew numo>umn .mufio>uomou conpumm wcficda .mcfluscms oflcmwuo .mooflwomud mocmcoucfime .mpmms mafisos .wCfiEumw odonnmmouo .mdouo >ma weapoom .BoHHmm seesaw womuoud 0w owmaafip .wcflumoao puma .Houwcoo poo; monopfip cofipmwfiuufi wcflcfla new noun: :ofiumwfiuufl How muflo>ummou “cofipmwfiuufi How puma wcfiao>oa .mswpm>m cofipmwfiuufi wcfluficmwuomm owmcflmup oommu:m o>fiuoowwo washed 0» mcfiomum ocma no wcfidmnm pew monouflp emanamuc Eumw codo .ommcfimup made Amofiwomud ¢u< mnpv moofiwomud cofipm>uomcoo oflmfioodm cw“: pom: pom mumwfiafiuumm new mafia mumnyo ooscdwcoomflp moofipomum cofipmmfiuua ommcdmum mamuocfie nocpo Dam mafia .H AH msouwv mm>duooflno wcflaafiwasm pmmmq mmofiuomum dsoumnsm comm :H poUSHUCH mmofluomum uOnmz masonnsm 1‘ cofipmoflwfimmmao oofipomum .m oHQmH 93 mmofiuomua msomcmaamomfie bum Hafiomdm umnuo saw: meon mmoawomud >pcsoo Hmfiomdm .wcfiam>ma >3 pcmacoon mo :oflumHOHmmu .moofipomud omfiapafiz .wcfimmuw pmuuommo .mafimup xUOpm madnmfianmumo .mcfiHAOmnzm pcma mumpmmd no mwcmu co manunm m>fipfipmdeoo mo Homecoo mpumnouo wcfiu30pcoo new wcflddouodfiuum .mcflddouodfiupm HSOPQOU mmHSmmme Houycoo new: Hocuo new mcfinoass MHDDSHm .pcosommcms ozoflmmu douo .wcfisumw MSOpcoo .pcmHQOHU co mmmaafiu >ocmwumem pom mcfinoasz mommmuw pew muesmma mo mmcapmmm Hmcofipfippm pew mcoflpmpou mono :fi um>oo mo mommmuum Hmcofiufioo< mmoflpomud um>oo Ham» Ham new um>oo umEESm .um>oo umpcfiS .muzcms comma mmncvoa madman mooflpomud Hm>oo m>fiumumwm> >umu0dsmp guano pcm ounces comum HomHRXSSmeHmcflE mo cofipuoa poumsfiumm mumnuo Houucou Daunm m>fipflu0deoo moumnouo mafiHSOwcou new wcfiddou0dfiupm mwmaafiu >ucowumao new mcfinoanz mommmum one mossmoa Hmcofiwfipp< um>oo >umu0d8mp new madame sumac mamumcfle umnwo can mafia .wa .hH .cfi .ma .va .MH .NH AHHH msouov 039 guano use aH 9oz mmuuuumum .moumswmufiw mcfinmflanmpmm new mammm no mefiudm wcfl>ouded .umwmz xo0um0>fia How mufio>uommu Ho mamp wcfipafism mmucvoa mcflHSU um>0o m>fipmummm> pumcmEuod mafi>oudefl new mcfinmflanmumm How pom: mamumcfis mo cofiHMOQ pmpmefiumm wwcmu Cum muzpmmd mo wcflpwomom “mums xUOHmm>flH mcfl>ummcoo mamumcfie Honpo pom mafia um>oo o>flpmpmmm> mafi>oudEH .HH .OH .0 94 United States Within this general framework, the analysis of ACP‘S performance begins by considering the total United States' program. Here the prOportion of funds going to each major group seems very stable (see Table 6). In fact, they may be too stable,considering the major changes that have taken place in United States agriculture since 1946. On the aver- age, the distribution of funds from 1946—52 was about 40, 27 and 33 percent for Group I, II, and III practices respec- tively,while from 1954—60 the figures were 36, 36, and 28 percent. This implies the package practice approach moved the program a little closer to fulfilling its objectives as Group II practices increased at the expense of the other two groups. Still, over one-third of the payments go to prac- tices least fulfilling program objectives and this share has increased during the Sixties after a Slight decline in the fifties. In 1956 the impact of the package practice policy and changes in cost-Share rates pushed the Group II prac- tices from 30 to 36.6 percent. This increase in Group Il‘s relative share, that actually started in 1946 or earlier, continued throughout the fifties reaching its peak share of 40.9 percent in 1959. Two other important shifts were brought about by the policy change. First, the share going to minerals other than lime decreased from 26.5 to 18.7 995 00000-0000 .AVOOHthoa .mommmo mcmpsfiwfl.v:wscum>ou. "copwcmcwmzv 0000 humsssm 0000000000m mouwpmch mofiumsssm wnmoauNmOH W0weesw "MOOHImmOH moamum 0m >00E53m .500m00m cofium>0mmcoo 0003003000wfl, "wousom .H @3000 00 m\0 0:0 HHH 0:0 HH Q3000 £000 00 v\H 003 mmnOQOH 500% 00000205 mo :00039000000 ways .000. 0000 00000 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000000 .00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0000000 00000 0>000000000 .00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0000 0000000 0 .000000000 .00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0000000 000000000 0 .0000: .00 ... 000 ... ... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0000000 0 0000000 .000 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 .0000 0 000000 .00 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... 00000000 00000 000 0000 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 maulmmmwm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00003 x00000>00 .0000000 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 00.00 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 00000000 00000 0 0000 .00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .00> 000>o0000 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00000000 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0000000 0000000 0 00000000 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000 000000000> .0000 .0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 mulmmmwm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000000 .0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 000000000000 000000000 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0000000000 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00000000 .0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000 00000 000 0000 .0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 mummmmm «couuvm 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 Amonovoav moumum pupae: 0:» :0 mu>muuohno «Hmwasw o» zufiaqnm >9 omuaoum mouwuumuq moc .o oHan 96 percent,while the share going for liming materials increased only slightly. Second, the proportion Spent on temporary practices declined from 43.6 percent in 1946 to 11.9 percent in 1963, with the largest drOp coming in 1954 of from 30.3 to 24.7 percent. The changes have not been drastic, although they appear to have moved ACP closer to fulfilling its objec- tives (see Table 7). The major shifts in relative shares, however, does not become apparent until the subgroups are studied; here the effect of ACP’s change becomes vivid. Some difficulties arise in evaluating the shifts in emphasis favoring the per- manent vegetative cover practices, subgroups o, 9 and 10. Before 1954 the permanent vegetative cover practices were divided into essentially three groups: (1) establishment of permanent vegetative cover to control erosion on steep slopes, (2) seeding and reseeding pasture and range, and (3) establishment of permanent vegetative cover in orchards or vineyards and the fertilizer and lime applied along with each practice. Then beginning with 1954, the permanent cover practices were divided into two groups: subgroup o, permanent vegetative cover that includes establishment of cover on steep slopes, in orchards, vineyards or pastures; and subgroup 9, improvement of permanent vegetative cover that includes reseeding of pasture and range. Due to the difficulty involved in dividing up the seeding and reseeding 97 Table 7. The proportion of ACP payments used for minerals and temporary practices in the United States. (1946-63) Total All Other Temporary Year Minerals Lime Minerals Practices (%) (%) (%) (%) 1963 (n)* (n) (n) 11.91 1962 38.79 21.39 17.40 12.53 1961 38.21 20.10 18.11 15.27 1960 38.84 20.53 18.31 13.05 1959 37.93 19.79 18.14 12.28 1958 38.80 19.99 18.81 14.03 1957 38.14 18.43 19.71 16.97 1956 37.71 18.25 19.46 16.22 1955 41.17 18.87 22.30 24.53 1954 - 39.91 21.17 18.74 24.73 1953 42.72 16.19 26.53 30.29 1952 44.58 17.85 26.73 32.20 1951 42.36 17.19 25.17 31.88 1950 39.00 15.96 23.04 34.17 1949 42.65 18.30 24.35 36.71 1948 46.05 21.98 24.07 38.78 1947 41.61 22.26 19.35 38.43 1946 41.37 23.40 17.97 43.60 tical Summary 1946-1963 (Washington: Office, 1946-1964). Source: Agricultural Conservation Program, Statis— *Data not available. Government Printing 98 practices of 1946-53,they were all placed into subgroup 9. Thus, subgroup 6 will tend to be underestimated from 1946-53, while subgroup 9 is overestimated. To evaluate the impact of the policy change in 1954, subgroups 6, 9 and 10 are added together. When this is done, the proportion of funds going for all permanent vegetative cover practices actually shows a decline of from 20.4 per- cent in 1952 to 15.3 percent in 1954 before rising to a high of 22.3 percent in 1962. While the total prOportion going to permanent vegetative cover practices has not changed greatly since it reached 20.5 percent in 1956, the relative share going for improving vegetative cover and for establish— ment of vegetative cover has changed. The prOportion used for establishment of vegetative cover has steadily increased from 7.2 percent in 1954 to 15.9 percent in 1962, whereas that going for improvement of vegetative cover has been fairly constant since 1957 at between 6.2 and 6.8 percent. The real increases in permanent vegetative cover, therefore, did not appear to arise until the middle or late fifties, two or three years after the change to the package practice approach. The actual breakdown of how the funds were Spent before 1954 is not clear, so the 1954 change may have eliminated payments for permanent vegetative cover that would have been done by the farmers on their own. Hence, the decrease in proportion of funds used for vegetative 99 cover in 1954 and 1955 does not necessarily mean a movement away from program objectives. If the increase in permanent vegetative cover prac- tices during the middle fifties is combined with the share going to subgroups 7, 8 and 11, they account for all the increase in Group II. Forestry practices, subgroup 8, jumped from 0.5 percent in 1953 to 3 percent by 1958. Ter- racing and other erosion control practices, subgroup 7, went from 3.8 to 9.1 percent during the same period while the practices for livestock water conservation, subgroup 11, climbed from 3.8 to 6.7 percent. On the negative side, irrigation and drainage prac— tices, subgroup 3 and 2 reSpectively, increased from 8.1 per- cent in 1952 to 17.8 percent in 1960. Off setting these increases, however, was the decrease in the share going to subgroup 1 and the discontinuing of some established and reoccuring practices. The decrease in minerals was probably due to the new restrictions on their use, while irrigation and drainage practices increased as they were considered enduring practices. The green manure and other temporary cover practices have been fairly constant since 1946 with the exception of 1954 and 1955. But when the estimated prOportion of miner- als used on these practices is added for 1946-53, a definite decrease becomes apparent in 1956. The temporary cover 100 practices, along with the stripcrOpping practices, appear to have declined during the middle fifties. In the late fif— ties and early sixties subgroup 14, planting additional legumes or grasses, decreased while subgroup 17, competitive shrub control, continued to increase. These changes were in the right direction,a1though they really did not go far enough; over 40 percent of the payments are still made for practices least fulfilling pro— gram objectives. This, along with the steady increase in the irrigation and drainage practices indicate a need for further program reappraisal. As indicated in Chapter IV, such practices are necessary to maintain political support for ACP in the western and midwestern states. Without the irrigation practices there would be few outlets for ACP funds and no votes for the program in the West. State Programs With the need for reappraisal apparent, the program will be disaggregated to see how individual states have dis- tributed their payments. Since the state programs can vary as much as night and day, need for improvement at the state level may also vary. For example, Utah Spends 75 percent of IMSP funds on irrigation while New York Spends almost as high a pmoportion on liming materials. These differences are due ‘ha many thingS,of which climate and soil characteristics lOl seem to play a significant role. The USDA has been in— structed to give states as much flexability as possible in developing their programs; the states select practices the farmers will use and possibly those needed to solve conser- vation and land-use adjustment problems. The states selected for anlaysis are: (1) California representing the Pacific Coast states, (2) Utah representing the Mountain states, (3) North Dakota representing the Northern Plains states, (4) Texas representing the Southern Plains states, (5) Iowa representing the Midwestern states, (6) Michigan representing the Lake states, (7) New York rep- resenting the Northeastern states, (8) Virginia representing the Appalachian states and finally (9) Georgia representing the Southeastern states. California The distribution of ACP payments in California is very similar to most of the western states, particularly in the heavy use of irrigation practices. In 1963 over half of the payments were used for irrigation practices,while only a quarter went to practices best meeting program objec- tives (see Table 8). Although ACP‘s present distribution of payments in California is further from meeting the program objectives than is the United States total, it is an improvement over the 1946-52 distribution. The average distribution of ACP practices grouped by ability to fulfill objectives, California (1946-03) Table 8 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 1949 1948 1947 1946 1963 Percent 69.3 76.3 7.8 56.3 60.1 70.5 .6 73 I 65.4 70.2 .5 70.0 67.8 63.1 57.8 60.2 37.4 r, I 69.2 I Grou 3 .5 . 26.4 21.4 10.9 21.6 2 2 5 6 3 46.1 o 2 1 2 53.2 6 2 o 7 43.1 3 5 40.4 44.6 3 1 o 8 55.7 s Incoo ‘H 000 - qu u OQJ'H -G U m+ah O in :30 -cr$>~0 QHU+JD EGDEEZS Q) 001-. #40005: Le :11 zcnqaz QJE a) 0150 '> L4: CL-d SOD/10+) SQ) Lam-1 raw-«I -u+au3 E .CQQJL. -Uu-4 0.1) ~‘j—4HEI.‘ HWJSHCH LD202000eco .22 ... ... ... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0000 .0002000 0 .002002020 .02 0.0 .. 2.0 2.0 ... 2.0 . . ... ... ... 0.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0002222 200000000 2 .0020: .02 0.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... M.O moo hefl m0m W..—.. 000 N.O W.O m00 M00 memmdhm AWUESWUH .336. ..TH 2.0 2.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ... 2.0 2.0 2.0 200 200 200 200 200 ... 20>00 .0000 2 000000 .20 .02 0.0 0.02 0.02 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 222 00000 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.2 2.0 0.2 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 2.0 0.2 0.2 20003 000200>22 .>0000oo .22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.0 0.02 0.0 2.0 2.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 2.0 00>00 .00> 002>00002 .0 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 ... 200 200 200 22200000 .0 0.0 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2002000 0020000 0 00002000 .2 200 2.0 2.0 2.0 200 200 200 200 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.2 0.0 2.0 00>o0 0>2002000> .0000 .0 0.02 0.02 2.02 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.02 2.0 0.22 0.0 0.02 2.02 0.02 0.02 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 22 m000o 0.2 2.0 0.02 0.02 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.02 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.2 0.02 000020 .0 2.00 0.02 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.02 ... 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 200 200 200 2.0 000022000020 000220020 .0 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 2.00 0.02 0.02 2.20 0.20 0.00 0.02 0.22 0.02 2.22 0.22 0020002202 .0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00002020 .0 m0“; HoOH .0. 00° o.“ 000 ”oh 0.? IO. .0. 000 0.. ‘0. IO. .0. 0.. CI. 0.9 “Hmuucfia “0:“0 van ”EMA OH 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.20 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.02 0.22 0.02 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.20 0.00 2 maouo «cuuuom 0002 2002 0002 0002 0002 2002 0002 0002 0002 0002 0002 2002 0002 0002 0002 2002 0002 0002 I 200-00020 000: .00>2000000 2222202 00 2222200 20 00000.20 000200000 000 .02 02002 110 Table 11. The proportion of ACP payments used for minerals and temporary practices, Utah (1946-63) Total Temporary Year Minerals Practices (%) (%) 1963 (n)4r .2 1962 (a) .1 1961 (a) .1 1960 (a) .1 1959 .1 .l 1958 .6 .2 1957 .7 .3 1956 .9 2.0 1955 .5 1.1 1954 1.0 .0 1953 5.0 10.5 1952 7.7 11.0 1951 6.0 11.4 1950 5.6 6.9 1949 ' 9.6 8.4 1948 ... 9.8 1947 10.1 17.7 1946 7.5 44.3 aLess than .05%. 0 Data not available. Source: See Table 7. 111 Another impact of the policy change of 1954 was a sharp decline in the relative share of funds going to miner— als. The share declined from 5 percent in 1953 to 1 percent in 1954 and by 1960 was less than 0.05 percent. The contin— ued low level of assistance for minerals indicated that the 1953-54 shift was probably due to the policy change rather than the drop in apprOpriations, since the share going for minerals continued to decline even after apprOpriations were restored in 1955. In 1947-48 the share going to minerals declined from 10.1 percent to nothing and then increased to 9.6 percent in l949,when the cut in apprOpriations was restored. The appropriations cut helped reduce payments for minerals, but the change in policy was necessary to maintain the reduction. Further analysis of specific practices indicates other shifts. First, the Share of payments going to the combination of subgroups 6 and 9 declined rather sharply in 1953 from 10 to 4 percent and has flucturated between 6.1 and 2.8 percent ever Since. As of 1954,the relative share of funds going to each subgroup has been around 2 percent, without a trend favoring either. In fact, in 1962 subgroup 9 had 1.5 percent while subgroup 6 had 2.4 percent, but in 1963 subgroup 6 had only 2.1 percent while subgroup 9's share rose to 2.7 percent. Similar fluctuations took place throughout the period following the change to package prac— tices. 112 The other subgroups in Group II exhibited year to Year fluctuations. Terraces and other erosion control devices fluctuated between highs of almost 8 percent in 1948 and 1956 to lows of around 2 percent in 1952 and 1961. The forestry practices never received more than 0.04 percent and practices for conserving livestock water never again approached their 1946 high of 5.8 percent, although they re ached 3.1 percent in 1961 before declining to 1.4 percent by 1962. Group II declined due mainly to the drOp in the share of payments going to permanent vegetative cover prac- ti ces and a failure of any other subgroups to offset this de Cline . None of the subgroups within Group III have main- tained a share of ACP payments of even 2 percent. The only subgroup of any importance was competitive shrub control as it 5 share fluctuaged between 1 and 3 percent and was 2.3 percent in 1963. All other subgroups with the exception of Subgroup 18 have had less than 1 percent of the payments since 1959. Group III has fluctuated as different practices have been tried one or two years and then dropped. For example, subgroup 15, mulching and emergency tillage, used OVer 4 percent of the state ACP funds in 1948 and 1951 but used 0.1 percent or less every other year except 1946 and 1956. The Share going to subgroup 14, additional vegetative COVer, went from 0.3 percent in 1954 to 3.5 percent in 1957 and then back to 0.2 percent by 1960. 113 Returning to the discussion of Group 1, payments for certain types of tillage practices, particularly those on summer fallow, were dropped after 1953; here was an apparent movement closer to program objectives as subgroup 4, discon— tinued practices, drOpped from over 10 percent to zero. To use up the funds normally going for practices to protect summer fallow, irrigation practices had their share increased from 53 to 73 percent. While this is a 20 percent increase in the relative share of practices with enduring benefit, these are the types of practices farmers would undertake on their own9 due to the high returns from increased production. The reduced assistance going to minerals along with that in temporary practices, balanced out much of the increase in irrigation‘s Share, thus the percentage of funds going to Group I did not increase 20 percent. By 1955 irrigation had reached 79.8 percent of the total ACP payments in Utah, but in 1956 cuts were made reducing its share to 67.1 percent. This cut was gradually restored and in the years 1960 and 1962 irrigation’s share was almost 78 percent. These in- creases in irrigation and drainage practices seem to be a fairly common consequence of the 1954 policy change. Irri— gation practices increased in California and Utah and drain— age practices will be seen to increase in other states yet to be analyzed . 114 ACP in Utah appears not to have been greatly improved by the changes in national ACP policy. The proportion of ACP payments going to Group I practices increased, whereas those going to Group II practices declined (see Table 10). This 1 s partly due to the types of practices most readily used by We stern farmers. The practices having greatest benefit for the Utah farmer are production—increasing irrigation prac- ti ces. And if the state wants to use up its funds, these are the kinds of practices to offer9 as other practices are not often used by farmers. One alternative would be to pay as much as 75 to 80 percent of the cost for practices such as establishment of permanent vegetative cover. This would increase their use and provide a better outlet for ACP funds. He re the emphasis would be more on preserving land—use capac- ity for the future,rather than on increasing present produc- tion capacity with little regard for the future. ACP in the other Mountain states shows similar high use of irrigation practices. In seven out of the eight Mountain states a very high percentage of ACP payments go to Group I practices while only a small percentage go to Group II. The major problem, however, in most of these We stern states appears to be too large an ACP apprOpriation to be used without the irrigation practices or a substantial increase in cost—shares for other practices. 115 rchrth Dakota In the Great Plains, ACP stresses quite a different ggjroup of practices than in the Western states and no one ggzroup of practices receives primary emphasis. Since the I>;1.ains states cover such a wide variety of programs and con- UHHMPUQEOU .FH 0.0 0.0 N.w2 o.m2 0.22 N.MH n.“ m.wa ©.ma m.o o.m w.m 3.0 v.m w.m ©.N H.N m.a .nuuo .0302200 2 .Qouua222m .02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0 2.02 0.22 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 2.20 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0002222 200002000 0 .0020: .02 ... ... ... ... 2.02 0.02 0.0 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.2 0000020 0 0000002 .000 .02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.0 0.0 0.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 20>00 .0002 0 020000 .20 .02 0.02 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.00 2.00 0.20 0.02 0.02 2.02 0.02 2.00 0.00 222 00020 2.0 0.2 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 0.0 2.0 0.2 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2020: 000200022 .0200000 .22 QoH Coo VuH woo Q00 moo N00 N00 0.. 0.. Amv 0.. to. no. to. 0.. no. on. HQ>OU ommxl MP~M\/AVHQ—CH 03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.02 0.22 22200200 .0 2.0 200 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2022000 0020020 0 00002202 .2 ... .0. 0.. 0.. .0. .0. 0.. ... moo mom ”.0 v.O Woo Woo “.00 ”.0 0.0 Ho? ..HW>OU Wulflpflwuwmm> .EHUPH .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.0 0.02 0.02 2.02 0.02 0.20 0.00 22 00020 2.2 2.0 0.2 2.2 2.2 0.2 2.2 0.0 2.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 020020 .0 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 2.0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 000022000020 000220020 .0 200 2.0 ... ... 2.0 2.0 200 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0022002222 .0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 2.0 0.2 2.0 0.0 2.0 00002020 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 02.0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 02020020 20020 000 0022 .2 0.00 0.02 2.02 0.20 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 2.2 0.02 0.2 2.02 0.0 2 00020 2200200 c002 0002 @062 c032 omcfl Hmoa NmoH mmoH vmoa mmoa omCH hmoa wwoa OWOH 0002 2002 mood mooH I’ll-III 1 >11! 1||II.‘IIII|II.‘II.II| _. . .i 02002 Ame-ovcav wuome £2202 .mw>wuuofino Hfiwwfizm OH kuflfiflnm kg UmQDOMm mmuwwuehq RD? nN 117 major impact of the package practice approach was a shift of funds from the protection of summer fallow to stubble mulch- ing. This shift first appeared as a major alteration but turned out to be only minor. Besides the shift of funds to stubble mulching,a few other practices showed important changes during 1946-63. For example, the drainage practices increased their relative share of payments from 3.1 to 9.8 percent during 1953-54 and then fluctuated between 10 and 3 percent. The share of pay— men ts for fertilizers dropped from 2.7 percent in 1953 to zero from 1954-62 (see Table 13). Only two practice sub- groups have shown a continual trend: (1) forestry and (2) con servation of livestock water. The increase in forestry pra ctices' share of funds started back as far as 1946,but in the middle fifties the rate seemed to accelerate. The big— gest increases came in 1959 and 1962 as the proportion of payments went from 2.2 percent in 1953 to 12.2 percent in 1962. The share of ACP payments going to practices for con— ser Ving livestock water increased slightly in 1953-54, but major increases came in 1957-58 and 1960-61. Their share Went from 2 percent in 1957 to 9.1 percent in 1961 and was 9 -9 percent by 1963. Thus, subgroups 8 and 11 have accounted f0]? most of the increase in payments going to practices best fulfilling program objectives which increased from 3.6 per- Cent in 1953 to over 26.2 percent in 1963. One other 118 Table 13. The proportion of ACP payments used for minerals and temporary practices, North Dakota (1946-63) Total Temporary Year Minerals Practices (‘70) (7o) 1903 (n)* 56.1 1962 .O 47.1 1961 .O 55.5 1960 .O 50.7 1959 .O 51.8 1958 .O 55.1 1957 .O 49.2 1956 .O 46.3 1955 .O 48.1 1954 .0 49.6 1953 2.7 59.2 1952 1.8 62.4 1951 1.5 63.0 1950 1.0 66.0 1949 .9 68.7 1948 .9 73.7 1947 .3 76.2 1946 .3 80.1 v1 *Data not available. Source: See Table 7. 119 subgroup of practices has accelerated this increase in Group II practices; the establishment of permanent vegetative Cover practices jumped from less than 1 percent in 1961 to over 6 percent in 1962. During the same period, payments for Group II practices went from 19.9 to 27.8 percent. With the exception of mulching and emergency tillage, which increased from 11.3 percent in 1953 to 48.7 percent in 19 54, the subgroups in Group III have only shown temporary changes. For example, the share of ACP funds going to green manure and other temporary cover practices declined from 4.6 per cent in 1953 to less than 1 percent in 1954 but has been between 4 to 7 percent since 1958. On the other hand, prac- ti ces for increasing legumes and grasses, subgroup 14, start- ed an upward trend in 1953—54 that was not reversed until 195 8 as its share went from 9.6 percent in 1952 to 35.4 per- cent in 1956 but drOpped to only 8 percent by 1963. Finally, 5111:) group 15, stripcropping, fluctuated between 9.4 and 18.3 per cent during 1946-54 before declining from a high in 1953 to only 1.3 percent in 1963. North Dakota is another state where the transition to a package practice approach was made with only a few pro gram changes. Temporary practices decreased more between 1946 and 1952 than they did between 1953 and 1963. In fact, the share of payments going to temporary practices in 1953 was 59.2 percent as compared to 56.1 percent in 1963 and 120 during 1946-53 they declined from 80.1 to 59.2 percent (see Table 13). The major proportion of these temporary prac- tices was stubble mulching from 1954-63 and protection of summer fallow before 1954. Even though ACP in North Dakota has increased Group II practices and Group I practices account for less than 10 percent of the payments, the question must be asked as to whether stubble mulching should be subsidized to its present extent. Also, is stubble mulching any less an established or normal practice than protection of summer fallow and would it be used without assistance? With less than 9 percent of the ACP funds in the other Plains states being Spent on stubble mulching, there is good reason to suSpect that too much is being Spent on this practice in North Dakota. Pos- sibly,ACP should restrict the use of stubble mulching by either limiting the number of times a farmer could receive payments or reducing the cost—share rate. Such restrictions would most likely not reduce the total use of stubble mulching and would make more funds available for other practices that better fulfill program objectives. With these additional funds,ACP in North Dakota could emphasize such practices as terracing, sod waterways or dams for livestock water,much as is done in South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas. In 1963 over 34 percent of the ACP payments in these three Plains states were used to promote the above three practices. 121 1333.5. When considering the percentage distribution of ACP funds in Texas, note that twice as much money is apprOpriated to Texas as to any other state. In 1963 over 20 million dol- lars was allocated to Texas as compared to only a little over 9 million to second place Iowa. Thus,one may be justified in concluding that ACP is at least twice as important in Texas as compared to any other state. The first impression of ACP in Texas is that little change has taken place since 1946 (see Table 14). Nineteen and four-tenths percent of the payments were allocated to Group I in 1946 and 22 percent in 1963. Group II received 32.5 percent in 1946 as compared to 35.3 percent in 1963, while Group III dropped from 48.1 to 42.7 percent. A com- parison of the average share of payments going to each group during 1946-52, 1954-60 and 1961-63 indicates that some general changes have occurred. First, the average sharing going to Group I practices has gone from 16.9 percent in 1946-52 to 20.3 percent in 1954-60 and to 22.1 percent in 1961-63. Second, Group II's share of payments went from 35.3 to 25.7 percent and then to 31.8 percent,whereas Group III went in the opposite direction from 47.8 to 54 percent and to 46.1 percent. This further indicates that the changes during the fifties moved the program further away from its objectives,although the trend was somewhat revised during the sixties. ACP practices grouped by ability to fulfill objectives. Texas (1046—63) Table 14. 10m 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 1949 1948 1947 1962 1963 Percent 22.0 23.0 21.3 16.2 18.7 . 16.0 1 19.5 20.2 23.4 20.5 19.9 22.2 I Grou 4 8 5 0 1 3 0 l h 0 4 0 0 11.9 8 0 ' 1 3 4 0 0 15.3 0 3 4 3 .0 i r401» -v H O<$w -—4 F4O~O U+JD CSZD UCDH wk): La U) 0'23 E m U -> Qwa 4 0+» H-H °U+Jm ; Only O.Hllm H has; S+’Ot§ chL)g maor~w HHHr—l ... .. .3. .05 aLess than to Group III. 71 0 to Group 1 and II and 50' L," o bThe distribution of minerals from 1946-53 is 25. See Table 6. Source 123 The share of payments going to temporary practices was not reduced much until 1959 and 1962 as their share was 30.1 percent in 1953 and 31.4 percent in 1957. The 1954 policy change did not prevent their share from rising to 41.3 percent in 1954 (see Table 15). Also, the use of minerals tended to increase during the fifties and sixties, particularly lime. The share of payments going to minerals was between 17 and 19 percent during the early fifties but had risen to around 22 percent in the sixties. The propor- tion of funds going for lime increased from 1 percent in 1953 to 3.9 percent in 1962 and accounted for most of the rise in minerals‘ share, althought fertilizers' share was up slightly. Only a few subgroups have had an increase in rela- tive importance. Irrigation practices started an upward trend in 1946 that raised their relative share of ACP funds in Texas from 1.5 percent to a peak of 17.6 percent in 1956, after which its share declined to between 12 and 15 percent. The irrigation practices account for a large part of the Group I practices and were the main reason for the increases during the fifties and sixties. The payments used for min- eral practices accounted for less than 4 percent of the total in 1963 and drainage‘s share was only 0.5 percent, which was a little below its high of 1.2 percent in 1951. 124 Table 15. The proportion of ACP payments used for minerals and temporary practices, Texas (1946—63) Total All Other Temporary Year Minerals Lime Minerals Practices (%) (%) (%) (%) 1963 (n)* (n) (n) 19.4 1962 21.6 3.9 17.7 19.1 1961 22.2 2.9 19.3 24.7 1960 23.1 2.9 20.2 26.1 1959 17.9 2.6 15.3 20.1 1958 21.7 2.9 18.8 26.8 1957 19.8 1.8 18.0 31.4 1956 16.2 1.7 14.5 27.6 1955 19.2 1.2 18.0 37.0 1954 22.4 .7 21.7 41.3 1953 18.9 .’1.0 17.9 30.1 1952 18.1 1.7 16.4 38.5 1951 17.8 1.5 16.3 28.2 1950 17.5 .8 16.7 30.9 1949 23.7 .9 22.8 30.9 1948 30.8 1.3 29.5 37.0 1947 14.0 .7 13.3 34.7 1946 13.4 1.3 12.1 38.7 *Data not available. Source: See Table 7. 125 The payments going to permanent vegetative cover practices, subgroups 6, 9 and 10 declined from 12 to 3.6 percent in 1953-54, before beginning an upward trend. This trend carried these practices on a steady climb until 1963 when their Share reached 23.4 percent, of which 13.7 percent went to subgroup 6 and 9.7 percent went to subgroup 9. The larger Share used for permanent vegetation was probably accelerated by the Specific emphasis on permanent vegetation as a program objective. However, some of the other federal land retirement and acreage restricting programs may have as much to do with the increase in permanent vegetative cover as does ACP. These increases in the prOportion of payments going to irrigation and permanent vegetative cover practices were accompanied by decreases in green manure and other temporary cover practices, subgroup 13, as their share declined from 37.1 percent in 1954 to 9.3 percent in 1963. There also appears to be a trend towards reducing the proportion of funds going to subgroup 7, erosion control devices. From 1958's high of 8.2 percent, subgroup 7‘s share has steadily decreased until it was only 3 percent in 1963. Group II has changed primarily in response to the decline and then increase of permanent vegetative cover practices and terracing and other erosion control practices. The forestry practices share of less than 1 percent had very 126 little influence,whi1e conserving livestock water, subgroup ll, fluctuated from a high of 15.5 percent in 1951 to 6.7 percent in 1961. The largest proportion of ACP funds, 45 percent, goes to Group III practices and more than one—half of Group III funds is used to control competitive Shrubs. This prac- tice has generally increased since 1956,when its Share was only 13.6 percent,unti1 it reached over 22 percent in the sixties. Such an increase should be looked at very closely, because this is one of the practices that may be carried out without any assistance. It may also bring new land into pro— duction while the conservation benefits to Society may not be very large relative to costs. Under prOper restriction this practice may meet the program objectives, but under general use it could well become a Group I practice. In no other state did ACP spend more than 7 percent of its funds on control of competitive shrubs. And in Texas,ACP Spent over 4 million dollars on competitive shrub control, which exceeds the total funds allocated to 26 different states in 1963. The two other major subgroups in Group III tended to increase their share of payments in the middle fifthes and then decline. Subgroup 14, additional legumes and grass, reached its t0p share of 4.3 percent in 1958 before drOpping to 0.3 percent in 1963 and subgroup 15, mulching and emer- gency tillage, reached JJHE> percent in 1957 and declined 127 to 9.3 percent by 1963. The declines in subgroups 13, 14 and 15 counterbalanced the increases in subgroup 11 making Group III fairly stable. In summary, ACP in the Plains states as compared to the program in the Western states is using a much lower pro- portion of payments for Group I practices. But in North Dakota,too high a proportion of payments is used on stubble mulching,while in Texas too much goes for control of compet- itive shrubs. Even 50, ACP in the Plains states seems to be closer to meeting program objectives than it is in the Western states. we The program in Iowa was substantially changed by the package practice policy, as during 1953-54 the proportion of ACP funds going to Group II practices increased fourfold while Group III practices‘ Share decreased threefold (see Table 16). In 1953 Group II amounted to only 6 percent of total ACP payments but by 1954 its share had sky rocketed to 27.4 percent. This is compared with the downward plunge of Group III practices from 29.9 percent to only 9.1 percent. On the other hand,the Share going to Group I practices stayed fairly constant until 1955—57,when it dropped from 61.8 to 44.7 percent. .o manmh vow "meadow .Uom: yo: mum was use poumummom no: Hm>OEuu Sohompv: Us“ mcflucmmu .H asouo ow $oofl ma mmuovoa scum mamuvcme mo acapanaupmqv mafia .$mo. can» mmuqm 1238 III GOO GOO WIN III OII III III III III III III III III III III HIO NIO mhmngo IwH ... ... ... H.o Ame ... ... ... m.m m.m o.m m.m ... H.m 4.m 4.4 4.4 m.H Houucou pagan o>uauuuasoo .44 m.o 4.o m.o m.o m.o m.o ~.o m.o m.o 4.0 4.0 m.o m.o 4.0 m.o 0.0 m.o w.o .euuo .usoucou a .aouuanuum .oH p.04 w.oH m.w o.oH m.m 4.44 w.HH m.mH 4.0 m.m H.m H.m m.H k.m 4.m m.m m.H w.H ommflauu sucomuoeo a .nuasz .ma ... ... ... ... 4.44 m.m m.4 m.m ... ... m.4 k.m ... H.o 0.0 m.o 4.0 4.0 mummaum a muesmua .on< .44 m.kH w.ka o.om 4.mH m.4H 4.04 o.mH 4.44 H.o m.H m.4 c.44 a.“ m.o 4.4 k.mm H.mm 4.44 uo>ou .854» masque .uo .ma .0. or. so. no. no. 06. 0.0 on. to. on. In. to. OI. 0.. III III III III de“UCMEuonuo Us“ ”afiq INH m.mm 0.4m H.om H.4m 4.m4 H.km w.Hm 4.0m 4.0 m.w n.44 0.0m 0.4 4.0 m.» k.04 o.km o.om HHH macho m.4 m.o o.o 0.4 m.H 4.4 m.o H.H m.o o.k m.o m.m 0.04 o.k m.n m.m 4.4 4.m 44443 xuoumm>ua .>uomcoo .HH o.o k.o 4.0 4.3 m.a m.o m.o m.o m.H m.H k.H 4.0 «.0 m.o m.o m.o m.o 4.4 uu>ou .mu> m=4>ouaeH .4 A42 Ame ... Ame Amy Ame flay Ame m.o H.o 4.0 m.o 4.o m.o 4.0 4.0 4.0 m.o Suumouoa .w m.m w.m w.o k.o k.m 8.4 m.4 4.4 w.ks H.4H 4.04 4.44 m.am 0.4m o.wm 4.m4 4.44 k.om Houucou :oumouo a mouauuue .k ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... V.H O.W ”.0 m.k. M..m W4N w.N O-m hum o.v H0>OU U>flHNHUMU> .EHUAH o0 4.m m.k m.m w.w m.w m.o c.m 0.0 4.km 4.0m m.Hm k.wm 4.44 m.m4 w.om m.mm 4.0m 4.mm HH macho AUV AUG Ago AUG Ago Ago AUG Auv Ago Ago 0.0m m.ma moo o.4 m.m m.m m.m m.m mumauo .n 4.w 4.4 H.m 4.m H.o 4.0 m.o m.a ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ousanpcoumfln muuapuaum .4 uuu to. ya. on. 0" on: ..o In. to. .0. on. .00 on. 0.. no. on. :61 on. COfifldmflfihhH 0m 4.m o.m m.w 4.» m.m o.m k.k m.kH o.mm m.km m.MH 0.4 m.oa w.mm o.mm o.mm m.mm 0.0m omazumua .m m.mm m.mm 0.4m m.mm 4.m4 n.4m 4.4m pk.m4 o.km 0.4m H.4m n.4m m.wm m.am 4.4a 0.44 4.44 m.wa maauucua “mayo new mama .H m.oo H.mc o.mo H.mo m.o4 4.0m o.mo 4.44 m.mo m.Ho m.4m k.44 m.m4 0.44 o.nm H.km 4.04 o.k4 H macho ucuuuom owed bvoa wvofi owed onoH HmOH Nmou mmoH vmoa mnoa omoa knoa mmoa OWOH oooa- Hooa mood mood Ambuovoav «30H .mm>fiuuowno HHMMHaw cu >pfiaflnm >9 bouzoum moumuuaua mo< .OH manna 129 Further changes occurred in l961,as Group III's por— tion of ACP payments went from 7.3 to 40.7 percent in one year, however, this large increase was followed by a decrease to 27 percent and then to 20.6 percent by 1963. In line with these important changes,the amount of funds going to tempor- ary practices dropped sharply from 28.5 percent in 1953 to only 6.4 percent in 1954 and then jumped from 3.6 to 37.9 percent in 1960-61 (see Table 17). These changes in the share going to temporary practices were due principally to fluctuations in the prOportion of funds used by green manure and other temporary cover practices, subgroup 13. Their share went from 14.9 percent in 1953 to 0.1 percent in 1954, before rising from 1.1 to 35.7 percent in 1960—61. Another important alteration occurred in the propor- tion of payments used for minerals as its share fell from 54.4 percent in 1952 to only 13.3 percent by 1963. Even more important,was the change in relative sharing going for fer— tilizers and lime. Lime‘s share increased in 1953—54 from 19.6 to 39.7 percent and then declined to 11.6 percent by 1961. This is compared to fertilizer's Share that fell from 26.1 percent to only 1 percent in 1953-54 and has remained near this low level through 1962. 130 Table 17. The proportion of ACP payments used for minerals and temporary practices, Iowa (1946-63) Total All Other Temporary Year Minerals Lime Minerals Practices (%) (%) (%) (%) 1963 (n)* (n) (n) 18.2 1962 13.3 12.1 1.2 24.9 1961 13.2 11.6 1.6 37.9 1960 21.5 20.1 1.4 3.6 1959 23.1 21.8 1.3 4.2 1958 31.2 29.6 1.6 8.2 1957 26.3 23.3 3.0 21.1 1956 26.6 23.1 3.5 7.3 1955 37.5 35.4 2.1 4.7 1954 39.7 38.7 1.0 6.4 1953 45.7 19.6 26.1 28.5 1952 54.4 29.9 24.5 27.3 1951 51.3 27.8 23.5 31.7 1950 45.4 28.3 17.1 23.1 1949 52.3 32.9 19.4 28.7 1948 51.0 36.4 14.6 31.3 1947 55.3 43.4 11.9 30.4 1946 52.5 40.5 12.0 36.7 *Data not available. Source: See Table 7. 131 ACP in some of the other Midwestern states did not follow this example. The 1962 programs in both Missouri and Illinois used over 28 percent of the payments on fertilizers, while over 71 percent went for all minerals. Only in Illi— nois and Missouri does ACP still Spend large sums on rock or collodial phOSphate subsidies. During 1963 ACP in Illi- nois Spent over 21 percent of its funds or 1.6 million dol— lars on rock phOSphate,while in Missouri ACP used 15 percent or 1.3 million dollars. Yet for ACP in Illinois,this is a substantial reduction from the 38 percent in 1955 and the over 50 percent in 1953. Returning to ACP in Iowa,other important changes become apparent upon analysis of Specific subgroups. The increase of three subgroups within Group II brought about initial increases. In 1954-55 permanent vegetative cover practices’ portion of payments went from 1.4 to 5 percent and has remained near this level through 1963. Subgroup 7, terraces and other erosion control, also increased but the first increase came in 1953-54 when its Share went from 4.4 to 17.8 percent. The second increase occurred in 1957-58 as its relative Share went from 14.9 to 31.2 percent, how- ever, by 1963 it had declined to 20.7 percent. Practices for the conservation of livestock water constituted the other subgroup to increase as its Share jumped from the 1 percent level of 1946-53 to 6.2 percent in 1954 and fluctuated around 132 this level through 1963. Thus,subgroups 6, 7 and 11 con- tributed most to Group II‘S increased Share while subgroups 8 and 9‘s increases in the middle fifties have had very little influence,because their combined Share has never exceeded the 1963 high or 2.3 percent. In contrast, Group I was fairly stable,although changes did occur among its subgroups,as the drainage prac- tice increases were enough to balance out the decline in minerals. For example, after running along at a share of 4 to 9 percent from 1946 to 1952, the portion of payments used for drainage took a jump from 7.7 to 17.2 percent in 1952-53. This original rise was followed by another that brought drainage's share to 27.2 percent before it declined to 9.6 percent by 1957. Since then, drainage's share of ACP funds steadily increased to 33 percent in 1960 but dropped back to 26 percent by 1963. The proportion of funds going for mineral practices,on the other hand,declined from 54.4 percent in 1952 to 21.1 percent by 1956 and was only 18.2 percent in 1963. Group I‘S share, therefore, was main- tained near 60 percent until 1956 and since then has fluctu- ated around 45 percent. Group III'S Share has fluctuated even more than Group I and this is due for the most part to the green manure and other temporary cover practices, though another important change did take place. The portion of payments used for sub- group 15, mulching and emergency tillage, had a sharp drop 133 from 12.5 to 2.1 percent during 1953-57 and has Since re- mained near 2 percent. The decline in mulching and emer- gency tillage practices appears to be in line with the pri- mary objective of enduring practices as was the initial decline in temporary cover practices;however, the same can— not be said for the recent increases in temporary cover. The other three subgroups have been of little importance since l957,although the Share Spent on competitive Shrub control has been near 2 percent while subgroup 14's Share was 19.1 percent in 1950 as compared to only 0.1 percent in 1963. In the final analysis, 47 percent of the ACP funds Spent in Iowa still go to practices that least fulfill objec- tives,while the permanent vegetative cover practices of Group II account for only 3 to 6 percent. As in most of the Midwestern states, a high percentage of payments is used for drainage. Yet, improvements did occur during the fifties, though some were lost in the Sixties when the impact of the package practice policy seemed to wear off. 134 Michigan ACP in Michigan will be fairly representative of the Lake states, and many practices are similar to those in the Midwestern states. For example, the program in Michigan during the middle fifties appears to have made many of the same general changes as that in Iowa (see Tables 18 and 19). First, the prOportion of ACP payments for Group III prac- tices fell from 35 to 6.4 percent during 1953—54 before rising to 24.9 percent by l963,due to the new wildlife prac— tices and an increase in the temporary cover practices. Increases in both Group I and II practices made up for the 1953—54 decline in payments to Group III practices. Group I's Share went from 62.8 to 81.9 percent in 1953-54 and then dropped back to 73 percent by 1956. A 73 to 75 percent level was maintained until 1961 when it declined to 63 percent followed the next year by a drop to 54 percent. These latter declines appear to be the result of an effort by the State Development Group to decrease the prOportion of funds going for drainage. Group II practices also had their most significant increase in 1953-54 as their share of funds rose from 2.2 to 11.7 percent. Then in 1955-56 they increased from 10.1 to 14.1 percent and maintained this level until 1961 when they jumped to 18.2 percent and then to 21.7 percent. Here again,these latter increases were probably a side effect of the State DevelOpment Groupfis .0 04908 mow "wousom .00-0404 004400 444 00040 04 00m 0:0 4 00000 04 00k 00400444040 044 040400420 .WUMumfludpm C0 #30 Dvudhdflom “CZD .000. 0400 00040 1L35 III NIH OIO III III III III III VIN HIO HIO Adv Amv Amv Adv Hoo m.“ OIO mhmfifiuo Owifl on. oo- .0. no. .0. 0.. .- .0. .0. .0. co. .0. .0. on. co. .oo .09 on. HOH#COU DSHSW v>flufivwaeoo oh." 400 4.0 ... 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 4.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0040 .0004000 4 .000004040 .04 Cum N0H N00 H0N MoH N‘s-H w..fi H.N 0.. .0. 0.. 0.. 0.. ... .0. ..- ..n 0.0 QWNHHHH .WUEUMHmemA -:UH:«)4 umH ... ... ... ... 0.04 4.0 0.0 ... ... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0000440 0 0000004 .004 .44 0.0 4.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 4.04 0.0 0.0 4.44 0.0 0.44 0.04 0.44 0.04 0.04 0.04 00>00 .0004 0 000045 .00 .04 0.04 4.44 0.44 4.04 0.44 0.44 0.04 00.44 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 04400042 00000 004 0544 .0 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 4.0 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.44 0.04 4.04 0.00 0.40 NAMImmmwm .. ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 4.0 4.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 00442 x00400>44 .>000000 .44 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ... 4.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 4.4 0.0 00>00 .00> 004>00024 .0 4.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 4.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 4.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.4 40000000 .0 440 4.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.4 4.4 0.4 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.4 4044000 0040040 0 00040000 .0 ... Amy 4.0 4.0 n00 Amv A00 ... 0.0 O.m 0.0 c.m H.m m.m m.m m.n m.NH M.ma 40>ou m>0umumwm> .Equ .5 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 4.0 0.4 0.0 0.44 4.04 4.44 0.04 0.04 0.04 4.44 0.04 0.40 0.00 44 00000 ... ... ... 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 0.0 0.0 0.4 4.0 0.0 040040 .0 n.0N m.ma h.b m.? O.h w.m C.w O.C ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... UUSSMHCOUWMU mmuflwuaum .w ... ... .0. .0. .0. 0.. ... ... N.O N00 th Mun mgm Ncm N-H HoH ”.0 m0.” COflHdmflfihHH—H cm 0 04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 4.04 0.04 0.04 4.04 0.04 0.44 0.04 0 04 4.04 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.00 00404400 .0 0.44 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.40 4.00 0.00 4.40 0.00 0.40 4.04 4.04 4.00 04440040 00440 0:4 0044 .4 0.00 4.40 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.40 0.40 4 0:000 pcooumd 5034 0004 @004 0094 Omca Hmoa Nmoa mmoa vmoa mmoa omcfi nwoa wmofi amoa Good Hooa Nooa mooH Ame-00040 :0044042 .wm>4uuohoo 440w4sw 04 0444490 03 poa304m muoapumud mo< .04 04909 136 Table 19. The prOportion of ACP payments used for minerals and temporary practices, Michigan (1946—63) Total All Other Temporary Year Minerals Lime Minerals Practices (%) (%) (%) (%) 1963 (n)* (n) (n) 17.5 1962 33.8 20.9 12.9 17.4 1961 34.7 22.2 12.5 17.7 1960 31.4 22.8 8.6 11.9 1959 34.1 25.3 8.8 10.6 1958 35.6 25.5 10.1 11.5 1957 36.7 28.0 8.7 8.3 1956 44.0 30.9 13.1 11.1 1955 41.9 32.8 9.1 8.6 1954 43.9 39.8 4.1 2.0 1953 57.6 20.0 37.6 40.8 1952 51.8 16.8 35.0 39.9 1951 47.2 15.3 31.9 38.3 1950 46.6 13.9 32.7 39.7 1949 53.6 20.1 33.5 37.9 -l948 47.3 24.0 23.3 35.9 1947 57.6 26.6 31.0 41.3 1946 55.3 25.8 29.5 45.6 *Data not available. Source: See Table 7. 137 efforts to reduce drainage, for payments were shifted to other practices. The prOportion of payments used for temporary prac- tices appeared to be affected by the change to a package practice policy. Here the portion of funds drOpped from a 40 percent level,that had been maintained from 1946-53,to only 2 percent in 1954. Their share has since then in- creased to 8.6 percent in 1955 and to over 17 percent for 1961-63. The original reduction in temporary practices was probably caused by an attempt to meet the enduring benefit objective and the funds not used for temporary practiceswent to lime and drainage practices. This policy was somewhat changed in 1961 when more emphasis was placed on temporary practices and less on practices such as drainage and liming, that bring about immediate increases in crop production. Table 19 indicates the effect of the policy change on the relative share of ACP payments going for minerals. First, the total share going for all minerals declined from 57.6 to 43.9 percent in 1953-54 and continued to decline until it reached 31.4 percent in 1960. The real change, however, came in the relative shares going to lime and fer- tilizers. Here the share going to fertilizers decreased from 37.6 percent in 1953 to only 4.1 percent in 1954 while the share used for liming went from 20 percent to almost 40 percent. The increase in the share going to lime started 138 in 1950, but the policy change accelerated the increase for one year. Since the peak share in 1954,1ime has steadily declined and was only 2(19 percent in 1963. The fertilizer materials,on the other hand,had increased their relative share to 12.9 percent by 1963. The decline in payments going for fertilizers brought about the initial decrease in minerals, but after 1954 decreases in the share of payments used for liming have been the major cause of minerals' declining share. Now,turning the discussion to specific subgroups within Group 11, all are found to have increased their por- tion of funds during the middle fifteis. Permanent vegeta- tive cover practices, subgroups 6 and 9, went from a 0.6 to 6 percent during 1953-54 and maintained this share until 1960. Further increases in 1961 brought their share to 8.7 percent and then to 13 percent during 1962-63. These in— creases were due primarily to subgroup 6,as subgroup 9 had actually declined from 2.6 percent in 1956 to less than 1 percent by 1963. The forestry practices increased their prOportion of funds from 1.4 to 4.3 percent during 1953-54 and the share fluctuated around 5 percent thereafter. Among these fluctu- ations,was an increase from 3.3 to 4.7 percent in 1956 that may have been due to an increase in cost-share rates from 50 to 75 percent. A further increase from 4.9 to 6 percent 139 in 1960 may have been stimulated by the increased cost—share rates to 80 percent on improvement of tree stands. Subgroup 7, terraces and other erosion controls, also made increases in 1953-54 and 1956-57 that brought its share from 0.2 to 3.1 percent before declining to a 1.9 percent in 1963. The other subgroup, ll, conserving live- stock water went from nothing to a share of 2.4 percent during 1956—5% before declining to less than 0.5 percent by 1963. Thus,the practices for establishing permanent vegeta- tive cover, which doubled their share of ACP payments in the past decade, have been the major reason for Group II's continued increase. Similarly,the major subgrOUp in the Group III prac— tices is green manure and other temporary cover practices, subgroup 13. The reduction in this subgroup's portion of funds brought about the decreases in temporary practices and if the minerals allocated to Group III during 1946-53 are combined with subgroup 13,their decline from over 32.7 per- cent to only 2 percent accounts for the 1953-54 decline in Group III's share. Then,in 1961-63 subgroup 13‘s increased share of from 11.9 to 17.7 percent helped increase Group III to its new level of 24.9 percent. On the other hand,de- creases in subgroup 15, mulching and emergency tillage, from 2.1 percent to nothing during 1953-54 was balanced out by the increase in subgroup l6, stripcrOpping and contouring orchards. 140 The only other practices that are of any importance in Group III are the wildlife practices that caused subgroup 18’s proportion of payments to go from almost nothing to 6 percent during 1961-63. These latter practices may prove a good use of ACP funds in some states,such as Michigan,and thus merit watching. At present, however, the only prac- tices receiving a share of over 0.5 percent are wildlife ponds that in 1963 accounted for over 5 percent of the state ACP expenditures. Returning now to Group I, the two major subgroups within it, drainage and minerals, have already been mentioned, but further discussions of their changes will bring out some important points. First,and most important, the share going for drainage practices increased from 13.6 to 43.4 percent during 1953-54 and up until 1962 it continued at over 40 percent. The efforts to decrease the share going to drainage practices did not really become effective until the sixties when it declined from 49.3 percent in 1960 to 32.8 percent in 1963. This decline in the prOportion of funds used for drain— age practices and minerals,finally reduced Group I's share to 54.9 percent in 1963. Before l960,the high share going to drainage practices kept Group I's portion near 75 percent, even in the face of the decreased proportion going for minerals. 141 Here again, like many of the other states analyzed, one of the first effects of the 1954 change in policy was an increase in drainage and/or irrigation practices,along with the decline in temporary practices. This shift of pay— ments from fertilizer to lime,along with increases in per- manent vegetative cover and forestry practices,seemed to round out the major effects of policy change. In comparison with ACP in other Lake and Midwestern states,the proportion of payments going for drainage prac- tices was higher in Michigan than any other state in the Union during l963,and only in Iowa was more Spent in total. In Ohio, Indiana, Iowa and Minnesota 25 percent or more of the ACP funds went for drainage practices which amounted to from 1.3 to 2.3 million dollars per state. On the other hand, in Illinois and Wisconsin ACP expenditures on drainage practices were kept below 10 percent or half a million dol- lars. These states where ACP expenditures were low on drain- age practices tended to have a higher prOportion of ACP funds used for mineral practices; this was eSpecially evident in Illinois. Thus,ACP in the Midwestern and Lake states tends to be characterized by a high prOportion of practices that increase present crOp production. The proportion, however, is generally not quite as high as in the Western states. 142 New York Probably the most striking feature of ACP in New York is the very high percentage of funds going for minerals. The distribution ranges from the high in 1951 of 88.2 per- cent to the low in 1956 of 65.6 percent,and since 1951 the lime component of the minerals has received the largest share (see Table 20). The policy change of 1954 brought about a reduction from 27.7 to 6.6 percent in the share going for fertilizers,while the share used for liming materials went from 55.1 to 66.6 percent. Lime's portion has ranged from 36.9 percent in 1950 to 67.4 percent in l96l,while fer— tilizers' share has ranged from 6.6 percent in 1954 to 46.3 percent in 1950. The package practice approach seems to have had some fairly major impacts on the distribution of funds for mineral using practices. The policy change also affected the distribution of funds among the three groups of practices (see Table 21). Group I practices have had the major share of funds, 70 per- cent or more,with the exception of 1954—58 when a large pro- portion of the minerals were used on the permanent vegetative cover practices. The middle fifties saw a decrease in the prOportion of payments used for Group I practices from 93 percent in 1953 to only 23.8 percent in 1956. But beginning in l957,this trend was reversed and by 1961 their share was almost 80 percent. 143 Table 20. The proportion of ACP payments used for minerals and temporary practices, New York (1946—63) Total All Other Temporary Year Minerals Lime Minerals Practices (%) (%) (%) (%) 1963 (n)* (n) (n) 3.0 1962 72.9 65.4 7.5 2.5 1961 74.5 67.4 7.1 2.6 1960 71.1 60.4 10.7 2.7 1959 71.9 61.7 10.2 2.1 1958 73.2 59.2 14.0 1.9 1957 67.5 44.1 23.4 1.8 1956 65.6 42.9 22.7 2.0 1955 70.1 54.3 15.8 2.8 1954 73.2 66.6 6.6 .3 1953 82.8 55.1 27.7 8.9 1952 85.4 54.1 31.3 8.2 1951 88.2 51.5 36.7 6.4 1950 83.2 36.9 46.3 9.0 1949 81.1 40.6 40.5 8.2 1948 73.5 39.2 34.3 15.7 1947 80.9 40.5 40.4 7.2 1946 87.2 50.4 36.8 7.6 *Data not available. Source: See Table 7. 1544 .o 0H an mom ”oousom .mm-oqu menusc H asouo 0p wood omuauoaam ohm mamum:MZU .uao pvumumqmm uo: Hm>oewu zouowpo: new mcflocomn .emo. can» mmoam ... w.m m.m v.0 m.o ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... m.o 0.4 muonuo .ma ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... w.m v.m m.m m.m ~.m H.m H.H 8.0 m.o Amv Houucou naunm m>auuumaeoo .sfi m.o m.o m.o m.o m.o H.o m.o q.o m.o m.o m.m o.H m.a H.H H.H o.o o.H o.H .cuuo .csoucou z .QOHUQacum .oH O..H N.N w.H V-H O.H H.H N.H M.H ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... no. UMNHHMH «AUCUMHUEUwcr—UHSvA .WH ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... WUWWNHMJWQEDMQH .UU< .QH m.m o.m k.ma o.m o.m h.m v.4 m.m m.o w.m o.m m.fi o.H H.m u.m o.m m.m o.m cm>ou .856“ a ounces .uo .ma m.m m.oH o.oH o.» m.c 0.4 m.m o.e w.q 0.0 w.“ 9.0 m.m m.m 0.4 H.e m.v m.m HHH usage N.o m.o m.o o.o o.o 5.0 ... .. o.m o.m s.H o.H H.m o.m m.m m.m o.m m.m can“: xuohmmsaa .>com:oo .HH “.0 o.H 5.2 w.m m.m ... ... ... m.oH o.m~ k.m w.v e.m m.m H.m o.m o.H o.H cm>ou .mu> msa>acaeH .c 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 w.o H.H m.H m.o H.H 5.4 m.m w.H o.m o.m m.m k.m w.m m.v acummuoa .m w.o 4.0 m.o v.0 m.o m.o m.o m.H 0.4 4.4 0.0 H.H m.H 4.2 o.H v.4 s.H 4.4 HouucoU godmOum z mmuacume .c ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... O.NH mufiwN O.Vm O'Nm N.wH V~NH m.NH Nuw wow Nu-Nu HW>OU W>MHGHUMU> oEHUAH .3 “.2 q.m o.m 0.: m s H.m “.3 H.m O.“ 4.04 s.mo m.m¢ o.cm H.mm m.mm w.oH o.mH H.wa HH macho Ans H 0 Ass w.o 0.0 0.0 “.0 fi.a Ans 0.0 and A23 and “.0 “.0 “.0 0.0 0.4 mcmnpo .m w.m .. m.H u.H o.m 0.4 o.m 4.4 4.0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... coscapcoumuu mucupuaum .4 ... m.o ... 3.0 4.0 H.o ... ... m.o 2.0 m.o m.o 4.0 4.0 m.o m.o m.o m.o acuuwmaucH .m m.m ~.m «.m “.4 m.m m.m w.m “.4 m.oH w.» q.m a.“ 0.“ m.o “.34 0.04 «.04 v.oH mmacumuo .m m.uw w.om m.mc H.2m m.mw m.mm 4.mm w.mw um cm 4.0m m.mH m.ms m.om p.20 m.oo m.ho m.mo w.vo mamumcae “mayo new mafia .H w.ms q.cm H.9w s.ww m.om o.ma m.mo o.mo o.uo 0.44 m.mm c.om m.uo o.mu o.mk H.oh m.ou v.0k H macho ucouuwm oscfi beau mesa oqofl owes Hmsfl mmofi mmoH qmoa mmoa omoa “mod mmoa owed oooa Moos mood Moos Amo-oqoao xuow 362 .mu>wpuomno Hfiflcasm op >ufiafinm >9 nmdzou m mmuazomcg . mo< .Hm mfiow H 145 In addition to the mineral practices that caused most of the changes in Group I,the drainage practices were the only other important subgroup. The share of funds going to drainage practices increased from 4.7 to 10.5 percent during 1953-54. Then,their share declined to 5.4 percent by 1956 before climbing to over 10 percent during the sixties. Again, the response of drainage and mineral practices to the policy change is much the same as that found in the other states. The Group II practices, particularly permanent veg- etative cover, moved almost in reverse to the Group I prac- tices. From 1946-53 Group II's share comprised only 2 to 5 percent of the ACP payments,but beginning in 1954 with a jump to 27.6 percent it increased to a high of 68.4 percent by 1956. This was then followed by a decline to only 18 percent by 1963. During the increase and subsequent decline of payments to Group II practices, subgroup 6 ranged from 12 percent in 1954 to 54.9 percent in 1956 and 7.7 percent in 1963. Previous to 1954,5ubgroup 6 had not been used at all,but much of the minerals during the middle fifties appear to have been applied under it. For example, in 1957 more than 50 percent of the funds Spent on permanent vegeta- tive cover went for commercial fertilizer. Other subgroups in Group II may have been increased or started in 1954 to use up funds that could no longer be used to apply only minerals. Both subgroups 9 and 11, 146 improvement of vegetative cover and conservation of live- stock water, were not used in 1953 and their proportion of ACP funds went to 10.3 and 2.6 percent respectively in 1954. Payments to subgroup 11 were maintained at a level near 2.6 percent through 1963,whi1e subgroup 9's payments declined to 2 percent by 1961. Hence, subgroup 9 appears to have been initiated during 1954-56 so minerals could be applied under it; for example, in 1955 over 90 percent of the funds Spent under subgroup 9 went for minerals. The portion of payments used for Group II practices appear to have been increased more to subsidize fertilizer and lime than to promote con- servation. On the positive Side, the forestry practices not using minerals have increased their share steadily from around 1 percent during 1946-53 to 4.3 percent in 1963. In contrast,Group III has changed very little as its portion of payments has fluctuated between 4 and 9 percent since 1949. No change was evident in 1954 but this was due to opposing shifts between subgroups. The share of ACP funds to subgroup 13, green manure and other temporary cover prac- tices, declined in 1954 from 3.2 percent to almost nothing, but by 1955 the level had again been restored to 2.8 percent. The introduction of the practice for control of competitive shrubs in 1954 made up for the reductions in subgroup 13 and actually led to increases in Group III's share. Since the high of 5.4 percent in l955,control of competitive shrubs' 147 relative share has decreased to less than 0.05 percent by l963,because the new administration appears to have tried to eliminate this practice. Offsetting the decline in con- trol of competitive Shrubs are wildlife practices which account for all of subgroup 18. Wildlife practices seem to be catching on in New York,much like they have in Michigan. By shifting funds around after the 1954 policy change, ACP in New York was able to reduce the percentage of temporary practices from a share of 8.9 percent,which had prevailed from l946-53,to only 0.3 percent in 1954. This decrease in the prOportion of payments was due to the decline in subgroup 13 and the complete dropping of subgroup 15, mulching and emergency tillage. Although the Share was raised to 2.8 percent by l955,the percentage going to tem- porary practices seems to have been reduced in line with the objective of promoting practices of enduring benefit. But offsetting this reduction was the increase in the portion going to drainage practices. Thus,the relationship between a decrease of ACP payments to temporary practices and a correSponding increase to drainage or irrigation practices appears to hold in New York. The program in New York is very similar to that of the other Northeastern states. For example, in all the Northeastern states but New Jersey, over 55 percent of the ACP funds went for mineral applications,and even ACP in 148 New Jersey Spent 34 percent of its funds for minerals. The important differences between states in the Northeast is the distribution of funds between lime and other minerals. In the states of Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Rhode Island a much larger prOportion of payments going to miner- als went for commercial fertilizers, particularly super phOSphate. Virginia ACP in the Middle Atlantic or Appalachian states, of which Virginia is representative, iS similar in many respects to ACP in New York. To illustrate, between 50 and 88.3 percent of the ACP payments in Virginia have been used for minerals (see Table 22). The largest share of the pay— ments for minerals have gone for fertilizers,whose share went from 60.8 to 29.8 percent during 1953—54, after which it has been near 50 percent. The big decline in 1953-54 was probably due to the change to a package practice policy,for it took the State DevelOpment group a year to adjust their program to maintain a high level of fertilizer assistance. The share of payments used for applying lime drOpped from almost 43.8 percent in 1946 to 13 percent in 195% before climbing up to 22.5 percent by 1962. The portion used for minerals was reduced to 50 percent after the policy change of 1954 but by 1962 it had reached 72.5 percent, the highest level since 1953. 149 Table 22. The proportion of ACP payments used for minerals and temporary practices, Virginia (1946-63) Total All Other Temporary Year Minerals Lime Minerals Practices (%) (%) (%) (%) 1963 (n)* (n) (n) 15.2 1962 72.5 22.5 50.0 8.6 1961 68.2 19.9 48.3 10.5 1960 63.4 18.4 45.0 7.7 1959 64.2 19.3 44.9 6.0 1958 61.7 13.7 48.0 4.9 1957 66.3 13.0 53.3 5.0 1956 66.3 14.1 52.2 5.8 1955 63.9 13.7 50.2 7.5 1954 50.0 20.2 29.8 1.1 1953 84.4 23.6 60.8 14.0 1952 80.2 23.6 56.6 17.7 1951 79.7 28.2 51.5 17.3 1950 78.4 26.1 52.3 18.7 1949 81.0 34.0 47.0 20.4 1948 82.4 40.6 41.8 23.2 1947 84.6 40.7 43.9 21.0 1946 88.3 43.8 44.5 19.9 *Data not available. Source: See Table 7. 150 The Share of payments used for temporary practices, in line with general ACP policy, decreased from 14 percent to only 1.1 percent in 1953—54. This prOportion was, how- ever, increased to 7.5 percent in 1955 and to 15.2 percent by 1963. The temporary practices actually began receiving a declining percentage as early as 1949. The policy change of 1954 may have only accelerated the rate of decline for one year. Certain longer lasting improvements appear to have been brought about by the policy change of 1954 as Group I practices' share of ACP payments drOpped from over 70.3 to 23.6 percent during 1953-54 and continued to decline until l957,when it was 9.6 percent (see Table 23). After the 1957 low, however, Group I's Share has climbed back up to 18.3 percent. In contrast,Group II practices' share jumped from 16.4 to 73.8 percent in 1953-54 and reached their peak share of 81.9 percent in 1957 before declining to 63 percent in 1963. Group III practices,on the other hand,have made changes similar to both the other groups. Their Share dropped from 17.8 percent in 1952 to 2.6 percent in 1953—54 before rising to 20 percent by 1956. This was then followed by a decline to 7.5 percent by 1958 before a steady increase raised Group III'S share to 18.7 percent in 1963. Although many of the improvements made in the middle fifties still remain, it appears that some of the effects of the policy change have worn off. 151 .O . mHQmH mom ”muusom .mmnovo4 504M 444 pcm HH nacho 04 W04 pcm H Q3040 04 wow pmumuoaam cud mHaumcflz D .000. 0004 00040 0.0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 0.0 040040 .04 .0. ... ... ... 0.. .0. ... ... m00 Woo moo H00 Moo 0.0 0.0 V00 m0H MoH HOH“COU DZHEW U>HPflPUQEOU ohH 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0040 .0004000 0 .004004440 .04 .0. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 0.. 0.. ... ... ... 0.. 0o. .0. UWNHHHH>UCUMHUEUU4.ZUHSF4 .WH ... ... . . ... ... ... ... ... 0.0 0.0 0.04 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0000000 4 0050004 .000 .04 0.04 0.04 0.04 4.04 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.04 4.0 0.04 40>00 .0004 4 040005 .00 .04 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 0400004e 40040 000 0544 .04 0.04 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.0 0.04 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 m.04 4.04 4.04 0.04 444 msccs ... ... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04 0.0 m.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 4040: 000400>44 .>000000 .44 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 04040040 40040 000 0544 .04 ... 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.40 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 4.00 0.40 40>:0 .00> 004004004 .0 400 400 400 400 400 400 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.m 0.0 m.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40400001 .0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 400 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 4.4 4004000 0040000 4 00000400 .0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 m.0m 0.04 4.04 00000 0>4004000> .5000 .0 4.0 0.0 0 0 0.04 0.[4 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.4 0.00 0.40 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44 mzouu ... . . ... ... ... ... ... ... m.m 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 040000 .0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 400 4.0 0.0 ... ... ... 400 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000044000040 000440000 .0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... H.O 0.0 H0M Mom M-H w.N r4...N O.m m.m m0H N0N COHHNWMHHH .m 4.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 00004000 .m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.04 04040040 00000 0:0 0044 .4 0.40 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.44 0.0 0.04 4.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 4 msouo 4cmouwm 0004 0004 0004 0004 0004 4004 0004 0004 0004 0004 0004 0004 0004 0004 0004 4004 0004 0004 Amoucwc4v «4:0m44> .mo>0uoomno 444m43w o» >4044D0 09 Undocum mmofluuaua mu< .nm waan 152 To further bring out the changes of ACP in Virginia, the analysis now turns to the subgroups within Group I. As has been observed in other states, the share of payments used for drainage and irrigation practices increased substan— tially during 1953—54, from 1.9 to 11.9 percent. The irriga— tion practices had received no payment prior to 1953 but comprised 6.6 percent of the payments in 1954 before declin- ing and leveling off at about 2 percent. The drainage prac- tices went from a share of 1.8 percent to over 5.3 percent in 1953—54 and maintained this share, although it did decline to 3.2 percent in 1955 before hitting a high of 7.6 percent in 1959. The greatest share of payments, however, went for mineral practices as their decline in 1953-54 and subsequent rise in the late fifties and early sixties brought about the big changes in Group I's share. Only two subgroups accounted for most of the increase in the portion of ACP payments to Group II: permanent vege- tative cover practices and practices to improve vegetative cover. Their total Share combined with subgroup 10 comprised less than 17 percent before 1953 but from 1954 on it was greater than 50 percent. The peak share of 75 percent was reached in 1957 before a downward trend brought the share to 56.3 percent by 1963. Subgroup 9 has contributed most to this total since its share has been between 31.7 and 44.1 'percent during l954—63,while subgroup 6’s Share reached its 153 peak of 39 percent in 1958 and steadily declined to only 15.1 percent by 1963. The relative share going to each of these subgroups is important in that all of subgroup 9‘s payments go for minerals while about 80 percent of subgroup 6's are made for minerals. The forestry practices, subgroup 8, also got a boost in 1954 as their share of ACP payments went from 0.2 percent in 1953 to 4.3 percent in 1956,which has been maintained through 1963. The percentage of funds going to subgroup 7, terraces and erosion control devices, increased from 0.1 to 1.1 percent during 1953—63 with the largest Single increase coming in 1953-54. Practices conserving livestock water, subgrOUp 11, show a definite increase in their portion of from 0.7 to 19 percent during 1953-54, but this increase is the consequence of ACP administrators trying to use up ACP funds. For subgroup 11's share quickly dropped to a little over 2 percent in 1957 and was maintained through 1963. As a result of these many, many Shifts among subgroups, Group II first increased its share Slowly from 1946-51 before making big increases in the middle fifties and then declin- ing from 1958-63. In Group III it appears that during 1955-56 subgroup 14, additional legumes and grasses, was used as an outlet for ACP funds. Roughly 10 and 13 percent of the ACP pay- ments were used for these practices in l955-56,but their 154 share dropped to less than 2 percent by 1958. The only other subgroups of any consequence in this group are the green manure and other temporary cover practices, subgroup l3, and the minerals used in establishing them. When sub- group 13 is added to its estimated mineral component, sub- group 12, they account for almost all of Group III from 1946—53. Then,in 1953-54 subgroups 12 and 13 had a declin- ing share of from over 13 to 1.1 percent before rising to 7.5 percent in 1955 and 14.6 percent by 1963. After 1956, the green manure and other temporary cover practices again became the predominate practices in Group III. ACP in Virginia seems to be representative of other states in the Middle Atlantic or Appalachian region. For example, the program in Tennessee used from 43 to 67 percent of its payments for minerals during 1949—58 and 69 percent in 1962. The other mineral components (fertilizers) com- prised the lion’s share of from 31 to 50 percent,while lime accounted for 8 to 25 percent during 1949—58 and 34 percent in 1962. The use of these minerals seems to be confined mainly to vegetative practices, but at least two questions should still be raised. First, what proportion of the funds go to apply minerals under temporary cover practices that can lead to immediate increases in production? ACP in Virginia scores well on this point as in 1963 only 15 per- cent of the total payments went for temporary cover practices 155 while over 50 percent went for permanent cover practices. Since 1958, however, the share used for establishing perma- nent vegetative cover has decreased noticeably. Second, how permanent are the permanent vegetative cover practices? If the permanent vegetative cover is maintained for only one or two years,then the heavy uses of fertilizers with these prac— tices will lead to increased present crop production. No research is available which might indicate how the program in Virginia or any other state scores on this latter ques- tion. In general, however, ACP in Virginia seems to be closer to fulfilling program objectives than most of the other states analyzed. More than 60 percent of the funds are used for practices that seem to best fulfill program objectives,while less than 20 percent goes to those least meeting objectives. Still,over 72 percent of the payments go for minerals,which does not make the fertilizer and lime industries unhappy. The apparent good record of ACP in the Appalachian states as well as the strong limestone lobby, may eXplain part of the reason why their Congressmen are Such hardy supporters of ACP. 156 Georgia ACP in Georgia, like in the other Eastern states, uses a large share of payments for assistance in applying fertilizers and lime (see Table 24). Beginning in l946,at least 28.1 percent of the ACP payments were Spent on miner- als and since 1955 the share has been between 56.4 and 60.3 percent. The larger share of from 22.4 to 48.1 percent has gone to other minerals, such as phOSphorous, while only 5.7 to 22.2 percent has gone for agricultural liming materials. But since l955,the share used for liming materials steadily increased until it was 22.2 percent in 1962. On the other hand, the fertilizer component constantly decreased from its high of 48.1 percent in 1955 to 36.6 percent in 1962. Con- trary to other states analyzed,the change to a package prac— tice approach did not reduce the share going to minerals, for the share actually increased during 1953-54. The pro- portion of ACP funds going for fertilizers was also higher after 1954 when it ranged from 36.6 to 48.1 percent as com— pared to 22.4 to 32.3 percent during 1946-52. The relative prOportion of payments used for the three groups of practices show only minor fluctuations dur- ing 1946-63, for from 5.4 to 18.9 percent of the ACP funds went to Group I practices, 28.8 to 46.9 percent to Group II and finally 39.1 to 64.3 percent to Group III (see Table 25). 157 Table 24. The proportion of ACP payments used for minerals and temporary practices, Georgia (1946-63) Total All Other Temporary Year Minerals Lime Minerals Practices (%) (%) (%) (%) 1963 (n)* (n) (n) 39.2 1962 58.8 22.2 36.6 36.2 1961 57.4 19.2 38.2 37.8 1960 58.5 17.9 40.6 41.4 1959 58.4 16.6 41.8 43.0 1958 60.3 16.8 43.5 41.4 1957 58.5 14.8 43.7 42.9 1956 56.4 11.3 45.1 44.1 1955 58.5 10.4 48.1 61.0 1954 52.5 15.9 36.6 47.3 1953 51.0 10.6 40.4 40.5 1952 45.1 12.8 32.3 61.7 1951 31.5 9.0 22.5 54.7 1950 28.1 5.7 22.4 59.1 1949 31.9 7.0 24.9 56.7 1948 36.5 8.7 27.8 53.1 1947 31.2 8.5 22.7 61.2 1946 37.5 10.2 27.3 57.0 * Data not available. Source: See Table 7. .0 0490H 00m 4004som .0010004 mc44sp 444 4:040 04 wow ocm 44 van 4 43040 04 flnm U04000440 040 m4m4wc4zu .0644044040 :4 4:0 ooumumnom 46: mC4ucomn .000. 0004 00040 .0! Adv ANV Adv Amv Adv Amv In. .0. It. to. ... lo! 0.0 0.. 0.0 H00 000 muunwo Iwnfi coo co. 0.. so. no. 9.. .0. 000 ... ..- ..o to. In. 0.0 no. 0'. one can HOchgoo nahnm ”>MflfiHUQH—HOU OKLH .0. 0.0 0.. no. 0.. ... .0. .0. .0. .0. .0. 0o. 0.. 0.. 0.. .0. co. .0. unUHo oHSOUCOUZoQOHUQfiHHm 00H ANV cc. 0.. .0. go. 000 .0. .0. Adv Adv Amv Adv 0.. .0. no. .0. .0. no. ”MNHHM.“ >UCOMHUEQ ..IJ unUHSwZ. omH co. .9. coo co. to. .6. no. to. V.“ Vom Non \lom Qom HoN m-N mom QQN mom mwmmmhw dmwszmofi 0Ufi< 0”...“ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.40 4.00 0.00 0.00 40>00 .0004 0 040000 .40 .04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 04040045 40040 000 0044 .m 0.00 0.00 0.40 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 444 m004o 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 4040: 400400444 .>400000 .44 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.44 00.04 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 04040040 40040 000 0044 .04 0.44 4.04 0.40 0.00 4.40 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 40>00 .00» 004404004 .0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 4.4 0.0 4.4 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 4440040; .0 0.0 4.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 4.0 0.4 4044000 0040040 0 00004400 .0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 4.0 0.4 0.04 0.04 0.04 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 40>00 0>4404000>.e404 .0 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 44 m0040 ... 4.4 400 400 4.0 400 400 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 040040 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 000044000040 000440040 .0 400 400 400 400 400 400 ... 400 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0044004444 .0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 00004040 .0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.44 0.04 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0404004E 40040 000 0044 .4 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 4.0 0.0 4.44 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 4.04 0.04 4.04 4 m0040 4200404 0064 0054 mvc4 3064 omcfi Hm34 mm34 mm54 meH mmoa omoa nmoa wm04 omoa 0004 4004 N004 mooa 400-00040 0404000 .0004400000 4444404 04 4444400 40 0000040 000440040 400 .00 04004 159 The change to a package practice policy had little or no lasting effect on the distribution of payments. Group I practices decreased slightly in 1954 but went back up in 1956 while Group II practices dropped slightly and Group III practices increased. Temporary practices’ share also failed to decrease and actually increased during 1954 and 1955 before starting to decline in 1956. This decline continued until 1962 as their share of payments drOpped from 61.0 to 36.2 percent. Practices for establishing green manure and other temporary cover made up the largest part of the temporary practices. Therefore, the increases and decreases in green manure and other temporary cover practices' share was much the same as the total temporary practices. And if green manure and other temporary cover practices are combined with their mineral components,they comprise a share of from a low of 36.2 per— cent in 1962 to a high of 61.4 percent in 1952. Green manure and temporary cover practices also accounted for the major share of Group III practices. The only other subgroup of importance was subgroup 14, additional legumes and grasses, and it was not used until 1954. The practice was probably adopted to help maintain payments for minerals after the policy change,.and following a high of 7.4 percent in 1954 its share declined to only 2.2 percent when better ways were found to make payments for minerals. 160 Alterations in subgroups within Group II indicate that the change to the package practice approach in 1954 did have some effect on ACP in Georgia. The combined totals of the two permanent vegetative cover practices, subgroups 6 and 9, have fluctuated from a high of 44.5 percent in 1953 to 23.1 percent in 1955. An encouraging sign has been the increasing share going for establishment of permanent vege- tative cover,as compared to a decline in the share used for improving vegetative cover. Since 1955, ACP funds allocated to subgroup 6 have gone from 10.7 to 30.1 percent in 1962, while those to subgroup 9 have dropped from 12.4 to 5.7 per- cent. This relative shift is important,since over 90 percent of the subgroup 9 payments go for minerals while only about 70 percent of subgroup 7 payments are used for minerals. The forestry practices gradually increased their portion of payments in 1953 and reached a share of 3.6 to 5.5 percent by the late fifties and early sixties. The per— centages going to subgroups 7 and 11 also increased during 1953-54; subgroup 11 went from 1.1 to 7.1 percent before declining to 3.9 percent in 1963. However, these subgroups have fluctuated such that Group II's share has only grad- ually increased since 1946. The proportion of payments used for Group I prac- tices has gone up due to a steady increase in the irrigation and drainage practices' share along with subgroup 5&5.Ihese 161 latter increases were enough to counterbalance the effect of decreases in minerals and subgroup 4. Although drainage and irrigation practices comprise 3.7 percent of the state's payments in 1963Jthis was a substantial increase from the 0.1 percent of 1953. In comparison with ACP in Georgia, 11 percent of the ACP payments in South Carolina were used for forestry prac- tices in 1963. In Mississippi,from 84 to 56 percent of the ACP payments went for minerals during 1949—58, most of which were applied through vegetative practices. Over 90 percent of the ACP payments in Mississippi went for vegetative prac- tices, while over 80 percent of funds in Georgia are Spent in this manner. During 1962,all the ACP programs in the Southeastern states except South Carolina used between 50 and 62 percent of their payments for minerals,with a slightly larger propor- tion going for fertilizers than for lime applications. Most of these minerals were applied as part of a vegetative cover practice. Thus, ACP in Georgia is fairly representative of most other states in this region, although the distribution of payments between vegetative cover practices does vary among states. 162 Summary The analysis of ACP in nine states brings out vividly the regional differences. With the large diversification in climate and soil, such a variation in conservation programs should be expected. But the large variations in the prOpor- tions of ACP payments going to the three groups of practices cannot be justified solely on the basis of differences in conservation and land-use adjustment problems. ACP's objec- tives indicate it should promote those practices needed to solve conservation and land-use adjustment problems and that the farmers would not carry out on their own. The change to a package practice approach moved ACP closer to fulfilling its objectives in some respects, though not in others. In almost every state analyzed,the policy change brought about an increase in the share of payments going to irrigation or drainage practices or both. On the positive side, the change brought a decline in the share of payments going to temporary practices and an increase in the share used for permanent vegetative cover and forestry prac- tices. Finally, the proportion of payments going for fertil- izers declined while that going for liming materials in- creased. The reason for this type of response to the policy changes stems from a number of conflicts that arise when state development groups try to fulfill program objectiVes. 163 A move to reduce temporary practices means other practices must be increased if the state is to use up its money. The easiest practices to get farmers to use seem to be drainage, irrigation or liming practices. Thus, a large increase in production increasing practices tends to follow the decreases in temporary practices. Then,when a develOpment group finds that too much money is being Spent on Group I practices, it tries to increase payments to other practices. Ironically, the easiest to increase are the temporary practices, so there is a decrease in Group I practices at the eXpense of increasing temporary practices. One of the keys to the problem is that a state wants to use up all its funds, for if it does not, future apprOpri— ations are reduced. Strong incentives push states to above all else Spend their full appropriation or more, since this means more funds for the future. The formula for distribut— ing funds among states and then among counties is based 70 percent on whether past appropriations have been used, regardless of how they were used, and only 30 percent on actual conservation needs. Therefore, strong incentives exist at both the state and county levels to use all the appropriations first,and then worry about what the program is achieving second. This tends to undermine any efforts to better fulfill program objectives. 164 A change in the apprOpriation formula is needed that will give greater stress to conservation needs and replace past use of funds with something that measures how the funds were used. In other words, do not worry about whether a state or county uses all its funds but rather how the funds are used. An ACP state program using 50 percent of its funds for Group II practices and only 10 percent on Group I practices should be in line for increases in appro- priations,while one using 70 percent for Group I practices and only 10 percent in Group II practices should have apprOpriations decreased. This would put the emphasis not on just Spending funds but on Spending funds in such a way as to fulfill program objectives. Another alternative that could be used to both ful- fill program objectives and use appropriated funds, would be to increase cost-share rates on Group II practices and de- crease them on Group I practices. This could be done in each state without any prior approval from Congress and would only require approval by the federal administration. The increase in cost-share rates would increase both the quantity of practices and the money used. The analysis also shows how ACP payments in the Western states have gone largely to irrigation practices, while ACP claims fulfillment of program objectives on the basis of a low proportion of funds going to temporary 165 practices. The programs in the Midwestern and Lake states used a large proportion of their funds for drainage prac- tices and mineral applications,while in the Plains states a high prOportion went to temporary practices. Finally, in the Eastern states a large prOportion of payments went for minerals; in all but two of these states over 50 percent of the ACP payments were used for mineral applications. One possible way these regional excesses could be corrected would be to place restrictions on the amount of funds used for Specific practices. For example, in the West funds going to irrigation practices could be restricted to 25 percent or less of the payments,while in the Midwestern and Eastern states a comparable restriction could be placed on drainage practices as well as certain fertilizer and lime applications. Such regional restrictions in combination with a formula for allocating funds on the basis of the proportion of payments used for Group II practices Should move the whole ACP program closer to fulfilling program objectives. CHAPTER VII MINIMIZING ACP COSTS With the evaluation of ACP’S distribution of funds completed, the next task is to determine if the same ACP practice adOption could have been achieved at a lower cost. First, the economic framework for analysis will be presented, showing the general impact of ACP at the farm and state levels. Second, the agricultural liming practices are ana- lyzed to indicate if ACP has actually increased practice use over what farmers would have done on their own. Any funds Spent on practices farmers would carry out on their own does not add to total practice use and to the extent these expen— ditures are eliminated,ACP costs are reduced without reduc- ing practice use. Third, has the cost-share necessary to induce farmers to use a practice been kept at a minimum? For if the cost- share can be reduced on certain practices without curtailing their use,then the same results could be accomplished but at a lower cost. The amount ACP has paid a farmer over that necessary to induce him to use a practice can be considered an income transfer,or possibly part of the cost of getting 166 167 the last farmers to use the practice. Finally, to the extent ACP funds are used to fulfill objectives other than ACP objectives, eXpenditures are increased without adding to the total quantity of practices applied. A prime example of this is the promotion of the small family farm by the small cost~share increase. Economic Framework In developing the economic framework,the following will be assumed: (l) the state of the arts constant to fix the production functions, (2) fixed utility functions, (3) constant institutional structure, (4) perfect knowledge and foresight as well as rationality of persons or groups and (5) consumers are motivated to maximize satisfactions while producers are motivated to maximize money profits. These assumptions do not limit the analysis to either perfect com- petition or continuous functions and they will be relaxed in the analysis sections. At the level of the individual farm firm,the farmer has available to him a number of inputs, some fixed and others variable, with which to produce the combination of products maximizing his money profits. He is continually confronted with the problem of whether or not to use a prac- tice,such as tile drainage or terracing. If he decides to use the practice,he must also decide how much to apply and 168 how best to combine his inputs in applying the practice. Static economic theory indicates he will combine the inputs in their less cost combination and apply the practice until its cost equals its marginal value product. When ACP is introduced,it reduces the cost of a practice to the farmer and should increase its use, depend- ing on the farmer‘s marginal value product curve. Assuming product prices, input prices and inputs not used in the prac- tice are constant, the farmer should increase practice use moving along his line of least cost combination until the marginal value product again equals practice costs. But in the cases where ACP only cost-shares for part of the inputs used in the practice, the farmer will face a different line of least cost combination and marginal value product curve. This would be the case if ACP cost-shares only on out of pocket costs, encouraging the farmer to use proportionately less of inputs, such as his own labor, and more of the in- puts cost-shared on by ACP. The amount ACP is able to increase practice use will depend on the shape of the farmer's marginal value product curve. If his marginal value product,curve is steep and inelastic, large changes in cost-shares will only bring about small changes in the quantity of practice applied, while the opposite would be true for relatively flat and elastic marginal value product curves. The Shape of the 169 farmer's marginal value product curve would be implicit in the relationship between ACP cost-Shares and the quantity applied under ACP. AS ACP cost-shares increase,the quantity applied under ACP should increase, but at a rate dictated by the shape of the farmers marginal value product curve. Shifting the analysis to the state level, if product prices and inputs not used in the practice are assumed con- stant,then the farmers‘ marginal value product curves can be summed horizontally to obtain the aggregate practice demand curve or marginal value product curve for the state. Here the equilibrium conditions involve equating the practice's marginal factor cost with its marginal value product, since at this level changes by farmers affect input prices. Changes in production due to ACP may also alter product prices so that the horizontal summations would not be valid, particularly for large changes in widely used practices. Besides influencing practice use, ACP will probably increase the prices of inputs used in the practices and their complements,while reducing the prices of substitute inputs. The opposite would be true for agricultural prod- uct prices,because increased production due to ACP practices cause their supply curve to Shift to the right and if demand is fairly constant and inelastic both price and total revenue will decline. Changes in these input and product prices modify ACP'S influence on practice use. The increase in 170 practice use necessary to equate marginal factor cost and marginal value product after the ACP cost—Share has been increased will not be as large as when input and product prices are constant. The problem of isolating the effect of ACP becomes more difficult as variables originally assumed constant are allowed to vary. For certain kinds of practices, partic- ularly such permanent practices as drainage, the quality of land needing treatment will decline overtime. In other words, the land affording the highest returns will be the first treated and the land remaining to be treated will afford lower returns. The aggregate production function and, con- sequently, the marginal value product curve of the practice shifts downward as the remaining quantity of land needing treatment is reduced; the cost—share necessary to obtain a given additional quantity of practices under ACP goes up. Other changes involving the program rules would mean new production functions. These changes might be in program requirements or in the inputs paid for under a particular practice. This would also include any major changes in pol- icy that affect either practice use or cost. Such changes may cause abrupt alterations in cost-shares and practice use or even cause the quantity of a practice use to decline while the cost-share increases. 171 A series of years with dry or wet weather will have an impact on the farmers production function. After several years of wet weather,the marginal value product curve for drainage will tend to increase. Hence,more farmers will make use of ACP drainage assistance at no increase in cost-shares. If a number of years can be isolated where the cost- share has changed and the variation in institutional struc- ture, land quality, weather or prices has not been great enough to hide the response, the relationship between cost— shares and quantity of a practice applied under ACP should be fairly predictable. But the reSponse of different prac— tices would not necessarily be the same. The quantity of a given practice should increase if the cost-share increases and decline in response to decreases. IncreasinggPractice Use Without Subsidizing Normal Farm Practices Within the above economic framework,the question is asked whether or not ACP has increased practice use over what farmers would have done on their own. Does ACP continue to cost—share on practices after farmers have found their mar- ginal value product exceeds the cost? And would farmers apply the practice with either no assistance or a reduced assistance? The application of agricultural lime will pro- vide an example of ACP's influence on total practice use, since data is available to compare total practice use against 172 use under ACP. Practice application in the South Central and Thumb areas of Michigan illustrates how frequently farmers receive payments for profitable practices. Figure 1 compares total agricultural lime sold in the United States with that sold under ACP. Here the close rela— tionship between total sales and ACP sales is quite apparent; during 1936-49 they moved in the same direction until 1950 when total sales increased by almost 2 million and ACP sales declined by over 1 million tons. From 1950 to 1962 they moved in opposite directions four separate times and the amount sold outside ACP increased by over 3 million tons (see Table 26). The trend towards increased sales without assistance actually began with the cut in apprOpriations of 1948,when lime sold outside ACP increased by over 2 million tons. During 1947-50 the amount of lime sold outside ACP increased from 1 million to 6.5 million tons,as the impor— tance of ACP in total lime sales seemed to decrease. Even though the importance of ACP in obtaining in- creased use of lime weakened, the cut in ACP assistance in 1953 and 1954 still brought about large reductions in total sales of agricultural liming materials. And had the rate of increase in use of lime that prevailed in the twenties pre- vailed from 1936-63, total sales would have been less than half of what they were in 1963. Although other factors,such as education and prices received,probably contributed to the 173 Thousands of Tons 301[ 28 V 10 t 14 F 10 0 Fig. l. A V r .7 36 38 4O 42 44 46 48 50 52 1935-62. ACP Sales ———‘ Total Sales - . t . :Years 54 56 58 60 62 Total agricultural lime sales and sales under ACP, 174 Table 26. Total United States agricultural lime sales not subsidized by ACP (1935-62) Years 1,000 Tons 1962 6,456 1961 5,867 1960 6,365 1959 7,553 1958 6,370 1957 6,556 1956 5,497 1955 5,534 1954 6,486 1953 5,532 1952 5,822 1951 6,147 1950 6,556 1949 3,479 1948 3,411 1947 1,003 1946 886 1945 1,729 1944 827 1943 996 1942 1,964 1941 2,472 1940 2,401 1939 2,255 1938 2,707 1937 2,148 1936 2,863 1935 3,505 Source: A. L. Mehring, J. R. Adams and K. D. Jacob, Statistics on Fertilizers and Liming in the United States, Statistical Bulletin No. 191 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1957), 162pp; Changes in Farm Production and Efficiency: A Summary Report 1963, USDA St. Bulletin, No. 233, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1963), pp. 22-23. 175 increased rate of lime application during the thirties and forties, ACP has been a significant factor in these in— creases. How much total lime sales might decrease if ACP assistance were dropped is not clear. The increase in lime sales without ACP assistance during the late forties indi- cates that at least a proportion of the lime applied under ACP would have been used without assistance. If ACP was only paying for lime farmers would not apply on their own, then decreases in sales under ACP should bring about compa- rable decreases in total sales while increases in ACP sales should mean equal or greater increases in total sales. This assumes other variables,such as prices received,are fairly constant. But if ACP is not fulfilling its objectives or other variables have substantially affected lime sales, then the above relationships may not hold. During the first twenty-seven years of ACP's opera— tion,lime sales under ACP have increased eighteen times, but only six times did the total sales increase as much as ACP sales. All but one of the ten largest increases in ACP assistance for liming led to a smaller increase in total sales, while the nine times lime sales under ACP decreased total sales only decreased as much or more three times. Although this is not positive evidence, it does support the prOposition that ACP is subsidizing some lime applications 176 farmers would do without assistance. Hence, even though ACP has increased the use of agricultural lime, further restric- tions of its use seem necessary if ACP is not to subsidize normal farming practices. The discussion now turns to the important question of how to identify normal farming practices. Here is an important task with which those administering ACP should be concerned. One way to identify these practices would be to determine their returns and frequency of use. ACP payments for practices on which farmers receive a high return would only be justified as a means to acquaint the farmer with the practice's value. To the extent continuous payments to the same farmer on high returns practices could be eliminated, ACP costs could be reduced without reducing practice use. To provide an example of this procedure and to illus— trate possible normal farming practices in Michigan, a 1 percent area random sample of farmers was taken in the South Central and Thumb areas of Michigan.1 0f the 265 farmers sampled, 100 or about 36 percent were found to have used ACP sometime during 1960-64. A five year history of ACP use was obtained for 204 farmers, while a four year history was lBarry, Calhoun, Clinton, Eaton, Ingham, Ionia, Jackson, Livingston, Shiawassee, Washtenaw, Huron, Lapeer, Sanilac, St. Clair and Tuscola counties. 177 obtained for 249 and finally a three year history for all 265. It should be noted, some of the farmers may have dropped out of farming after 1962 or not farmed before 1962. But in l962,all 265 farmers owned or Operated farmland that was either being farmed or was in the conservation reserve. Had the sample been restricted to those farming or owning farmland every year during 1960-64, the proportion of those using ACP would have been higher. Of these 100 farmers who have used ACP, what is the frequency of their use of Specific practices? Twenty—six of the 100 farmers have received payments for the same type of practice at least three out of the last four years and some have received payments every year since 1959 for the same practice. Six of these farmers have continuously received payments on more than one practice; in fact, one farmer received payments for both tile drainage and green manure every year during 1960—64. Three practices seem to be used continuously; green manure, tile drainage and the application of lime under the A-4 practice. Sixteen farmers used green manure three out of the last four years and six farmers used the A-4 practice three out of the last four years, while three farmers used tile drainage four out of the last five years. But what are the returns to these three practices? If they are high enough,they could be classified as normal farming practices 178 or those many farmers would use without assistance. Drainage investments have estimated returns in the Thumb and Saginaw valley areas of Michigan of 30 percent,which is definitely high enough to indicate that some of the farmers were obtain— ing unnecessary payments.2 The same may be true of lime as the returns are from 5 to 10 percent.3 One reason tile drainage was not used as continuously as the other two practices is probably due to restrictions certain counties have placed on its use. To illustrate, in certain counties farmers can obtain payments for tile drain- age only once every three to six years. Similar restrictions were not found on the liming and green manure practices. But, like the restriction on payments for the tile drainage practice, two conditions may be necessary before restrictions are used: (1) limited funds and (2) too high a percentage of the state or county appropriations going to a particular prac— tice. Appropriations are limited in a few counties that use a high proportion of their funds for agricultural lime. Hence, liming may be restricted in use for a few counties. 2M. David Brooke, ”Marginal Productivities of Inputs on Cash Farms in the Thumb and Saginaw Valley Areas of Mich- igan, 1957,” (unpublished Master‘s dissertation, Michigan State University, 1958), 90 pp. 3 E. C. Doll, Lime for Michigan Soils, Extension Bulletin 471 (East Lansing, Michigan, 19643, 6 pp. 179 One of two procedures could be used to help eliminate payments for normal farming practices. First, payments could be limited on relatively profitable practices to only once per farmer. And second, cost-share percentages could be reduced when the farmer receives payments more than once for the same practice. ACP in Kansas has a restriction on stubble mulching, very similar to the first suggestion, where payments are allowed only once for the same acreage.4 This, however, would not be an adequate restriction for certain permanent practices which once applied to an acre of land will not be needed again for twenty or more years. The restriction in some Michigan counties limiting payments on tile drainage to once every three to six years is approaching the suggested restrictions. But as already has been mentioned, these restrictions are being used for quite a different reason. They are used so the counties do not run out of ACP funds and are able to Spread payments among as many farmers as possible. Sanilac County, Michigan has a program provision on tile drainage similar to the second suggested procedure for reducing costs. Here the cost-share for tile drainage is 50 4U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, The 1962 Agricultural Conservation Program, Kansas (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961), 35 pp. 180 percent for the first 10 acres drained and 30 percent for any additional acres drained on the same farm at any time. A further improvement might be to only offer a 50 percent cost-share for the first 10 acres, 30 percent for the next 20 acres and 10 percent for the last 20 acres. After the farmer had drained 50 acres with ACP assistance, no further payments should be made for tile drainage on his farm. Such program provisions would allow ACP to acquaint the farmer with the benefits from these practices but would help prevent them from receiving continuous payments for something they would do on their own. Continued ACP pay- ments would only be justified on practices where benefits to the nation are equal to or greater than the cost-share and where returns are not sufficient to justify the farmer's use. If payments could be limited to only these cases, ACP would achieve its present total practice use,but at a reduced cost. Minimizing the Cost-Share Increased cost-shares should increase practice use under ACP while decreased shares should have the Opposite effect,except where total funds are limiting and payments are restricted or where the practice demand curve is per- fectly inelastic. But what size of reSponse can be eXpected and are there some practices where reductions in cost-shares would not reduce total use? Also, if the objective is to 181 increase practice use, what practices require the largest increase in cost—shares to achieve it? To help answer these questions,the response of practice use to changes in cost- shares will be measured on six Michigan ACP practices. To isolate the actual changes in cost-shares and their impact on practice use, the costs have been deflated by the index of prices paid by farmers for all inputs used in production, including interest and wages. This will help remove the effect of changes in input prices. Practices will be grouped according to the degree their production functions overtfimmzmight be influenced by changes in average land qual- ity of acres remaining eligible for payments. Certain kinds of permanent practices are likely to be significantly affected,whi1e temporary practices are not. The response measured at widely different points in time may involve dif~ ferent production functions. And to the extent land quality has changed over time,the greater will be the possible dif— ferences in production functions. Therefore, differences between two consecutive years will be analyzed to reduce the possible effects of a shift in the production function. Where the cost-share has changed significantly,the practice response to these changes will be measured by the percentage change in quantity over the percentage change in cost. This will be referred to as the practice's "reSponse elasticity." The greater the positive response elasticity, 182 the more a practice has been influenced by a given change in cost-shares. If the response elasticity is negative the practice is either being affected by variables assumed rela- tively constant or the cost-share is too high. of the practices selected for analysis,the drainage and forestry practices are most likely to have their produc— tion functions influenced by changes in the land remaining to be treated. Both sets of practices should endure for twenty to fifty years. Overtjmmzthe acres remaining would be more expensive to treat and afford the farmer lower returns. This means that the aggregate practice demand has been shifting downward. For example, the underground drain— age practice has gone from one mainly of random tile to one involving grid tile Spaced 4 to 6 rods apart and more recent- 1y to grid tile Spaced only 2 rods apart. Such changes, due mainly to shifts in the quality of land available needing treatment and different SCS regulations, are major reasons for the fivefold rise in the United States average cost— shares during 1947-61 (see Table 27). While the cost-share for underground drainage in the total United States has gone up steadily, declining only four of the last sixteen years, the acres drained per year have gradually declined. Open drainage has shown a very similar trend in cost-share,although not of the same magnitude. And like underground drainage, the trend is probably due largely to changing land quality and SCS regulations. 1533 0:0 mom03 mcmpsaucfi :ofiuo30ohn ma non: munacm now muosu0w >9 000a moUMuQ on» >9 pop0awmu coon 000 .0 «Hams mom .oHD0HM0>0 «on .m .a .m00a >02 .vmumom .cofiu0sufim umoo Eu0m ugh .oom>uum nuu0omum oasocoum "mousom H ASV k. u 000auknoa .pmuuopcu mu0nmuumoo a ... ... m 00.0H 00 mm.w 00m m0.m 000.m m0.m 00 am.0 mmv mm.0 000a ... ... 0 00.0 00 wa.w 000 00.H 000.0 HH.N mofi 00.m 000 00.0 mvoa ... ... 0 HH.0 H0 00.0 000 Hm.H 000.0 00.H 00 00.0H 0H0 00.0 000a ... ... 0 00.0H 00 00.0 00m 00.0 000.0 00.0 00 00.0H 000 00.0 0002 ... ... w H0.o wHH OH.“ 0am mm.m me.m 00.m m0 00.0H 00m 00.0 000a ... ... fiH mw.w mHH 0m.w 00 mh.m 0H0.m mm.m 00 0a.ma mum 00.0H Hmoa ... ... o 00.0 HOH 00.0 mm 00.0 mm0.H wo.m mm 00.MH 0m0 ow.mH mmoa ... ... 0 00.0H 00 0m.0 n mm.0 oma.a Hm.m om 00.0H 00m om.ma mmoa H 02.0 0 00.0H 02H 00.0 A00 Ago 000.H Ago mm A00 00 unco 000a m mH.0 w mm.0H 00H 00.0 mm 00.0 000 mm.0 H0 00.0w 0mm 00.00 000H 0 00.0 0 00.0H mod no.0a mm mm.» 000 00.0 m0 00.0w mmm 00.HN 000a 0 m0.0 NH 00.0H mwm MH.HH 0m m0.“ 0mm 0m.m 00 mm.mm 00m mm.mm nmoa w mm.0 u HN.0H 0mm 00.0H mm ea.“ 00H.H 00.0 h am.0m 00m 00.nm wmoa m HH.0 0 HH.0H 00m m0.HH 0H 0H.0 00H.H m0.v H0 00.0m mum 00.0m 000H 0 mm.HH m mw.ca H0m 0H.NH 0H No.0 mpa.a mw.0 om 00.0m H00 00.0w 000a ma 00.HH 0 00.0H 0mm Hw.mH 0H mm.w wmo.a ma.m Hm 00.0m mwm H0.0m HO0H 0a 0H.mH n m0.oH “mm 00.0H 0H ma.0 0N0.H 00.0 00 00.mm 00m 00.0m mooa m 00.HH h 00.0 0mm m0.mH ma 00.0 000 00.0 H0 00.mm Hmm 00.0m mooa mouo< ouo<\w mouo< ouo<\w mouo< muo<\m mouo< ouo<\w mwuu< ouo<\m muuu< muo<\w mmuo< muu<\w 00o» 000.H 000.H 000.H 000.H 000.H 000.2 000.3 :0uflcoflz cmmflcofi: mmu0um 0000:: :0mfinofiz mmpmum 0000:: :0mfisoflz mwu0um 0000:: mpz0um 0:0»:0Hm naunm 0:0 «mph mamumsm ommcfi0uo ammo msoum>m ww0cfl0uo nanoumuouc: 0009 uzfi>ouaEH Hmcnovca .20002002 0:0 wmu0um 0000:; «0000 0:0 :0 moofluo0ua pmuouamm mo pom: >wfluc0so 0:0 ou0nmnumou mu< .nm uHD0H 184 The relationship between cost-share and quantity applied will be indicated by only fairly sizable year to year changes in cost-shares,since minor shifts are likely to be caused by random changes. Within a given state,certa1n areas will tend to have different practice costs,and random shifts in the practice from areas of relatively low costs to areas of high costs could result in an increase in ACP costs without increasing practice use. Before the response elas~ ticity can be measured, responses for reasons other than shifts in cost-shares should be eliminated. This involves Specifying those years of major policy changes or wet weather. The years 1946—48 and 1952-54 will not be used in the analysis as these were times of major changes in national policy. These changes have been described in earlier chap- ters-and are significant enough to destroy the eXpected rela~ tionship between the acres drained and cost-shares. The period 1946-48 involved changes in program objectives, total appropriations and program regulations. During the latter period, 1952-54, technical service for ACP was turned over to SCS, a new administration took over ACP's Operation and the package practice approach was initiated. The data also indicates that these policy changes affect the relationship between cost-shares and acres drained as they tend to move in Opposite directions. 185 Underground Drainage Policy changes during 1957 affected practice response as certain counties in Michigan began restricting the total amount of funds Spent on underground drainage. This would eXplain why the response elasticity tends to be lower during 1956-57. The years 1958 and 1960 are also suSpect years as they follow years of high rainfall, particularly during the critical planting months of April and May. Probably for this reason,the acres drained increased while the cost~shares declined or stayed about the same. For underground drainage,this leaves four separate examples of fairly sizable changes in cost-shares when other variables were fairly constant; these occurred during 1949-50, 1950-51, 1955-56 and 1961-62. During two of the four years, the cost-share decreased over 12 percent an acre while in the others it increased by about the same amount. The response elasticity was 0.6 and 0.7 for the two decreases in cost- 5 shares and 0.6 and 0.6 for the two increases. These four 5 91-9 Q = the quantity of underground drainage applied with ACP assistance the year before the cost-share change Ql = the quantity of underground drainage applied with ACP assistance the year of the cost-share change the ACP cost-shared for underground drainage the year before the cost-share change C1 = the ACP cost-share for underground drainage the year of 0 ll 186 responses are very close and indicate a reSponse of about 0.6 is likely to prevail in Michigan for relatively small changes in cost-shares over short periods of time. In other words, a 10 percent change in the cost-share will probably bring about a 6 percent change in acres of ACP underground drainage between any two consecutive yearsjbut due to changes in land quality this may not hold for another 10 per~ cent change in the same time period or over a longer time. If a change in cost-share policy were contemplated a rough prediction of the response could be obtained by using the following formula derived from the previous elasticity formula: cl-c Ql=Q 1+5 C Using 0.6 as the elasticity and 1963 as the base year,a 10 percent decrease in cost-share would mean about 38 thousand the cost-Share change E = response elasticity. This elasticity formula was selected since the results can be directly applied to estimates of responses to changes in cost-shares. In other words, for an elasticity of 1, a 10 percent change in cost-share next year will indicate a 10 percent change in quantity, using the present year as the base. 00ther than this there is no a priori reason to select one elasticity formula over another. Unlike demand elasticity the price and quantity move in the same direction, hence the differences in elasticities calculated using dif- ferent base points tend to be insignificant. This was borne out by the data as only in one case did the elasticities calculated by the alternative procedures differ by more than 0.05. And for changes in cost-share of 10 percent or less the difference was even smaller. 187 acres would be drained, other things being fairly constant. A 10 percent increase would mean a correSponding increase in acres drained to over 43 thousand acres. Open Drainage Changes in the institutional and weather variables have had a similar effect on Open drainage. Therefore, the same years eliminated from the analysis of underground drain- age should also be left out for Open drainage systems. Even with these years eliminated, the relationship between cost- shares and acres drained is not very often positive. Only during 1959-60 did a sizable increase in cost— shares lead to an increase in acres drained,and this is one period eliminated due to abnormal weather. Here the response elasticity was only 0.4,indicating that a 10 percent increase in cost-shares will bring about a 4 percent increase in acres drained. However, if 1959 had not been a wet year there may not have been any response. Negative elasticities were Obtained in other years as the cost-share had doubled since l946,while the acres drained have been cut over twentyfold. Only during 1960-61 and 1962-63 did sizable cuts in cost—shares occur but neither brought about a decline in acres drained. This could indi- cate that cost-shares are too high or have little influence on practice use. An eXplanation of these long term trends is that all the low cost Open drainage sites have already 188 been installed leaving only the high cost sites. Another eXplanation might include a decline in use of Open drains. During the early fifties SCS became reSponsible for technical service on ACP practices and this may have put a limit on the number installed due to a limited number of SCS personal available to approve practices or higher standards set by SCS. In comparison with the cost-shares and the acres drained in the United States, payments in Michigan have been from 1.06 to 5.25 dollars more per acre and acres drained in Michigan have declined from 553 thousand to 10 thousand dur- ing 1948-62. This would tend to support the proposition that in Michigan only high cost sites remain and higher cost- shares may be necessary to increase the installation of open drainage systems. But before use rates are increased,the additional cost-share necessary must be justified by the benefits accruing to the nation and not the farmer. It is likely that the additional cost—share necessary to induce greater practice use may exceed the additional benefits, particularly if all the prime sites have been drained. Forestry The forestry practices have not shown as definite a trend in changing land quality as did the drainage practices, particularly the open drainage practice. Both the acres covered and the cost-shares have increased for forestry prac- tices as compared to Open drainage practices,where the acres 189 declined drastically while the cost-share increased. This should be eXpected because the drainage practices have been applied to many more acres than have the forestry practices, one of which was not initiated until 1954. Changes in cost- shares may also be much more important for the forestry practices as they are much less profitable than the drainage practices. Beginning in 1960, the cost—share per acre in the United States increased and the quantity planted declined, possibly due to changing land quality. In other words, the land with the lowest Opportunity cost has been planted to trees and the cost-share may have to be raised if the quan- tity of trees planted under ACP is to be maintained. Another eXplanation might be that entrepreneurs have found the tree planting practice to be unprofitable, particularly when com- pared to alternative land uses. Both eXplanations indicate that if the cost-shares were to stay the same, tree planting would decline unless a change in government price support programs lowers the Opportunity cost of more farmland. The cost-shares for tree planting in Michigan has been about 1.50 to 8.00 dollars higher than the average for the United States. The quantity planted declined in both Michigan and the United.States during 1952 and 1953 but the subsequent increases lasted until 1957 in Michigan,as com- pared to 1959 in the United States. In the late fifties and 190 early sixties the decline in quantity planted was 45 percent in Michigan and 40 percent in the total United States,while cost-shares rose by 20 and 30 percent reSpectively. The increase in acres planted during the middle fifties was not quite 50 percent in Michigan as compared to over 450 percent in the United States. In addition to these sizable changes in Michigan, numerous minor shifts in cost-shares are associated with both increases and decreases in acres planted or improved. Since these minor shifts do not occur during years that the percentage of cost paid by ACP was increased, they were assumed to have been caused by random shifts or changes in the institutional structure. The measurement of reSponse elasticity was, therefore, restricted to the years where the percentage cost-share changed. Two changes in the cost-share percentage have been tried in Michigan. The first,in 1955-56, affected both forestry practices,while the second, in 1959-60; only affected the forestry improvement practice. The initial change was from 50 percent of the cost to 75 percent, while the latter brought the cost-share to 80 percent. Depending on the lag assumed between the increase in cost-share and the increase in acreage planted, the response elasticity could have several values. Taking the tree and shrub planting practice first and assuming no lag, the response elasticity is 0.4. If a one year lag is allowed, 191 the elasticity is raised to 1.1. The former means a 10 per— cent increase in cost-share increases acreage planted by 4 percent,while the latter means a 11 percent increase. This is a significant difference and brings out the importance of the possible lag. The lag could be caused by a delay in disseminating information concerning the increased cost—share,or it could be caused by a lack of funds. In certain counties,a big increase in both cost-shares and the quantity used may cause a shortage of funds. Some farmers may have to wait a year or more to obtain the desired ACP payments. Considering the reSponse of the other forestry prac- tice, improving tree stands, the same question about lag response appears. When no lag is assumed,the reSponse elas- ticity between 1955-56 is 1.6 and during 1959-60 it is 1.0. For a one year lag, the response elasticity goes to 2.8 and 3.5 reSpectively. A 10 percent increase in cost—share could bring about an increase in acreage improved from about 10 percent to as much as 35 percent. Improving tree stands is, therefore, the most responsive practice of those measured. Using 1963 as the base year and the conservative estimate of the practice's response elasticity, 1.0, a 10 percent increase in cost-share Should increase the acreage improved to 8.4 thousand. A 10 percent decrease in cost- share should decrease the acreage improved to 6.9 thousand. 192 Were the larger elasticity of 1.6 used,the 10 percent change should change the acreage improved to 8.9 for an increase and 6.4 for a decrease. This gives a range of expected acreage improvement after a change in cost-share. Taking into account the possible lag response,there would be a greater change in the acreage improved for a given cost-share change. A 10 percent increase in the cost- share would bring the acres improved to between 9.8 and 10.3 thousand acres in two years. A similar decrease would cause acreage improved to decline from about 7.6 thousand in 1963 to between 5.5 and 5.0 thousand acres in 1965. Once the elasticity is selected,then the cost or saving from a con- templated change could be compared with the social benefit or loss from the change in acreage improved. Permanent Vegetative Cover The next group of practices to be considered are those where changes in land quality should have much less of an impact on the practice's production function. The permanent vegetative cover practices could be affected as the lands having the lowest Opportunity cost are covered with grasses and legumes. But the permanent vegetative cover may not last more than two or three years and the same acreage would be again eligible for payments. 193 The temporary vegetative cover practice lasts only a year or less and the same acreage would be eligible every year. The cost-share for sod waterways and liming practices are calculated per unit of practice,rather than per acre and would tend not to Show the impact of shifts in land quality. The lack of prime sites for sod waterways may appear on the quantity side,as fewer farmers will apply the practice at the same cost-share. Liming is generally needed at least every eight years, so land once limed would again become eligible for payments and would not be permanently taken out of the acreage needing treatment. Returning to the analysis of permanent vegetative cover practices, it should be noted that ACP has a specific objective to promote the establishment of additional vegeta- tive cover as well as maximizing practices with enduring benefits. The permanent vegetative cover practices are of major importance because they comprise the largest group of practices considered to be fulfilling both of these objec- tives. Chapter VI showed how the share of ACP funds going for improvement and establishment of permanent vegetative cover had increased since 1954. Here the question is whether or not the acreage covered has increased and what impact the cost-Shares have had on the acreage planted. As mentioned in Chapter VI, the major permanent vegetative cover practice before 1954 was artificial seeding 194 and reseeding of pasture or range. After 1953, however, two permanent vegetative cover practices became important: (1) establishment of permanent vegetative cover and (2) improvement of vegetative cover. Two minor practices were also continued after 1953: (l) establishment of permanent vegetative cover on orchards or vineyards and (2) reseeding of rangeland. When the two major permanent vegetative cover prac— tices are grouped together,the 1954 policy change is shown to have reduced the total number of acres receiving ACP assistance for permanent vegetative cover practices. Over 6 million acres of pasture or range were seeded or reseeded in l952,as compared to only about 2 million acres of estab— lished or improved permanent vegetative cover in 1954. However, the difference of 4 million acres may represent what farmers would do on their own and actually be a move- ment closer to fulfilling objectives. Still,it represents quite a drop in the application of practices considered as meeting the enduring benefit objective. An encouraging sign is the steady increase in estab- lishment of permanent vegetative cover, from less than 735 thousand acres in 1954 to 2.757 million acres in 1961 (see Table 28). This nearly fourfold increase was accomplished while improvement of vegetative cover increased from 1.47 million acres in 1954 to 2.37 million in l956,before 1595 .0 00000 000 .0000000>0 .00 00000 0000 ”mousow 00: n A:v. 000 00.0 000.00 00.0 0 00.0 000.0 00.0 000 00.0 .. .... 000 ..000 0000 000 00.0 000.00 00.0 0 00.0 000.0 00.0 000 00.0 .. .... 000 00.0 0000 000 00.0 000.00 00.0 00 00.0 000.0 00.0 000 00.0 .. .... 000 00.0 0000 000 00.0 000.00 00.0 00 00.0 000.0 00.0 000 00.0 .. .... 000 00.0 0000 000 00.0 000.00 00.0 0 00.0 000.0 00.0 000 00.0 .. .... 000 00.0 0000 000 00.0 000.00 00.0 00 00.0 000.0 00.0 010 00.0 .. .... 000 00.0 0000 000 00.0 000.00 00.0 0 00.0 000.0 00.0 000 00.0 .. .... 000 00.0 0000 000 00.0 000.00 00.0 0 00.0 000.0 00.0 000 00.0 .. .... 000 00.0 0000 000 00.0 000.00 00.0 0 00.0 000.0 00.0 00 00.0 00 00.0 000. 00.00 0000 000 00.0 000.00 00.0 00 00.0 000.0 00.0 00 00.0 0 00.0 00000 00.00 0000 000 00.0 000.00 00.0 00 0.0 000.0 00.0 00 00.0 00 00.0 000H0 00.00 0000 000 00.0 000.00 00.0 00 00.0 000.0 00.0 000 00.0 00 00.0 000.0 00.00 0000 000 00.0 000.00 00.0 00 00.0 000.0 00.0 000 00.0 00 00.00 000.0 00 00 0000 000 00.0 000.00 00.0 00 00.0 000.0 00.0 000 00.0 00 00.00 00 .0 00.00 0000 000 00.0 000.00 00.0 00 00.0 000.0 00.0 000 00.0 00 00.00 000.0 00.00 0000 000 00.0 000.00 00.0 00 00.0 000.0 00.0 000 00.0 00 00.00 000.0 00.00 0000 000 00.0 000.00 00.0 00 00.0 00040 00.0 000 00.0 00 00.00 000.0 00.00 0000 000 0:0 0:0 0:0 00 00.0 000.0 00.0 000 00.0 00 00.00 000.0 00.00 0000 0:00. :oa\w 0:00. :O0\0 .00.0m .00.0m .0; .0m .00 .Gw mmuo< wuo<\w 000o< muu<\w mw:o< muo<\w 000» 000.0 000.0 000.000.0 000.0\0 000.000.0 000.0\0 000.0 000.0 000 0 00000002 000000 0000:: 00000002 000000 00000: 00000002 0000000: 000000 000000 m00000002 m:0500 0003005000m< 0003:0003 00m 00>OU m>0umum umv> 000000208 um>oo 0>000pwmo> 0:0:05000 m:0:000n000m Hm0nc000 .:0m0:O02 0:0 mou0um 0000:: 00000 000 :0 mOOMHOaua 00000000 mo 000: 0000:030 0:0 mu00wuumou mU< .wm 00008 196 declining to 2.0 million acres in 1963. The emphasis on establishment of permanent vegetative cover,thus,helped increase the acreage planted during 1954—61. To obtain these increases in establishment of per— manent vegetative cover practices, what increases in cost- shares were necessary? Before comparing cost-shares,it should be noted that the practice previous to 1954 did not include the cost of liming or fertilizer,while during 1954- 63 the cost of minerals was included as part of the practice cost. Since 1954,the minerals have accounted for about 55 percent of the costs of permanent vegetative cover in the United States. With these costs of minerals taken into con~ sideration,the cost-share is shown to have increased only slightly. The initial increase probably came about for two other reasons: (1) assistance no longer could be obtained for applying only fertilizer and liming, but one could get both by putting in a permanent vegetative cover and (2) with the de-emphasis on temporary vegetative cover the permanent vegetative cover provided a reasonable practice to take up some of the extra money not used for temporary cover. In Michigan during 1954-63 large changes in cost— share per acre did not seem to bring about large changes in acres planted under ACP (see Table 28). Even if one hypoth- esized a lagged effect in Michigan, the high rates of 1958- 63 did not appear to increases acreage planted until 1961. 197 But this increase was due for the most part to the change of administrations and Special emphasis on the permanent vege— tative cover practices. Cost-share and acreage planted in the total United States does not even suggest a lag rela— tionship,as the cost-share has been going down while the acreage planted has gone up. All but one response elasticity in Michigan would be negative,due to the policy changes that increase use with— out increasing the cost-share. Only during 1959-60 did the acreage planted decline in reSponse to a decline in cost- share. Here the response elasticity brought about by the 2.03 dollar decrease in cost-share was 0.5. This indicates that a 10 percent decrease in cost-share would cause a 5 per- cent decline in acres established. Using 1963 as the base year a 10 percent decrease in cost-share would cause the acres established to decline to 35.5 thousand assuming other things fairly constant. Another possible eXplanation of the relationship between cost-share and acreage planted may be that the state or county develOpment groups want to Spend not more than a certain amount of apprOpriations for permanent vegetation. And when the acreage is increased, the cost-share per acre must decrease and vice versa. The policies of the state and county develOpment groups and the ASC committees, therefore, could have more impact on practice use than the cost-share. 198 Temporary Cover The alternative to permanent or enduring practices is temporary practices. As was shown in Chapter VI, the share of ACP funds going to these practices declined sharply during 1953-54,because of a new emphasis on permanent prac— tices under the package practice policy. A major proportion of the temporary practices were the temporary vegetative cover practices. These temporary cover practices in Mich- igan show that the acreage covered can be increased while decreasing the cost-share. In 1954,when the cost of fertilizer and lime was first added to the cost of establishing temporary cover,the cost-share first increased slightly but has declined since 1956 while the acreage covered has steadily increased (see Table 28). Fertilizer and liming costs amount to more than 50 percent of the cost-share, so that the cost-share did not really change between 1953-54. And before 1954,the relation- ship was very similar to that after l954,as decreases in cost-share were associated with increases in acres covered. The one sizeable increase in cost—share of 1.69 dollars per acre during 1954-55 was associated with an 111 percent increase in the acres covered. But a year later, 1956-57, a 1.83 dollar decrease in cost-share was associated with a 43 percent increase in acres covered. This helps illustrate that the temporary cover practices in Michigan have not 199 primarily been influenced by the cost-share but by program policy. The acreage covered has increased in reSponse to a lessening of the restrictions on payments for temporary prac- tices. In the sixties,the promotion of the temporary prac- tices has almost doubled their use while cost-share has declined. The result of such a policy is to move away from the program objective of increasing practices with enduring benefits,although it increases participation and fulfills an objective of the state and county ASC committees. Sod Waterways The cost to ACP of establishing sod waterways should also be considered for two separate periods. The package practice approach added several inputs to the cost of sod waterways, so the costs are not comparable before and after 1954. The same years that were eliminated from the analysis of Open drainage systems will be drOpped from the sod water- ways' analysis,as the weather and general policy changes have had similar affects on its use. The only sizable cost-share change for sod waterways in Michigan not eliminated from the analysis occurred during 1956-57. The reSponse elasticity from the 1.64 dollar in- crease in cost-share was 1.0. A 10 percent increase in cost-share will bring about at least a 10 percent increase in quantity established. If this estimate of elasticity is 200 accurate,establishment of sod waterways could be brought back up to the 1962 level in Michigan with a 10 percent increase in cost-share,using 1963 as the base year. Agricultural Lime Turning to the last group of practices to be eval— uated, application of agricultural lime, the cost-share per ton has been about the same since 1946, although between 1948 and 1953 it was slightly lower than during the other years (see Table 28). In fact,it has been too stable to obtain any meaningful estimate of the response elasticity. In the total United States the only important changes were in quantity, which dropped from almost 21.5 million tons to 15 million tons in 1953 and to 12.5 million in 1954. This was followed by a rise to 15 million tons in 1955 and by 1962, 17 million tons were applied under ACP as a trend toward increased total assistance for liming appeared to start in the sixties. Two reasons can be cited for the initial decrease in quantity of lime subsidized and its subsequent increase. First, in 1953 a cut in ACP appropriations along with a new administration was probably responsible for the initial decrease. Second, in 1954 the new package practice approach with requirements for soil testing along with a cut in appro~ priations brought about the second decrease. Then in 1955, as total apprOpriations were increased, lime sales under ACP 201 rose to the level of 1953. The package approach and the Republican administration helped decrease the quantity of lime sold under ACP by around 5 or 6 million tons while the reduction in apprOpriations caused a 3 or 4 million ton decrease. The exact magnitude of these changes is hard to determine,because of the difficulty involved in isolating the cause-effect relationship. An earlier decrease in the quantity of lime sold under ACP occurred in 1948 as the result of decreases in appropriations and in the cost-share per ton. Total appro- priations were cut by over 25 percent while the cost-share was reduced by 25 percent. Here.the reduction in appropria- tions,no doubt brought about the decrease in cost-share and this combination decreased lime sales under ACP by about 7 million tons or 23 percent. Subsequent increases in the cost-share per ton brought both increases and decreases in the quantity used, making the relationship between the aver- age cost-share and quantity applied unclear. The cost-share for lime and quantity applied in Michigan show about the same changes as they did in the total United States. Michigan's responses to the policy changes and cuts in total apprOpriations were similar to those of the total United States. The higher average cost— share per ton along with a lower average quantity applied in 1954-62 as compared to 1946-53 might indicate a drop in pro- gram efficiency. However, due to the policy change in 1954 202 more lime is probably used as part of other conservation practices. The cost-share necessary to get a farmer to use lime for establishing a permanent vegetative cover is prob— ably more than that needed to get him to apply lime before planting corn, Summary The response of practices to changes in cost-share are different and in some cases do not conform to the ex- pected relationship. Shifts in variables assumed relatively constant and lagged reSponses may account for some of these negative relationships. Further experimenting with differ- ent rates of payments is still needed to obtain better estimates of response elasticities and to determine which practices would be used at the same level with reduced cost- shares. But if all practices are assumed to be of about equal value,the response data indicate more acres could be reached with ACP practices if the cost-shares were reduced on certain practices and increased on others. With estimates of response elasticities, administrators of ACP would have better guidelines for allocating their funds to obtain max- imum practice use for a given eXpenditure. 203 Fulfilling Alternative Objectives The last question to be considered is whether or not ACP,in trying to fulfill objectives other than ACP objectives, causes the program costs to increase without increasing prac— tice use. Small Farmer Aid An example of ACP funds being used to fulfill alter- native objectives is Congress' maintenance of the small cost-share increase as a method of helping the small farmer. Since,as indicated in Chapter V,farmers are usually unaware of the small cost-share increase, it does not induce them to use more of a practice. At best9ACP's 10 million dollar yearly eXpenditures under this provision supplements a farm- er‘s income by 14 dollars a year. And it makes no difference whether a farmer farms 10 acres or 10,000 acres,he can still obtain the small cost-share increase if he receives less than 200 dollars in total ACP payments per year. In a sample of farmers from West Central Michigan and the Thumb area the small farmers, farming less than 80 acres, used ACP from 1961-64 much less than did the bigger farmers; farmers farming more than 320 acres made the great— est use of ACP (see Table 29). A definite trend indicates that the bigger the farms the more likely the farmers are to use ACP. In fact,only 13 percent of the farmers with less 204 than 80 acres used ACP,while 69 percent of the farmers with 320 acres or more received ACP assistance. Table 29. The distribution of ACP payments by size of farm in the South Central and Thumb areas of Michigan, 1961-64* 320 0-79 80-159 160—239 240—319 or More Acres Acres .Acres Acres Acres Number of farms sampled 45 115 48 25 32 Number of farms using ACP 6 30 24 13 22 Percent of farms using ACP 13% 26% 50% 52% 69% * The results are based on a 1 percent random sample, 265 farms, in the South Central and Thumb areas of Michigan. Data were not available for sixteen of the farmers in 1961. In the United States the average size of farms par- ticipating in ACP was 358 acres as compared to 254 acres for all United States‘farms (see Table 30).6 Before 1954 the average size farm participating was only 285 acres, but the change to the package practice raised it to 359 acres as the policy change benefited the larger farmers at the eXpense of 6This comparison is based on ACP's definition of a farm,as contrasted to that in the Census of Agriculture. 205 Table 30. Average size of ACP participating farms as compared with all farms in the United States (1948-63) Average Acreage Average Acreage of Year of All Farms Participating Farms 1963 2541 358 1962 2471 351 1961 242 356 1960 235 380 1959 233 386 1958 231 371 1957 232 361 1956 232 360 1955 231 361 1954 227 359 1953 226 285 1952 227 270 1951 224 275 1950 219 270 1949 216 263 1948 214 260 as defined by ACP. Estimated size based on past trend of total farms Total number of farms in 1962 was estimated at 4.9 million and in 1963 at 4.8 million. Source: See Table 7. 206 the smaller ones. By 1959 the average size of participating farms was 386 acres as compared to 233 for all farms. Then, during the sixties the trend was reversed and the average farm size dropped to 358 acres by 1963. Both the increase in 1954 and the decrease in 1961 were of a different magni- tude than the changes in total farm size, which has in- creased at a fairly slow but steady pace. This evidence indicates that ACP tends to be used considerably more by the larger farmers. If this is true, then the small cost-share increases are likely to be accru- ing to these larger farmers. Hence, besides increasing costs without increasing practice use, it appears that attempts to fill this alternative objective are not obtain- ing the desired results. There are other important implications that can be drawn from the evidence indicating larger farmers tend to make the best use of ACP. If ACP is effective, it will probably raise input prices and reduce product prices. But, the small farmer who receives fewer ACP payments cannot escape paying the higher input prices and receiving the lower product prices. In some cases, ACP may be hurting the small farmer more than it is helping him. 207 Income Support The next alternative objective of ACP is income Sup- port for the farmer, which may also increase ACP costs with- out increasing practice use. In fact, it is likely to be more costly than the small family farm objective, for the amount of cost-share over that necessary to induce a farmer to use an ACP practice could be considered an income support, since it serves no other purpose. Under the present program set—up it may be necessary to give a substantial income sup» port to some farmers in order to induce others to use a prac— tice. In these cases, the income support might well be included as part of the cost of inducing the last few farm- ers to use the practice. This would be particularly true when comparing the costs and benefits from an increased cost—share. Raising the cost-share rates to induce low income farmers with insufficient capital to use a practice can also lead to substantial income support to the rest of the farmers using the practice. Until this year, if a county offered 75 percent cost-shares for a practice, all farmers would receive the same rate.7 If a 50 percent cost—share 7". . . in situations where income prOSpects for the farmer or rancher are such that he reasonably could not be eXpected to bear as much as 50 percent of the cost of the prac- tice. (A higher rate may be approved under this subparagraph (3) only where it is determined that the farmer or rancher is largely dependent on the farm or ranch for his livelihood, the estimated annual family income does not exceed $3,000 and an increased rate of cost-sharing is essential to 208 was enough to induce most farmers to use the practice,then they would obtain a 25 percent income transfer. This 25 percent could amount to 15 to 20 dollars per acre for tile drainage or 500 dollars per farmer if he received 1,500 dollars in total payments. Another example of the magnitude of these income supports can be taken from the tile drainage practice in Michigan. In 1957, ACP in Michigan reduced the cost-Share percentages for tile drainage from 50 to 30 percent in eight counties. During 1957-59 the average yearly ACP expendi- ture on drainage in these eight counties was 960,000 dollars, of which approximately 90 percent or 864,000 dollars went for tile drainage. This means that about 2,880,000 dollars was Spent in total on tile drainage instigated by ACP; of this total an extra 20 percent or 576,000 dollars was paid by the farmers due to the cost-share reduction. The 560,000 dollars was available to cost-share for other practices in- cluding more drainage. Because in these counties ACP still is unable to approve all requests for tile drainage payments and the return on drainage is high, it would appear that prior to 1957 some farmers were receiving a substantial in- come transfer or support. permit the farmer or rancher to carry out needed practices.) U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, National Agricultural Conservation Program Bulletin (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965), p. 4. 209 It should be noted that ACP is providing income support for a select group of input industries through in- creased sales. The upper limit of this increase would be twice the payments received by farmers,as ACP only pays on the average half the cost. Prime examples of industries receiving substantial payments are the limestone, fertilizer and tile industries. Also, some of these input industries are located in urban areas and many of the multiplier effects generated by their increased business do not bene- fit rural areas. Increased Participation Another objective, increased ACP participation, may have more influence on the distribution of funds than the over-all cost of ACP. During the sixties there has been an expressed attempt to get new ACP participants. But to the extent this objective is pursued to the exclusion of other ACP objectives, the cost of achieving a given practice use is apt to be raised. In Chapter V it was indicated that an increase in temporary practices will bring about an increase in partic— ipation. By neglecting the objective of increasing the enduring conservation practices,the state and county ASCS committees can fulfill one of their objectives of increasing participation. And they can rationalize this policy on the grounds that if participation is increased, conservation and 210 land-use adjustment will also increase. But in effect,what they have done is emphasize the less eXpensive temporary practices and reduced the payments per farmer, thus Spread- ing the funds over a larger number of participants. The relationship between the prOportion of farmland participating in ACP and prOportion of temporary practices is apparent in Iowa and Minnesota (see Table 31). The 1961 program in Iowa had temporary practices increasing from 4 to 38 percent,while farmland participation went from 17 to 53 percent. In Minnesota the program Showed Similar trends, as temporary practices went from 10 to 26 percent and farm— land participation increased from 27 to 46 percent. Decreases in farmland participation occurred in many states after the change to the package practice approach. The temporary practices in Iowa drOpped from 40 to 6 percent and farmland participation fell from 60 to 31 percent,while in Minnesota temporary practices fell from 34 to 12 percent and farmland participation drOpped from 61 to 32 percent. Other factors, such as decreased apprOpriations,helped reduce participation during 1953-54, but the decline in temporary practices had a substantial impact. Iowa and Minnesota were selected to Show the rela- tionship between participation and temporary practices,since ACP in these states had recently undergone sizable shifts in the prOportion of temporary practices while other variables 211 Table 31. Percent of farmland on ACP participating farms as compared with the percent of payments used for temporary practices in Iowa and Minnesota (1951-63) Iowa Minnesota Percent Percent Percent Temporary Percent Temporary Year Farmland Practices Farmland Practices 1963 41 18 23 3 1962 43 25 32 10 1961 53 38 46 26 1960 17 4 27 10 1959 15 4 26 9 1958 27 8 29 10 1957 32 21 31 12 1956 29 7 40 12 1955 27 5 30 12 1954 31 6 32 12 1953 60 40 61 34 1952 70 41 58 31 1951 73 45 53 31 Source: See Table 6. 212 were fairly constant. A 1 percent increase in temporary practices does not bring about a 1 percent increase in par- ticipation, but any sizable increases in temporary practices will mean an increase in participation. If the ACP adminis— tration wants to increase participation, one way would be to encourage the use of green manure or other temporary prac- tices. In many cases, these are the practices farmers are already carrying out, therefore, some farmers are quite will- ing to take an income subsidy. Summary In essence then, as ACP funds are used to promote too many objectives, the cost of obtaining a given amount of practices tends to increase and ACP falls short of its eXpli— cit objectives. This, however, may be a common problem among federal programs as they are used to fulfill too many objec- tives and, therefore, really do not fulfill any. James Yoho and Allan Schmid observed a similar problem in the Area Re- development Administration (ARA). Here, a particular example was given showing how none of the objectives were fulfilled in ARA's attempt to meet too many objectives. They concluded that if one objective had been used, the program would have . . 8 been organized differently and probably more successfully. 8 James G. Yoho and A. Allan Schmid, "Area Develop- ment: Observations on a Failure," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 47, No. 2 (May 1965), pp. 468-70. 213 The same applies to ACP, a better designation of program objectives and adherence to these objectives would probably substantially improve performance. This is partic- ularly true at the county level where many of the administra- tors find it difficult to define program objectives or feel they conflict with other federal programs‘ objectives. AS was pointed out in Chapter V, these conflicts then lead to a develOpment of alternative objectives. In conclusion,ACP could have achieved the same practice use at a lower cost. How much lower is difficult to determine, though it may be quite substantial in certain areas. To move the program closer to its objectives and reduce program costs a number of program alterations are needed. Suggested guidelines and procedures for improving ACP performance are covered in the concluding chapter. CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS This thesis has shown how a multitude of objectives have been imposed on ACP since its initiation in 1936. The original objectives were production control, income support and soil conservation, but during the war the major emphasis shifted from limiting production to increasing production. And Since l946,the major emphasis has been on conservation of land resources,with land-use adjustment receiving some emphasis during the late fifties and early sixties. In addition to the present program objectives, alter— natives have been interjected by Congress and those adminis- tering ACP. At the national leve1,the apprOpriation sub— committees have so restricted the USDA that,in essence,ACP policy formulation has passed from the Secretary of Agricul— ture to the apprOpriation subcommittees. At the state and county level,pr05pects for program improvement are not much better. The formula for allocating ACP funds actually promotes the use of apprOpriations in any manner possible,with little regard for program objectives. Conflicts among ACP objectives and lack of guidelines for 214 215 program operation have helped push the ASC committees and those administering ACP into develOping their own objectives. The evaluation of ACP's distribution of payments shows Significant regional differences in fulfilling program objectives. ACP in all but two of the eleven Western states uses over 50 percent of its funds to subsidize irrigation practices while claiming fulfillment of objectives on the basis of a low prOportion of temporary practices. Many pro— grams in the Midwestern and Lake states are using a high proportion of ACP funds for drainage and mineral practices, while in the Plains States the tendency is towards use of a high portion of payments for temporary practices. To illus- trate, ACP in Missouri and Illinois used over 71 percent of the payments for minerals; in Indiana 81.6 percent was Spent on drainage and minerals,while in North Dakota 48.8 percent went for stubble mulching. Finally, all but two of the pro— grams in the Eastern states used over 50 percent of their funds on mineral practices; only in four states east of the Mississippi did ACP use less than 50 percent of its payments for minerals. As indicated in Chapters III and IV,the problem is partially political as the apprOpriation subcommittees main- tain practices not meeting ACP objectives,so that practices are available for all states to use. If the practices were limited to those actually meeting ACP'S objectives, certain 216 areas of the United States might have trouble using their ACP appropriations; hence,ACP might lose support and votes. Each state development group can select any of the practices offered in the National Handbook. And with the present appropriations formula rewarding areas using all their funds, states tend to select practices they know farmers will use. Payments, therefore, become concentrated on a few practices which are profitable in each region. Turning to a consideration of minimizing ACP costs, agricultural lime provides an example of how ACP has helped increase practice use. But in so doing,it has paid for the application of some agricultural lime that the farmers would have used without assistance. This was Shown by the in- crease in agricultural lime sales without ACP assistance which went from 1 to 6.5 million tons during 1947-50 while total sales remained at about the same level. Certain farmers in the South Central and Thumb areas of Michigan are receiving unnecessary continuous payments for the high return practice, tile drainage. Here,payments, in most cases,should be limited to once per farmen.since the returns are generally high enough to induce the farmer to use the practice without assistance. And at the very min- imum,the cost-share should be reduced after the farmer has once received payments for tile drainage in areas of high returns. 217 The response for Six practices in Michigan to cost— share changes indicates there is significant difference in practice response and certain practices appear to have a lag response. Further experimenting with different levels of cost-Share is needed to obtain better estimates of ”response elasticities” and to determine whether certain practices would be used in the same amount at lower cost-shares. But assuming all practices are of about equal value,the response data indicate more acres could be reached with ACP practices if the cost-share was reduced on practices with low re— Sponse elasticities and increased on those where they are high. The reSponse elasticities provide a guide ACP administrators could use in allocating their funds to obtain maximum practice use for a given eXpenditure. They would at least be able to estimate the reSponse of practices to vari- ous cost-share rates. But in counties where funds are not limited, the stimulous for eXperimenting with cost-Share rates is not present under the existing rules. In attempting to fulfill alternative objectives,ACP has increased costs without adding to practice use. This is particularly true of the attempts to help the small farm- ers and provide an income support for farmers. AS Shown in Chapter VII, the small cost-share increase raised ACP costs by about 10 million dollars while payments or portions of payments above that necessary to induce a farmer to use an ACP practice may amount to a much greater increase in costs. 218 In summary, ACP funds are not being Spent so as to minimize the cost of achieving a given practice adoption. At present,it is a combination conservation, production in— creasing and income support program which falls short of all objectives. Improved Performance A number of alternatives exist for changing ACP and improving its performance. Two that have helped move ACP closer to fulfilling its objectives are reduced appropria- tions and the use of a package practice approach. The change to a package practice policy in 1954 helped increase the use of permanent or enduring practices while reducing the funds used for temporary practices. It also assisted in reducing the Share of ACP funds going for fertilizer and lime. On the negative side, the policy change helped in- crease the use of irrigation and drainage practices. The two major cuts in appropriations in 1947-48 and 1953-54 had Somewhat different impacts on ACP‘S performance. In 1947—48 the major impact of the cut seemed to be a reduc— tion in the cost-shares and a decline in the total quantity of practices applied under ACP assistance. On the other hand, the 1953-54 cut only helped reduce the cost-shares and the total quantity of certain practices. The differen- tial impact appeared to be due to the policy change which 219 gave some direction to the cut in appropriations. Since the cut in appropriations of 1953-54 seemed to have more benefi— cial effects than the 1947-48 cut, it is reasonable to con- clude that a cut in appropriations will move ACP closer to fulfilling its objectives if a Specific policy or guidelines are set forth. The analysis of local program administration in Chapter V indicates that a cut in appropriations could pro- vide a necessary stimulous for change at the state and county levels. Such a suggestion always brings forth a cry that it will curtail the good county and state programs that already have limited funds. This argument could be quieted by alter- ing the formula for allocating ACP funds. The present for- mula helps promote the objective of just using up all the allocated funds without regard for program objectives. If the formula were altered to put major emphasis on how funds were used, then the counties and states using their funds on practices best fulfilling program objectives would not have their apprOpriations reduced. The states and counties using their ACP funds mainly for drainage, irrigation, or mineral practices would bear the brunt of the cut in apprOpriations. And in the present situation, ACP appropriations could be substantially cut without reducing the funds used for prac- tices best fulfilling objectives, which presently use less than 40 percent of the total ACP funds (see Table 6). 220 Other modifications should include greater use of the package practice approach. This would involve drOpping practices that by themselves contribute very little to con- servation or land—use adjustment and only using them as part of another practice with high land-use adjustment or conser— vation benefits. To illustrate, payments for practices such as installing drainage and irrigation systems could be authorized only when the practice was Shown to be a neces— sary part of another conservation practice or plan to pre- vent excessive soil erosion or water loss. This could be similar to the provision in the Wisconsin ACP Handbook that restricts tile drainage to ”only those farmers which have applied all needed erosion control practices in accordance with the soil district program.”l Such a provision uses the high return drainage practices as an incentive to get farm- ers to use erosion control practices. Certain practices should be restricted by only allowing them to be used once per farmer. These would be practices where benefits to the farmer exceed the cost and ACP Should at most be helping to acquaint the farmer with the value of the practice. They could be identified by determining practice returns and testing the frequency of ACP payments as done in Chapter VII. Practices for which 1U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Agricultural Conservation Program Handbook, Wis— consin (Madison, Wisconsin: Agricultural-Craftsman Press Corp., Nov., 1964), p. 27. 221 farmers receive continuous ACP payments Should be restricted in use, unless it could be Shown their benefits to the nation exceed government costs and the returns to the farmer are not enough to cover his costs. Restricting payments is something that could be done at any level of administration and would help prevent unneeded ACP eXpenditures. Varying the cost-share rates is another possible technique for reducing the ACP cost of obtaining a given practice adOption. The results are not conclusive,but the response of Six ACP practices in Michigan to changes in cost— shares indicate this may be a powerful device for reducing ACP expenditures required to obtain a given practice adOp- tion. Other changes in ACP‘S rules could help eliminate part of the payments which are over and above that necessary to induce farmers to use a practice. An example is the very recent rules change that allows the ASC committees to make higher payments to low income farmers. Here,higher payments can be made to ”low income” farmers who are unable to pay 50 percent of the practice‘s cost without having to offer the same increased rate to all farmers. Similar rules changes,making it easier for ASC county committees to offer higher rates to farmers in problem areas without giving them to all farmers in the county,wou1d reduce the cost of obtain— ing a given increase in practice use. 222 But what are the possibilities for making changes and at what administrative level might they be implemented? First, any major alterations in ACP policy at the national level is very doubtful,unless a substantial change occurs in congressional representation. As shown in Chapter IV, the agricultural apprOpriation subcommittees prevent changes in ACP and it is doubtful ASCS would make any alterations, even if it could. AS Chapter IV suggested, changes would have to come at the state and local level. But, as was pointed out in Chapter V,the stimulous necessary for changes at the local level is not present in many cases. A change in the formula for allocating apprOpriations might have a slight chance of approval. Since the suggested formula would probably not reduce the appropriations going to southern states,due to their relative better use of ACP, the southern congressmen might not block the change. If ASCS could be convinced Such a change in the formula for allocating apprOpriationS is needed and the southern con- gressmen could see their possible benefits, the change might be made. Still, under the present administration one of two things might force change at the national level: (1) presidential pressure or (2) reduced southern influence on the agricultural apprOpriations subcommittees. The former is the most likely, judging from President Johnson's ability to obtain what he wants from Congress. But the probability 223 of either is not very high in the near future,as Shown by the many attempts to change ACP that have been blocked in the past decade. The possibilities for change and better fulfillment of program objectives are not much better at the state or county level without a change in the formula for allocating funds or other rule changes initiated at the National level. If the formula were changed such that it put major emphasis on how funds were used, then the method of allocating funds would actually promote fulfillment of program objectives, rather than Simply promoting use of appropriations. Even though the possibilities for major program modifications in the near future do not look very bright, the relative importance of ACP continues to decrease. Since 1955, ACP apprOpriations have fluctuated between 207.6 to 257.5 million dollars,while total funds going to programs primarily for conservation of resources have steadily in- creased from only 319.0 million dollars in 1955 to 887.6 million by 1964.2 Hence,appr0priations for other conserva— tion programs have been increased,while ACP‘s have remained about the same. 2This includes ACP, SCS, Soil bank and conservation reserve programs as well as the Forest Service programs, watershed protection and flood prevention and the crOpland conversion program. Joint Economic Committee, Subsidy and Subsidy-Effect, Programs of the United States Government (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1965), Ch. IV, pp. 34-35. 224 Research on Conservation Programs The increase in appropriations going to programs primarily for the conservation of resources points to a need for further research. This study Shows ACP falling Short of fulfilling program objectives, but what about other programs for conserving resources? Research is needed on each of the programs to determine comparative costs and returns,so the federal administration can determine how best to distribute funds to obtain the objectives set forth for these programs. Better ways may be found to conserve resources; for example, education and extension service projects may do more to fulfill ACP'S objectives than ACP. Cheap fertil- izers, insecticides, herbicides, and other new inputs may be good substitutes for soil productivity and thus maintain soil productivity without conservation practices. Conse- quently, policies of obtaining cheaper fertilizer and insecticides and develOping new technologies, such as hybrid corn, may be a better use of public conservation dollars than ACP. What are the costs and returns for various re— search and extension efforts of the federal government? The answer to this question would help indicate if the govern- ment's increased eXpenditure on extension and research of from 113.4 million dollars in 1955 to 259.5 million in 1964 is in the right direction and of the right magnitude. 225 Furthermore,what are the various ways of providing future productivity? AS already suggested, perhaps conser— vation practices as promoted by SCS and ACP are not the cheapest way to provide for the future. Maybe it would be cheaper to let some lands erode away and when additional production is needed,bring new lands into production, in— crease the inputs used on non-eroded soils and/or reclaim the eroded lands. These are just some of the alternatives to consider before making any decision as to whether or not conservation of soil by ACP is the best way to provide for the future. Conservation tends to be considered the best way without investigating the consequence; what is needed is an analysis of the various alternatives. Specific ACP practices need further study to help the state and county development groups in Setting up their programs. If the develOpment groups knew the various costs and returns of practices,they could better select practices and set cost-Share rates. Specific conservation practice needs Should be Spelled out in greater detail. This would make it easier for the develOpment groups to promote the practices with the highest conservation and land-use adjust- ment benefits. ~Studies could be made in other states indicating the distribution of ACP payments much as was done in Chapter VI. This would help indicate obvious needs for changes in the 226 state programs. As suggested in Chapter,VII estimates of of practice "response elasticities” are needed for other states and practices. Accurate estimates of reSponse elas— ticities would provide additional information for adminis- trators deciding how to Spend ACP funds. Also, how quickly is land returned to crop production after being planted to permanent vegetative cover with ACP assistance? Research may Show this practice is not very permanent. Finally, irrigation and drainage practices definitely increase pro- duction,but what is the actual increase in surplus produc- tion from various ACP practices? This thesis does not purport to answer all the ques- tions concerning government resource conservation programs, but it does present a rather comprehensive look at the one program that has used a large Share of the federal resource conservation dollars Since 1936. The disturbing conclusion that ACP is not meeting its objectives and is difficult to change,brings out the importance of the political Side of government programs. And this importance seems to indicate that any comprehensive analysis of alternative government programs will have to consider not only the past performance but the political and administrative constraints contribut— ing to this performance. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Baker, G. L., W. D. Rasmussen, Vivian Wiser and J. M. Porter. Century of Service: The First 100 Years of the United States Department of Agriculture. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963. Benedict, Murray R. Can We Solve the Farm Problem. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund, 1955. Friedman, Milton. Price Theory. (A Provisional Text.) Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1962, 172-225. Hardin, Charles M. The Politics of Agriculture. Illinois: The Free Press, 1952. Hathaway, Dale. Government and Agriculture: Public Policy in a Democratic Society. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1963, 183-236. Held, R. Burnell and Marion Clawson. Soil Conservation in Perspective. Washington: The Johns HOpkins Press, 1965. Leftwich, Richard H. The Price System and Resource Alloca- tion. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960, 279-297. Liebhafsky, H. H. The Nature of Price Theory. Homewood: The Dorsey Press, Inc., 1963, 303-352. Parks, W. R. Soil Conservation Districts in Action. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State College Press, 1952. Schickele, Rainer. Agricultural Poligy. New York: McGraw— Hill, 1954, Chap. 7. Wildavsky, Aaron. The Politics of the Budgetary Process. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1964. 227 228 Articles and Periodicals ”A Confidential Memo,” Farm Journal, Vol. 81 (August 1957), 10. Hardin, Charles M. ”Land or People?” Land Economics, Vol. 27 (May 1951), 133-142. "Reflections on Agricultural Policy Formation in the United States,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 42, No. 5 (October 1948), 881—905. ”The Politics of Agriculture in the United States,” Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 32, No. 4 (November 1950), 571-583. "The Politics of Conservation: An Illustration,” Journal of Politics, November 1951, 461-481. James, Lee M. and C. H. Schallau. "Forestry Practices Under the Agricultural Conservation Program,” Land Economics, Vol. 37, No. 2 (May 1961), 142-149. Knapp, David. ”Congressional Control of Agriculture Conservation Policy,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 71 (1956), 257-281. Marglin, S. A. ”The Social Rate of Discount and the Optimal Rate of Investment,” Quarterlngournal of Economics, May 1963, 274-289. ”The Social Rate of Discount and the Optimal Rate of Investment,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 1963, 95-111. Pickrel, Luther and Dale E. Hathaway. ”Agricultural Conservation Payments and Farm Practices,” Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 36, No. 3 (February 1954), 318-330. Schmid, A. Allen. ”Public Assistance to Land Resources in Michigan Under the Agricultural Conservation Program,” Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 44, No. 1 (May 1961), 2-14. Schultz, T. W. ”Changing Relevance of Agricultural Economics,” Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 46 (December 1964), 1006. 229 Talbot, Ross R. ”Farm Legislation in the 86th Congress," Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 43 (August 1961), 582-606. Yoho, James G. and A. Allan Schmid. ”Area Development: Observations on a Failure,” Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. 47, No. 2 (May 1965), 468-470. Bulletins and Unpublished Material Anderson, H. O., P. E. McNall, and B. T. Inman. Progress in Application of Soil Conservation Practices, ARS 43-44 (Wisconsin: Agricultural Experiment Station, 1957). Anderson, J. C., E. O. Heady, and W. D. Shrader. Profit- Maximizing Plan for Soil—Conserving Farming in' The Spring Valley Creek Watershed in Southwest Iowa, Research Bulletin 519 (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University), 143-164. Atkins, S. W. Economic Appraisal of Conservation Farming in the Grenada-Loring-Memphis Soil Area 6f West Tennessee, Bulletin 364 (Knoxville, Tennessee: University of Tennessee, 1963). Ball, Gordon A., E. O. Heady, and R. V. Boumann. Economic Evaluation of Use of Soil Conservation and Improve- ment Practices in Western Iowa, Technical Bulletin No. 1162 (Ames, Iowa; 1957). Blosser, R. H. Economics of Soil Conserving Practices on Muskingum and Associated Soils in Ohio, Research Bulletin 746 (Wooster, Ohio: Agricultural Experi— ment Station, 1954). Brooke, M. David. ”Marginal Productivities of Inputs on Cash Farms in the Thumb and Saginaw Valley Areas of Michigan, 1957.” Unpublished Master's dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1958. Bunce, A. C. and G. W. Collier. A Method of Estimating the Economic Effects of Planned Conservation on an Individual Farm, U.S.D.A. Misc. Pub. 463 (Washington: Government Pfinting Office, 1942). 230 Cotner, Melvin L. The Impact of the Agricultural Conserva— tion Program in Selected Farm Policy Problem Areas, Agricultural Economics Mimeo 943 (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1964). Coutu, A. J., W. W. McPherson, and L. R. Martin. Methods for Economic Evaluation of Soil Conservation Prac— tices, Technical Bulletin 137 (Raleigh, North Carolina: Agricultural EXperiment Station, 1959). Doll, E. C. Lime for Michigan Soils, Extension Bulletin 471 (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1964). Foote, Richard J. Analytical Tools for Studying Demand and Price Structures, Agricultural Handbook No. 146 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1958), 53-56. Grubb, Herbert Warren. ”Individual and Aggregate Benefits and Cost of Soil Conservation in the South.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics, North Carolina State University, 1964. Harris, R. N. S., G. S. Tolley, and A. J. Coutu. CrOpland Reversion in the South, A. E. Information Series, No. 100 (Raleigh: North Carolina State College, Department of Agricultural Economics, 1963). Heady, E. O. and C. W. Allen. Returns From and Capital Requirements For Soil Conservation Farming Systems, (A study of a Specific population of farms and soils), Research Bulletin 381 (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College, 1951), 316—360. Heady, E. O. and O. J. Scoville. Principles of Conservation Economics and Policy, Research Bulletin 382 (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College, 1951), 365—414. Held, R. B., M. G. Blase, and J. F. Timmons. Soil Erosion and Some Means for its Control, Special Report No. 29 (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, 1962). Henderson, H. A., F. F. Bell, and M. D. Cunningham. Economics of Farming Sy§tems for Conservation on a Low-Production Farm in the Upper East Tennessee Valley, Bulletin 362 (Knoxville, Tennessee: Univer- sity of Tennessee, 1963). 231 Herfindahl, O. C. What IS Conservation? Publication No. 30 (Washington: Resources for the Future, Inc., 1961). Jensen, H. R., E. O. Heady, and R. V. Baumann. Costs, Returns and Capital Requirements for Soil-Conserva- tion Farming on Rented Farms in Western Iowa, Research Bulletin 423 (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College, 1955), 268-287. Landgren, N. E. and J. C. Anderson. A Method for Evaluating Erosion Control in Farm Planning, Ames, Iowa, 1962. (Mimeographed.) McConnell, Douglas et al. Relative Profitability and Order of Adoption of Soil Conservation Practices, Research Bulletin 237 (Madison: University ofIWisconsin, 1962). Mehring, A. L., J. Richard Adams, and K. 0. Jacob. Statistics on Fertilizers and Liming in the United States, Statistical Bulletin No. 191 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1957). Micheel, C. C. and Charles W. Nauheim. Economics of Soil Conservation, Northeastern Kansas, Agricultural Report No. 101 (Manhattan, Kansas: Kansas State University, 1961). Pawson, W. W., et a1. Economics of CrOpping Systems and Soil Conservation in the Palouse, Bulletin 2 (Agricultural EXperiment Stations of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington and the A.R.S., U.S.D.A., August 1961). Sauer, E. L. and H. C. M. Case. Soil Conservation Pays Off, (Results of ten years of conservation farming in Illinois), Bulletin 575 (Urbana, Illinois: Univer- sity of Illinois, 1954). 232 Reports and G0vernment Documents Congressional Index (Washington: Commerce Clearing House, Inc., 1949-1964). Report of the Study Committee, Review of the Farmer Committee System (Washington: Government Printing Offi ce , 1962). Subsidy and Subsidy-Effect Programs of the United States Government, (Printed for the use of the Joint Economic Committee; Washington: Government Printing Office, 1965). U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Conservation Program Service, Agricultural Conservation Program , Statistical Summary, 1952-1959 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1953-61). . Agricultural Conservation Program, Summary by States 1958 and 1959 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1959 and 1960). Agricultural Conservation Program, Summary 1952- 1957 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1953— 1958). Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, ACP, 25 Year Summary 1936-1960 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1963). Agricultural Conservation Program Handbook for 1962, Kansas (Washington: Government Printing Office 1961). . Agricultural Conservation Program Handbook for 1946-1965, Michigan (Washington: Government Print- ing Office, 1946-1965). . Agricultural Conservation Program Handbook for 1962, Wisconsin (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961). Agricultural Conservation Program, Statistical Summary 1960-1963 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1962—1964). 233 U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Agricultural Conservation Program Summary by States, l960-l963fWashington: Government Printing Office, 1961-1964). . National Agricultural Conservation Program Bulletin—for 1966 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1965). Complication of Statutes Relating to Soil Conser- vationj Marketing Quotas and Allotments, Soil Bank, Crop Insurancej Sugar Payments and Quotas, Price Support, Commodity Credit Corporation and Related Statutes as Of January 1, 1957 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1957). Conservation Needs Inventory Committee. Basic Statistics of the National Inventory of Soil and Water Conservation Needs, Statistical Bulletin 317 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1962). Economic Research Service. The Farm Cost Situa- tion (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1963). Policy and Procedure for Develppment of National Inventory of—Soil and Water Conservation Needs fWashington: Government Printing Office, 1957). Production and Marketing Administration. Agricultural Conservation Program, Statistical Summary 1946-1951 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1947—1952). . Agricultural Conservation Program, Summaries by States 1949—1951 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1950-1952). Report of the Chief of the Agricultural Adjustment Agency 1944 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1944). U.S. Agricultural Policy in the Postwar Years, 1945—1963 (Development of United States farm problems; an 18— year legislative review; Washington: Congressional Quarterly Service). U.S. Department of Commerce. Climatic Summary of the United States Supplement for 1951 Through 1960, Michigan (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1964). 234 U.S. House of Representatives. Subcommittee on ApprOpria— tions, Hearings, Department of Agriculture ApprOpri- ations fOr 1954. 83rd Cong., lst Sess., 1953. . HearingsL Department of Agriculture Appropriations for 1965. 88th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1964. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Anderson, C. P.). Report of the Secretary Of Agriculture 1947 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1947). (Benson, E. T.). Report Of the Secretary_of Agri- culture 1953 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1953). (Benson, E. T.). Report of the Secretaryof Agri- culture 1958 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1958). (Brannan, C. F.). Report of the Secretary of Agriculture 1949 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1949). (Brannan, C. F.). Report of the Secretary Of Agriculture 1951 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1951). (Brannan, C. F.). Report Of the Secretary of Agriculture 1952 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1952). (Freeman, Orville L.) Report of the Secretary of Agriculture 1962 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1962). (Wallace, H. C.). Report of the Secretary of Agri- culture 1939 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1939). (Wallace, H. C.). Report Of the Secretary Of Agri— culture 1940 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1940) . (Wickard, C. R.). Report Of the Secretary of Agri- culture 1941 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1941). 235 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Appropriations. Hearings, Department of Agriculture Appropriations for 1954. 83rd Cong., lst Sess., Hearings, Department of 1953. Agriculture ApprOpriations for 1955. 83rd Cong., 2nd Hearings, Department of for 1957. 84th Cong., 2nd . Hearings, Department Of for 1959. 85th Cong., 2nd . Hearings, Department of for 1960. 86th Cong., lst . Hearings, Department of for 1961. 86th Cong., 2nd . HearingSJ Department of for 1963. 87th Cong., 2nd . Hearings, Department of for 1964. 88th Cong., lst . Hearings, Department of Sess., 1954. Agriculture Sess., 1956. Appropriations Agriculture Sess., 1958. ApprOpriationS Agriculture Sess., 1959. Appropriations Agriculture Sess., 1960. Appropriations Agriculture Sess., 1962. Appropriations Agriculture Sess., 1963. ApprOpriations Agriculture Appropriations for 1965. 88th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1964.