Soil Conservation in the Pacific: A Symposium and a Panel Discussion 9780824891237

Table of contents :
PUBLISHER'S PREFACE
PANEL AND SYMPOSIUM MEMBERS
CONTENTS
SYMPOSIUM
The Use of Soil Surveys in Conservation Planning
Watershed Management
Economics of Conservation Programs
Soil and Water Conservation Improves Wildlife Habitat
Forestry Potentials in Hawaii
Plant Selection for Conservation Purposes
PANEL: Who Is Responsible?
United States
Central America and Mexico
Australia
Philippines
Republic of China, Taiwan

Citation preview

T E N T H PACIFIC SCIENCE CONGRESS SERIES

T E N T H PACIFIC SCIENCE CONGRESS

SERIES

Tenth Pacific Science Congress, Honolulu, 1961

AGRICULTURE Soil C o n s e r v a t i o n in the P a c i f i c — A Symposium and Panel Discussion J . H. Christ, chairman ANTHROPOLOGY R y u k y u a n C u l t u r e a n d S o c i e t y — A Survey Allan H. Smith, editor BOTANY Ancient Pacific F l o r a s — T h e Pollen Story Lucy M. Cranwell, editor ENTOMOLOGY Pacific E n t o m o l o g y — R e p o r t of the Chairman, Standing Committee J. J . H. Szent-Ivany GEOLOGY G e o l o g y a n d Solid Earth G e o p h y s i c s of the Pacific B a s i n — Report of the Standing Committee Gordon A. Macdonald, chairman MARINE BIOLOGY Physical A s p e c t s of L i g h t in the S e a — A Symposium John E. Tyler, editor MEDICINE Public H e a l t h and M e d i c a l Sciences in the P a c i f i c — A Forty-year Review J . Ralph Audy, editor

SOIL CONSERVATION

T E N T H PACIFIC SCIENCE CONGRESS of the Pacific Science Association

HOST

INSTITUTIONS

National Academy of Sciences Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum The University of Hawaii

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A. August 21 to September 6, 1961

SOIL CONSERVATION IN THE PACIFIC A Symposium and a Panel Discussion

J. H .

CHRIST

C o n v e n e r and C h a i r m a n

U N I V E R S I T Y OF H A W A I I Honolulu, Hawaii,

PRESS

1963

C o p y r i g h t 1963 University of Hawaii Press Library of Congress Catalog Card N u m b e r : 63-9SS5

PUBLISHER'S

PREFACE

T h e papers published in this volume were presented at the T e n t h Pacific Science Congress of the Pacific Science Association held August 21 to S e p t e m b e r 6, 1 9 6 1 , on the campus of the University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A., scene of the first meeting. T h e Congress was sponsored jointly by the N a t i o n a l Academy of Sciences, B e r n i c e Pauahi Bishop Museum, and the University of H a w a i i . T h e publisher is indebted to the editor for having assembled these papers from the far corners of the Pacific. Unfortunately, pressure to send this series to press was a factor in the inability of two participants to expand the outline of their remarks. In editing the material, American usage has been followed in the main, though the desire to put this material in print as soon as possible after it was assembled has been responsible for some degree of stylistic inconsistency. Funds toward the issuance of Pacific S c i e n c e Congress papers published by the University of Hawaii Press have been furnished by the Legislature of the State of Hawaii and the N a tional Institutes of Health. It is believed that a useful purpose is served by b r i n g i n g together in one volume distinguished papers on a c o m m o n subject as it applies to conditions that prevail in the various countries of this increasingly important segment of the world scene.

P A N E L AND SYMPOSIUM

Panel:

MEMBERS

Soil C o n s e r v a t i o n — W h o Is Responsible? J . H . CHRIST, U.S.A., convener and c h a i r m a n

Australia:

R . G . DOWNES

Central America :

ARTHUR T . SEMPLE

Japan :

K A Z U S H I OSHIMA

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

N e w Zealand :

L. W . M C C A S K I L L

Tussock Grasslands and M o u n t a i n Lands Institute

Philippines:

MARCOS M . A L I C A N T E

R e p u b l i c of C h i n a :

CHING P O LIU

(Taiwan) United States:

Soil Conservation

Authority

I n s t i t u t o I n t e r a m e r i c a n o de C i e n c i a s A g r i c o l a s

S p e c i a l A d v i s o r to t h e P r e s i d e n t o n S o i l

S p e c i a l i s t in S o i l C o n s e r v a t i o n

EDWARD H . G R A H A M

Symposium:

Soil Conservation Service

Soil Conservation

J . H . CHRIST, U . S . A . , c o n v e n e r a n d c h a i r m a n Japan:

K A Z U S H I OSHIMA

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

New Zealand:

L. W . M c C A S K I L L

Tussock Grasslands and M o u n t a i n Lands Institute

Republic of C h i n a :

CHING PO LIU

(Taiwan) United States:

CARL B. BROWN

Specialist in Soil Conservation Soil Conservation Service

CARROLL H . D W Y E R EDWARD H . G R A H A M ROBERT E. NELSON

Soil Conservation Service Soil Conservation Service Forest Service

J. MELVIN WILLIAMS ( H a w a i i )

Soil Conservation Service

CONTENTS PAGE

SYMPOSIUM

The Use of Soil Surveys in Conservation Planning J. MELVIN WILLIAMS, Soil Conservation Service, U.S.A

1

Watershed Management CARL B. BROWN, Soil Conservation Service, U.S.A

5

Economics of Conservation Programs CARROLL H. DWYER, Soil Conservation Service, U.S.A

9

Soil and Water Conservation Improves Wildlife Habitat EDWARD H. GRAHAM, Soil Conservation Service, U.S.A. .

15

Forestry Potentials in Hawaii R O B E R T E. N E L S O N , F o r e s t S e r v i c e , U . S . A

19

Plant Selection for Conservation Purposes CHING P o LIU, Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, Republic of China, Taiwan

23

P A N E L : W h o Is Responsible?

United States EDWARD H. GRAHAM, Soil Conservation Service

29

Central America and Mexico ARTHUR T. SEMPLE, Instituto Interamericano de Ciencias Agricolas

.

.

.

35

Australia R. G. DOWNES, Soil Conservation Authority

43

Philippines MARCOS M. ALICANTE, Special Advisor to the President on Soil

49

Republic of China, Taiwan CHING PO LIU, Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction

53

The Use of Soil Surveys in Conservation Planning J.

MELVIN

WILLIAMS

U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 2 0 2 Federal Bldj;., Honolulu

THE

SOIL

CONSERVATION

SERVICE

of

13, H a w a i i .

farms or ranches and how these soils respond to alternative types of use and treatment. W e must explain systems of management that will provide for both safe use of land and maximum productivity. For this soil surveys are essential. A good farm or ranch plan begins with a soil map and knowledge of how the soils shown on the map behave.

the

United States Department of Agriculture has long recognized that soils make up the foundation for a sound soil and water conservation program. T h e soils determine to a large extent the adaptability to the growing of different crops and the potential productivity of all tracts of land. Some soils are suited to a single use, but most soils used by cultivators can be managed successfully in several ways.

T h e function of a soil survey is to classify, locate on a base map and describe the nature of soils as they occur in the field. T h e soil map shows the boundaries of specific kinds of soil and identifies them through a map legend. Soil maps have many uses, but generally they are made for the purpose of identifying soils as a basis for projecting the results of research and experience to individual tracts of land. Results from an experiment on a given soil can be applied directly to other areas of the same kind of soil with confidence.

Modern soil conservation includes proper land use, protecting the land against all forms of land damage, correcting deficiencies of lime and plant nutrients, rebuilding eroded and depleted land, protecting forest and farm woodland, improving grassland, conserving moisture for crop use, reducing flood and sediment damage, installing proper drainage and irrigation, and increasing crop yields. T h i s brings into sharp focus the need for accurate soil information as a basis for planning the use of each tract of land according to its capability.

T h e r e are many thousands of kinds of soils in the United States; consequently, research can be conducted on only a few of them. T o extend information obtained on one soil to similar soils in other areas requires soil correlation. O n e of the important purposes of soil correlation is to have the many different kinds of soils uniformly named in a national system, so that the same kinds of soils are given the same names regardless of location.

T h e r e are many thousands of kinds of soils in the world. W e have approximately 7 5 , 0 0 0 kinds of soils in the United States alone. Each of these has a unique set of characteristics, history of formation, and varying patterns of potential behavior under management. Soils differ from one another just as people differ. Some have a high potential for production while others have varying degrees of limitation. Some of these limitations can be corrected; we simply have to recognize and live with others.

In making soil surveys, soil scientists determine the characteristics of the soil by both field and laboratory studies. They determine the usable depth of soil, its texture, structure, color, acidity or alkalinity, type of clay and to a limited extent mineralogical properties. They also study other characteristics and qualities of

One of our principal jobs in conservation planning is to explain soil differences to land users. In helping land users, we must show them what kinds of soil they have on their

1

2 soils that influence the potential productivity, such as slope of the soil surface, stoniness, salt accumulation and evidences of imperfect drainage or aeration. From a study of these many properties the different kinds of soils are identified. Each kind is indicated by an appropriate symbol on the map and in the legend. Information as to how soils respond to different management systems is collected from many sources. Farmer experience and field trials provide much data. M o r e precise information is gained by laboratory and field experiments where tests are made under controlled conditions. This information when correlated to soils named in the nation-wide system of classification can be projected to individual fields or parts of fields by use of soil survey maps. Soil maps are made to meet the needs of many different users and therefore must show all important basic soil differences and related land features. N o t all users of soil information need the same specific type or level of information. T o facilitate the use and understanding of soil maps for different purposes, soil mapping units are grouped into interpretive groupings on the basis of similarity. Soil interpretation groups together soils that behave alike in response and treatment for specific uses. T h e capability classification is one of a number of interpretive groupings made primarily for agricultural purposes. In this system soils are grouped according to their adaptability for common field crops, to their potential response to management, to their limitations for sustained production, and to the risks of soil damage if they are mismanaged. T h e land capability unit is the most specific soil grouping of the capability classification. Individual mapping units are grouped into capability units. All soils in the same unit have similar risks and limitations for use, similar response to management, and may be used and treated in the same way. Thus, capability units are basic management units for c o m m o n field crops. W i t h this system of classification one can readily determine from a soil map precisely which management systems are adapted to any given field. For general planning, the capability units are

grouped into capability sub-classes. T h e capability sub-class suggests both the degree and the kind of problems that will be encountered in long-time use of the soil. Capability sub-classes in turn are grouped into eight capability classes, a grouping that expresses the degree of limitation and risk for agricultural use. Class number I has few hazards or limitations. T h e hazards or limitations in use increase as the class number increases. T h e capability class is used for broad planning especially in determining the suitability for cultivation. A system of land use that gives good results on one kind of soil may give very adverse results on another kind even in the same field. Through soil classification and its interpretation, we are able to predict the behavior of soil to management and suggest a correct fit of alternative uses for the various kinds of soil. T h e capability classification enables us to apply basic knowledge of soil behavior to specific situations with a reasonable degree of accuracy. T h e most detailed information for specific purposes is obtained from the individual mapping units. T h e Soil Conservation Service technician works directly with land managers to provide technical information about soils found on their farms or ranches. H e supplies soil and land capability maps to the land users and uses these maps to help them develop conservation plans. T h e technician reviews the soils in detail with the land manager and points out alternative uses and suggests combinations of treatments that are applicable to each kind of soil. Many land capability units are adapted to a number of alternative uses and treatments. A number of alternative systems of soil management are usually available on capability units composed of soils that are deep, nearly level, permeable, and well drained. T h e maintenance of adequate fertilizer and the control of weeds and insects are the major problems. T h e farmer would have a rather wide latitude of use for these soils and could choose among several alternative combinations of treatments. Other areas of his farm may consist of level soils that require drainage for the successful production of cultivated crops. T h e decision to drain the soil must take into consideration the cost of drainage and

5 potential crop production after drainage as compared to hay, pasture or wood on the undrained land. Some of the area may consist of steep land that has a high erosion potential. In developing a conservation plan on such land the farmer must choose between a complicated combination of practices to use the land safely for cultivated crops or a use that will afford a p e r m a n e n t cover, such as woodland or grassland. T h e soil survey information forms the foundation for the decisions the farmer will m a k e about uses and m a n a g e m e n t systems for his land. T h e farmer will make a choice based on safe alternative uses, on his preferences, and on his skills. Soil surveys are used not only as a basis for selecting productive conservation systems for farms but also for g i v i n g guidance to managem e n t on grazing lands and forest. Soil surveys also are useful in m a k i n g engineering interpretations dealing with irrigation, drainage, water development, and the suitability of the soils for use in and support of roads, buildings and structures. A procedure similar to that for farms is used for developing conservation plans on ranches. T h e first step is to collect information about the physical resources of the ranch. A soil

survey is m a d e to collect soil facts and an inventory is m a d e of water and vegetative resources. Soils are then g r o u p e d into range sites. Soils grouped into range sites produce the same kind and a m o u n t of vegetation and respond to similar systems of management. T h e range specialist uses this i n f o r m a t i o n to p o i n t out adapted grasses and m a n a g e m e n t practices fitted to each site. T h e rancher will use this information in arriving at his decisions as to the uses and treatments applied to the land he operates. Soil surveys are also used to show relationships between soils and forest production. Soils that produce similar kinds and amounts of wood crops are grouped together into woodland suitability groups. Each such g r o u p is rated as to adapted species, potential productivity and best combination of conservation practices. W o o d l a n d conservationists use this i n f o r m a t i o n to assist woodland managers develop conservation plans. T h u s our soil maps and interpretations serve as a bridge between our knowledge of soil science and technology on one side and the individual fields on the other. W e are able to apply m o d e r n soil science and technology to specific situations on our farms, ranches, or woodlands.

Watershed Management C A R L B . BROWN U.S. S o i l C o n s e r v a t i o n Service, D e p a r t m e n t of A g r i c u l t u r e , Washington 25, D.C.

p r o v i s i o n w h e r e n e e d e d for d r a i n a g e a n d

DEFINITION

gation, THE

TERM

watershed

q u i t e d i f f e r e n t sorts

management

of

activities

water

connotes

to

for

protection,

municipal

storage

and

and

industrial

irri-

use

of

purposes,

i m p r o v e m e n t s for fish a n d w i l d l i f e , a n d recre-

different

ation and pollution abatement.

a u d i e n c e s . T h e s e activities o f t e n h a v e m a t e r i a l l y different objectives.

flood

In the m o r e arid areas of

Watershed

management

may

be

only

one

W e s t e r n U n i t e d States, for e x a m p l e , w a t e r s h e d

c o m p o n e n t of river b a s i n d e v e l o p m e n t . In l a r g e

management may mean conservation work

river b a s i n s the other c o m p o n e n t

land a b o v e the i r r i g a t e d valleys.

on

T h i s m a y in-

is

develop-

m e n t of the river itself for p o w e r , flood c o n t r o l

c l u d e p r o t e c t i o n of t i m b e r stands f r o m c u t t i n g

in the m a i n river valley, and s t o r a g e of

or f r o m

brush

for such beneficial uses as n a v i g a t i o n , i r r i g a t i o n ,

water

municipal

It m a y b e erosion control to r e d u c e the

recreation.

fire.

It m a y b e the c l e a r i n g of

or selective c u t t i n g yield.

to p r o d u c e g r e a t e r

heavy s e d i m e n t load that threatens

destruction

and

industrial

water

water

supply,

and

In the U n i t e d S t a t e s a d i v i d i n g line b e t w e e n

of valley s t o r a g e reservoirs.

river

basin development

agement

In other s e c t i o n s of the U n i t e d S t a t e s water-

improvements

and w a t e r s h e d has g r a d u a l l y

man-

evolved

quite

s i n c e 1 9 5 4 as a result of a n e w w a t e r s h e d p r o -

different. In the S o u t h e a s t e r n C o a s t a l P l a i n , or

g r a m a u t h o r i z e d by a F e d e r a l law k n o w n as the

the

W a t e r s h e d P r o t e c t i o n and F l o o d P r e v e n t i o n A c t

shed m a n a g e m e n t may m e a n s o m e t h i n g Minnesota

developing

a

lake system

country, of

it

drainage

may

mean

canals

(Public Law 5 6 6 ) .

and

I m p r o v e m e n t s on or a l o n g

ditches o n l a n d s s o flat that only a transit c a n

rivers which have drainage

find w a t e r s h e d d i v i d e s . In the r o l l i n g p l a i n s of

2 5 0 , 0 0 0 acres ( a p p r o x i m a t e l y 4 0 0 s q u a r e m i l e s

T e x a s it m a y m e a n a s y s t e m of c r o p a n d r a n g e

or

land

river b a s i n d e v e l o p m e n t s w h e r e a s w a t e r

treatment

retarding

dams

supplemented to

prevent

by

floodwater-

excessive

than

are g e n e r a l l y c l a s s e d

as

man-

i m p r o v e m e n t s of l a n d are g e n e r a l l y r e f e r r e d to as

In essence, the m o d e r n c o n c e p t of w a t e r s h e d management

includes d e v e l o p m e n t

a s well

c o n s e r v a t i o n , u s e as w e l l as p r o t e c t i o n resources.

These

resources

land, water, forests, a n d grass. flood-plains

larger

a g e m e n t i m p r o v e m e n t s on smaller areas a n d all

flood

damages.

watershed

100,000 hectares)

areas

watershed

management,

watershed

protec-

tion, or w a t e r s h e d d e v e l o p m e n t .

as all

If w a t e r s h e d m a n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m s h a v e a

include

d i s t i n g u i s h i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c — a n d I b e l i e v e that

of

they d o — i t is that they are b a s e d on a water-

T h e y occur on

s h e d p l a n a n d a s c h e d u l e for its

and in valleys, as well as in r o l l i n g

Watershed

accomplish-

u p l a n d s a n d the m o u n t a i n s . M o d e r n w a t e r s h e d

ment.

p r o j e c t s are the m e a n s

m a n a g e m e n t includes the m o s t efficient u s e of

a c c o m p l i s h m e n t of the plan. T h e y nearly a l w a y s

for

all w a t e r s h e d l a n d s w i t h i n their c a p a b i l i t y for

i n c l u d e o b j e c t i v e s that are i m p o s s i b l e t o a c c o m -

s u s t a i n e d p r o d u c t i o n of crops, g r a s s a n d trees as

p l i s h on the o n e h a n d by s e p a r a t e a c t i o n

well as for n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l p u r p o s e s . It i n c l u d e s

i n d i v i d u a l l a n d o w n e r s , or on the other h a n d by

5

of

6 governmental action alone. Most watershed projects are planned, authorized and scheduled as cooperative undertakings of landowners and private groups with various units of government. Some watershed projects, however, may include only publicly owned lands and hence are solely government undertakings. W i t h i n our broad definition of watershed management, let us take a look first at the nature of a watershed plan, and secondly, at the organizational requirements for developing, carrying out and maintaining such a plan. Our discussion here is not a summary of existing imperfect mechanisms for watershed management programs in the United States or any other country of the Pacific community of nations. Rather, our attempt is to postulate the mechanisms that experience in these countries has shown to be essential to the most efficient development of programs of watershed management. Such programs must necessarily be varied in keeping with the social and political organization of the country and the management skills of landowners and operators. BASIC E L E M E N T S O F A WATERSHED

PLAN

The watershed plan involves consideration of eight important elements, namely: 1. Inventory of Physical Resources. Any sound plan must be predicated on adequate knowledge of the scope and limitations of the physical resources of the watershed. T h e first step in watershed planning, therefore, is to analyze existing resource information and to supplement it as necessary by field surveys and investigations. T h e inventory should include a soil survey f r o m which land can be classified with respect to its capability for use; a survey of timber and grass with regard to potentials for their improvement and proper management; a hydrologie survey or analysis of water yields, flood frequencies, and water quality and such other surveys as may be relevant as, for example, sources of damaging sediment and other pollutants. 2.

Formulation of a Project Plan. T h e next step following the resource inventory is the formulation of a project plan. All

reasonable alternatives for the development, protection, conservation, use and m a n a g e m e n t of the watershed resources should be evaluated. This could include, for example, appraisal of the increase in crop yields that could be achieved by application of modern agricultural technology to lands classified in the soil survey as capable of sustained agricultural production. It could include estimation of increased timber yields through selective cutting; increased grass production through management practices; increased safe water yield for irrigation or municipal supply through storage at available reservoir sites; or decreased flood losses made possible by land treatment, levees, channel improvement, or floodwater-retarding dams. 3.

Evaluation of Economic and Social Benefits.

Once the scope of potential physical improvements is known, it is essential to judge soundly the economic and social benefits that would stem from carrying out such improvements. Since national objectives vary greatly in different nations, and since all desirable watershed projects in any nation could not be carried out simultaneously, it is essential to have a framework of evaluation established as national policy. For example, the current framework of United States Government programs in the water resource field is monetary benefitcost analysis. Although in practice benefit-cost analysis may be very imperfectly applied, its theory rests on two basic premises, namely: ( 1 ) that there are unlimited alternative opportunities for the employment of financial inputs to resource development in the N a t i o n as a whole under a full employment economy, and ( 2 ) that the largest monetary return per dollar of cost establishes the highest priority for project development. In practice, project authorization at the Federal level has become largely a matter of finding at least a slight excess of monetary benefits over monetary costs with further priority, if required, determined through processes characteristic of our republican form of government. T h e benefit-cost analysis framework as currently applied does not encompass objectives that may be quite significant. For example, in

7 a highly industrialized country it may be socially desirable to stabilize the economy of a declining and depressed mining area by watershed development which will stimulate employment in new enterprises, agriculture, forestry or industry, and reduce outward migration of population to urban areas that already have sufficient labor forces. Such a country may also need to expand its rural recreational resources to provide an outlet for more leisure time of its industrial labor force as automation does more and more of the production job. A less industrialized country, on the other hand, may desperately need to make its agriculture more efficient in order to release manpower for needed industrial production. These concepts are not now generally included in the application of benefit-cost analysis. 4.

E s t i m a t i o n o f Costs.

Careful estimates must be made of costs for installing the watershed improvements found to be physically feasible and economically or socially desirable. In many countries these estimates will need to include not only the monetary cost in local currency, but also costs for equipment, materials and technical skills that may need to be imported. T h e impact on international exchange as well as the use of the nation's own manpower, materials and equipment will need to be evaluated. 5.

Harmonizing Watershed Management and R i v e r B a s i n D e v e l o p m e n t .

Watersheds selected for planning in the larger nations may be component parts of a large river basin. In such cases, the extent of potential effects of the proposed watershed improvements along the major river below the watershed needs to be evaluated. For example, the principal objective and benefits sought in a 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 acre watershed might be flood protection and irrigation of a flood plain area in the lower reaches of the valley of this watershed. This valley, however, may provide the only feasible site for a large multi-purpose reservoir for power, navigation and flood control for the main river valley a hundred miles down stream. T h i s gives rise to choice of objectives. T h e right choice can be made only within the framework of a larger river basin study which can

relate upstream watershed benefits to the needs of the basin as a whole. It should not be assumed, as has so often been the case in the larger nations, that first priority should be given to the large and spectacular development on the main river, or that a river basin should be planned from its lower end upstream. In some situations, there may be more national value in wide dispersion of smaller facilities and benefits over a large river basin than in the concentration of benefits in the lower river valleys. 6.

Provisions f o r C a r r y i n g O u t the P l a n .

Except on publicly owned lands, the installation of a watershed plan involves a high degree of cooperation between landowners, private citizens, and corporate entities with units of local, state and national government. The essential non-governmental participation will materialize only to the extent that understanding has been created by intensive informational and educational effort. Non-governmental interests must not only understand and desire the installation of the watershed improvements, but they must have the training and skills required to carry out their part in the undertaking. For example, farmers cultivating sloping lands may need to be convinced of the advantages in higher yields and lower costs from contour farming, terraces, grassed waterways and cover crops. But even when convinced they usually will require technical help in planning, laying out and installing these practices. They may need also training and detailed instructions in how to maintain the practices. Some new farm equipment may be required. Fertilizers may be needed. T h e practices must be planned as an integral part of the individual farm enterprise on the one hand, and of the watershed unit on the other hand. In order to provide help to landowners as well as to construct those facilities that require organized action, such as storage reservoirs, some form of governmental action will be generally required. T h i s might take the form of a nationally financed government corporation such as the Tennessee Valley Authority in the United States or the Aichi Corporation in Japan. On the other hand, it might be a local

8 district, formed by vote of local people under enabling legislation or created directly by a State or provincial legislature. Soil conservation districts and watershed districts are typical of such organizations in the United States. There are obviously many possible variations of organizational arrangements. However, our experience indicates that certain principles should be observed in deciding the best form of organization. These are: a. Basic control of installation and maintenance of a watershed project should be at the lowest organizational level consistent with the political awareness of landowners and beneficiaries. In some countries nearly full control can properly rest in the residents of the watershed itself. In less developed countries full control may need to be at the national government level. There are all types of variations in between. b. Technical assistance and planning skills should be concentrated or at least controlled at the national government level in order to assure the highest quality and greatest uniformity in program accomplishment. 7.

Scheduling the Plan.

A plan without provision for implementation is worth next to nothing. T h e world is full of plans that have cost a great deal to prepare. Before committing resources to planning it is important to establish national objectives and to determine realistically the amount of resources the nation can devote to watershed management over a period of at least ten years ahead. Geographic dispersion of such resources

is often a political necessity. W i t h realistic goals it is possible to gear planning effort to practical possibilities of plan accomplishment. Watershed plans should generally be confined to areas and conditions which will allow their completion within five years on the average, ten years at the most. Longer schedules lack stability in a rapidly changing world. Better to get one solid accomplishment of smaller scope than a dozen half-done projects. O n the wall of my office hangs a motto " D o n ' t plan vast projects with half-vast ideas." T h e plans of today can always be modified, extended, and enlarged if future circumstances permit. Vast and costly plans in one area may well be political targets next year from other areas not yet in line for benefits from watershed management. On the other hand, due caution must be observed in not underplanning the utilization of a given resource. For example, a dam site should not be underdeveloped just to make it less costly if future benefits are thus precluded. 8.

Operation and Maintenance.

N o project, after it has been completed, is any better than the operation and maintenance given to it. Maintenance must be an organized effort provided for by law and financed soundly by taxes or revenues from vendible products such as the sale of water or recreational privileges. Maintenance supervision by competent organizations, usually some unit of government, must be provided for. Adequate arrangements for operation and maintenance should be a prior condition to putting financial resources into the installation of a project.

Economics of Conservation Programs CARROLL H . DWYER U . S . Soil C o n s e r v a t i o n Service, P o r t l a n d , O r e g o n .

THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL is an exploration and discussion of the economics of soil conservation in relation to the individual farmer or rancher.

f o r m s and are capable of being used in a variety of ways. For a resource to have economic value it must be capable of supplying a need and be in a form to be used. Broadly speaking, the resources involved in f a r m i n g may be classified into three m a j o r groups.

T h e ultimate success of any conservation p r o g r a m in the U n i t e d States will, in the end, be dependent upon its acceptance by the individuals who apply and maintain the conservation practices. They are not generally concerned with the broad national or social reasons for a particular program. Their concern is how the p r o g r a m or practice affects their operation. They ask, " W i l l it p a y ? "

NONRENEWABLE

F u n d r e s o u r c e s . Resources of which our total supply is relatively fixed and nonrenewable, such as metals, mineral fuels, coal, stone, gravel, sand, and peat soils. Fund resources fall into two subclasses:

T o be in a position to answer this question, we must first agree on what w e mean by conservation. Secondly, we must b e aware of the factors which must be considered in the economics of a conservation program. And finally, we must have the ability to present the facts so the individual operator can understand and use them to m a k e a decision.

1. T h o s e which are exhausted or chemically changed through use, such as coal and mineral fuels. 2. T h o s e which wear out very slowly and are capable of being reused, such as metals and stone.

WHAT IS CONSERVATION?

RENEWABLE

Conservation is a word of many meanings. Since it relates here to soil and water, the definition used by the Soil Conservation Service, U.S. D e p a r t m e n t of Agriculture, is cited. T h e Service defines soil and water conservation as: " T h e coordination of the physical, economic and human resources on the f a r m or ranch to achieve the highest personal goals of the landowner or operator, to benefit the whole community, and to meet the long-time needs of our nation."

F l o w resources. Resources that c o m e in a continuous and predictable stream, whether used or not, such as precipitation, the water in lakes and streams, sunlight, wind, tides, and the climate. B i o l o g i c a l r e s o u r c e s . Living things that are capable of reproducing themselves, including crops, forests, range and pasture cover, livestock, wildlife, fish, and even h u m a n beings. " T h e s e resources have s o m e flow characteristics in that they are replaceable over time, provided care is taken to safeguard and use

T h u s , by definition, we are concerned with resources. T h e s e resources occur in various

9

10 the seed stock needed for each new generation" (Barlowe, 1 9 5 8 ) . PARTIALLY R E N E W A B L E

(COMPOSITE)

Soil resources. "Soil resources represent a combination of fund, flow, and biological resources.... Soils lack the life-cycle characteristics of plants and animals. But with the exception of peat soils (which are better treated as fund resources), they are comparable to biological resources in the sense that their productivity can be decreased, maintained, or increased by human action over time" (Barlowe, 1 9 5 8 ) .

WHAT DETERMINES ECONOMICS OF CONSERVATION?

The student of economics is well acquainted with the fact that different segments of society have different goals they wish to attain from a conservation program. H e is aware the national or "public" goal may at times be contrary to the goal of the individual. Ciraicy-Wantrup ( 1 9 5 2 ) and Bunce ( 1 9 4 2 ) , among others, have explored and described the interrelationships and ramifications of public and private interests in the economics of conservation. The farm owner or operator occupies a different position than the student of economics or the technician who may be providing him technical assistance. H e is transferring the theories of the scholar and recommendations of the technician to his own operation. T h e extent to which he uses these ideas in his operation to a large degree determines the economics of his conservation program. The farmer is a decision maker because his operation requires many decisions. T o make sound decisions he needs facts. The farm owner or operator generally wishes to operate his farm in a manner that will achieve the greatest financial return. H e also wishes to maintain or improve the value of his land. Experience has shown that soundly conceived and applied conservation practices are a means of achieving his desires. In making

decisions there are factors which may encourage him to make the improvements. There are other factors which may influence him against making conservation improvements at the particular time. Should the farm operator desire to make a capital improvement in his farm plant, he will consider the effect it will have on his income. If the benefits are to accrue over a period of years, they must be discounted. If they occur immediately they need not be discounted. The interest rate of borrowed money, or for his own funds, will influence his decision. If the rate is low he will be more inclined to make the improvement, while if it is high he may hesitate. His age and financial situation will also influence his decision. The operator's course of action will be influenced by his ownership status. If he has secure tenure, conservation improvements will be attractive. Should his tenure be insecure he will be unlikely to make conservation improvements unless they show immediate benefits. T h e availability and type of credit may be an important factor in a farm operator's decision on making conservation improvements. In part, his financial situation will have a bearing on whether he can obtain a loan to make desired improvements, the period of time in which the loan is to be repaid, and the interest rate at which he can borrow money. One of the major deterrents to adoption of conservation is uncertainty. The operator may be uncertain about the effects of the contemplated improvements. H e is likely to be uncertain about prices he will receive for crops which he might grow, particularly if the benefits will extend over several years' time. H e may be uncertain about markets for his crops. Each uncertainty may cause him to discount the benefits to allow a sufficient margin of safety. Public policies, national, state and local, have important influences on the farmer's decisionmaking regarding conservation. National programs involving subsidies of various kinds may encourage him to make improvements he would not otherwise make. Again, he may refrain from making improvements requiring several years to repay if he is uncertain of the duration of a price subsidy. T h e taxation rate on capital

11 improvements, income and inheritance may encourage or discourage conservation. A conservation improvement may require more or less labor, permit use of existing machinery, or make its use obsolete. It may require sizable capital outlays for livestock, or permit more efficient use of that which he has. An operator will have personal factors which may strongly influence his decisions. H e may have a personal aversion against incurring debt. His or his family's personal desires may cause him to invest in a new automobile rather than make a conservation improvement, even though the improvement would be exceedingly profitable. He may wish to make conservation improvements, such as a fish pond or wildlife improvement even though their financial benefits do not equal their costs. H e likes to fish or hunt. H e may make improvements during periods of adverse c o n d i t i o n s to capitalize on periods when economic conditions improve. The above factors, which are only a few of many, are illustrative of the complexities and interdependencies of physical, economic and personal factors affecting conservation. T h e average farm owner or operator generally does not have the training or the time to keep abreast with or to properly evaluate how such factors will affect his operations.

HOW CAN PHYSICAL A N D E C O N O M I C DATA BE COORDINATED AT FARM LEVEL?

One of the basic principles of a sound conservation program is that of using the land according to its capabilities and treating it according to its needs. This means that a farm operator must have a physical inventory of his available natural resources as a base upon which to plan. This physical inventory should show what his soil resources are and where they are located. It should show what the soil limitations are. Such limitations may be salinity or alkalinity, erosiveness, depth, texture, fertility, or drainage. The inventory should also show what the capabilities of land use are. These capabilities of use are based upon the soil's physical limitations. A technician, trained in the science

of soil conservation, uses the physical inventory and land capability data as a basis for recommending sound land use for the specific farm. His recommendations may include types of crop rotations to maintain or improve the soil resources. They may include agronomic or structural measures to offset use hazards such as erosion, or to improve drainage limitations. T h e recommendations may include provision for irrigation to overcome drought susceptibility of certain soils, or to permit more desirable crops to be grown. The physical inventory provides data to the farm operator and technician upon which they can develop a sound soil and water conservation plan. Such a program, sound as it may be from a physical sense, may fail unless it considers the economic and human resources of the farm operator. The second and third factors in the conservation equation therefore are the economic and human factors. W e wish to know now what effects the physical needs and recommended changes will have upon the economics of the farm. W e also wish to know what the effects will be on the well-being of the farm family. From a physical standpoint the suggested course of action may be perfect, but its adoption may cause bankruptcy to the farmer if he adopts it. One of the techniques used to test the economic impact of various alternatives of land use or conservation improvements is that of budgeting. Through sound budgetary techniques the various alternatives may be tested to determine what the economic effects of each might be. Farm enterprise budgeting as normally done is time-consuming and unless properly done may lead to erroneous conclusions. T o overcome these objections the Soil Conservation Service has developed a simplified technique of determining costs and returns. This technique is one of determining what the per acre costs of producing a particular crop are and what the net returns would be under different yield and price levels. In the northwest area these data are developed jointly through the conference method by a small group of farmers and an assisting technician. T h e farmers who are growing the crop for which

12 cost and returns data are b e i n g d e v e l o p e d e x p l a i n how they g r o w the crop. T h e y list each o p e r a t i o n in the s e q u e n c e it is p e r f o r m e d . T h e y tell what kind and size of machinery they normally use, a n d how m a n y times the operation is p e r f o r m e d . T h e technician has technical data which enables h i m to d e t e r m i n e readily the time required to p e r f o r m the various operations, and what the costs of d o i n g it are. All i n p u t items are listed by kind, a m o u n t used, and cost. T h e costs of p r o d u c t i o n are s e g r e g a t e d into fixed and variable costs. T h e fixed costs arc those costs which are necessary costs regardless of yield. T h e variable costs are costs such as those for fertilizer or harvesting, which vary with yield. T h r e e yield levels are selected which are representative of the low, a v e r a g e a n d high yields normally occurring in the c o m m u n i t y . T h e variable costs associated with each of the yield levels are d e t e r m i n e d and tabulated. T h e fixed and variable costs for each yield level are totaled to g i v e gross costs of p r o d u c t i o n . T h e current p r i c e b e i n g received for the c r o p is used to calculate the g r o s s value of p r o d u c t i o n by yields. S h o u l d it b e desired, several different p r i c e levels m a y be calculated to represent r a n g e s in gross i n c o m e likely to prevail in the c o m m u n i t y . T h e cost of production is next subtracted f r o m the gross income. T h e remainder, if any, represents net returns f r o m the particular yield and p r i c e level selected. N e t returns as here used, is defined as: " T h e a m o u n t , if any, available to pay interest on capital investment, m a n a g e m e n t and profit." E x h i b i t 1 is illustrative of the cost-return data as p r e p a r e d by the a b o v e described m e t h o d . T h e net returns as d e t e r m i n e d above, for each yield and p r i c e level, is next plotted on a g r a p h . Y i e l d levels are plotted on the abscissa or horizontal axis while the net returns in dollars is plotted on the o r d i n a t e or vertical axis. A curve is drawn through the three plotted p o i n t s (yield l e v e l s ) for each of the p r i c e levels selected. T h i s g r a p h , as illustrated by E x h i b i t 2, p e r m i t s the a p p r o x i m a t e net returns to b e d e t e r m i n e d for any crop yield. T h e cost-return data as d e v e l o p e d represent the typical or representative way of p r o d u c i n g

the crop f o r the particular c o m m u n i t y . Should an individual wish to use t h e m to determine his a p p r o x i m a t e net f a r m i n c o m e they may be readily modified to fit his particular situation. T h e net returns for a field or for the f a r m may be rapidly a p p r o x i m a t e d by selecting the g r a p h s for the crops to be g r o w n , d e t e r m i n i n g the net returns p e r acre for the yield he expects to obtain, times the n u m b e r of acres to be grown. U s e of the g r a p h s enables the f a r m operator to test rapidly a variety of a d a p t e d crops or various c r o p rotations to d e t e r m i n e the most profitable. H e can d e t e r m i n e those with the best distribution, or those which m i g h t fit best in his desired type of operation. T h e Soil C o n s e r v a t i o n Service is a s s e m b l i n g technical g u i d e data which reflect physical effects of various g r o u p s of soil conservation practices by soil and land capability g r o u p i n g s . Such data show yields, by crops, under applicable c r o p p i n g rotations and under various m a n a g e m e n t levels. They contain costs of installing the various measures or practices. T h e technician has sound data to g u i d e him in p r e s e n t i n g alternative courses of action. H e has a physical inventory of the f a r m . H e has d o c u m e n t e d data on physical effects of various c o m b i n a t i o n s of soil conservation practices by various soil g r o u p i n g s . H e has cost-return data for each crop g r o w n . H e now can present physical and e c o n o m i c facts to the f a r m operator to g u i d e in decision m a k i n g . Such facts can g o far in e l i m i n a t i n g uncertainties. Probable e c o n o m i c costs and returns can be determined closely p r i o r to m a k i n g i m p r o v e m e n t s . Financial r e q u i r e m e n t s can b e estimated a n d determination m a d e of how l o n g it m i g h t take to repay such costs. I n f o r m a t i o n can b e developed readily to s h o w what effect any practice or g r o u p of practices will have on labor requirements or the t i m i n g of labor needs. T h e f a r m operator has decisions to m a k e a f t e r he has received advice f r o m the technician on the physical and e c o n o m i c alternatives. H e m u s t w e i g h such data in light of his personal needs and preferences, his tenure a r r a n g e m e n t s , and his financial situation. H e , however, is in a better p o s i t i o n to m a k e s o u n d decisions by reason of h a v i n g the best available up-to-date facts p e r t a i n i n g to his f a r m .

13

EXHIBIT 1 PER ACRE COSTS AND R E T U R N S FOR D A I K O N

K a m u e l a Area, H a w a i i C o u n t y , H a w a i i Annual R o t a t i o n — D a i k o n - D a i k o n - C o v e r Crop I 9 6 0 Prices and Costs

COSTS PER ACRE FIXED COSTS

LABOR

JTOTAL

Disc p l o w Disc h a r r o w 6 ' p o w e r l i f t ( 2 X ) Smoothing ( 2 X ) P l a n t i n g and f e r t i l i z i n g — 3 - r o w T h i n and weed ( h a n d ; Hoe (2 X ) A p p l y insecticide ( 2 X ) S e e d — 1 0 # at 6 5 i F e r t i l i z e r — 50# treble PL'Or, (" S ~ 2 . 8 5 T o n / 150# 5 - 1 0 - 1 0 + 2 0 # b o r o n (a S 1 0 6 . 1 5 T o n i I n s e c t i c i d e — B r a n — 5 ( ) # («•. S 6 . 5 0 cwt. | P a r i s g r e e n — Iff (" S1.00# V B r o w n s u g a r — 1 0 # & 13