BOARD01111

• Board Meeting Date: 6/3/1970
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

MR. STAPLETON:

MR. KROEGER:

MR. MARK:

measures. This is associated with conservation
practices. Similarly the Agricultural Stabiliza-
tion and Conservation Service has some similar
responsibilities now. Inasmuch as we have the
responsibility to provide the technical specifi-
cations and technical assistance for the in-
stallation of the ACP, we get involved in pollu-
tion control now in that aspect. Perhaps an
over simplified example of one that is definitely
involved would be the medium to small problems
that are involved from cattle feeding operations,
the runoff and disposal of the effluents as well
as the solids from these operations which in
this state has become a major problem.

1

I thank you very much for your time."

"Thank you, Mr. Mark. Are there any ques-
tions?"

"Mr. Mark, you report that under the 1971
budget there will be no money for RC&D planning?"

"There is money. Actually the money this
fiscal year is roughly $7~ million for planning
and operation. The 1971 budget has a figure
of roughly $13~ million, almost double. But
the catch is that the Budget Bureau has not
authorized any new planning starts. We have
five RC&D project applications in this state
that have gone to Washington. These projects
all have five or six counties involved in them.
There are about 32 counties in those five and
this means we can't get any money to assist
those local sponsors in developing an RC&D
project plan. They must first develop a plan
before the Secretary of Agriculture can author-
ize operations.

In other words, it is just like a watershed
program. You get certain money for planning.
When you get a plan in and it is found to be
satisfactory, then you can get money to build
things. Well, of course this lack of authority
from the Budget Bureau for new planning starts

1