Mr. PETER MYERS. Watershed planning completions during fiscal year 1985 are difficult to identify at this time. Some of the 35 plans we anticipate completing in fiscal year 1984 may not be through the review process until fiscal year 1985. Of the 162 projects presently in planning, 2 that should be completed in fiscal year 1985 are West Goshen, Indiana, and Turkey Creek, Oklahoma.

Mr. WHITTEN. What watershed plans will you complete during fiscal year 1984?

Mr. PETER MYERS. While some of these plans may not complete the review process in fiscal year 1984, we anticipate having 35 completions. The names of these plans are provided for the record. [The information follows:]

WATERSHED PLANS SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED IN FISCAL YEAR 1984

STATE AND STUDY

Alabama-Kelly-Preston Mill.

Colorado-Lower Latham; Wolf Creek Highland.

Iowa-Twin Ponies; Morlee; Hacklebarney.

Idaho-Upper Sand Creek; Big Canyon; East Fork.

Illinois-Kinkaid Lake Watershed.

Indiana-Mariah Creek; West Goshen.

Michigan-Bear River.

Missouri-West Fork Big Creek; Troublesome Creek; Grassy Creek; Big Creek/ Hurricane Creek.

New York-Dyke Creek.

North Carolina-Sandy Creek (Cumberland); Abbotts; Brown Marsh; Cheeks Creek; Lynches Creek; Terrell Dry Creek.

North Dakota-Muskrat Lake.

Nebraska-Middle Big Nemiah; Upper Little Nemiah; East and West Dry Maple; Turkey Creek; Soap Creek.

Oklahoma-Deer Creek.

South Carolina-Salem Community.

Washington-Rebel Flat Creek; Newaukum Creek.

West Virginia-Little Whitestick-Cranberry Creek.

Mr. WHITTEN. If these funds are restored by the Congress, would you please list the 25 new authorizations you would start during fiscal year 1985, in order of priority?

Mr. PETER MYERS. New planning start proposals for fiscal year 1985 would be submitted by the States depending on their available resources, funds, and staff and as their ongoing planning efforts are completed. From the State proposals, those assigned the highest priority will be chosen as new starts in fiscal year 1985. The process for evaluating State proposals and assigning priorities for fiscal year 1985 will be similar to the process now being used for fiscal year 1984. Highest priority for fiscal year 1984 is being assigned to those proposals which address the reduction of excessive soil erosion to maintain the productivity of agricultural land, the reduction of flood damages in upstream areas with the most critical agricultural production and rural community flood problems, and the improvement of agriculture water supply and its conservation for those irrigation-water supply projects which address the most critical agriculture water supply problems and preserve the agriculture resource base.

WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATION'S LOAN PROGRAM

Mr. WHITTEN. The bill language submitted in the President's budget proposes to delete the authorization for $26 million in loans in connection with the watershed and flood prevention operations program. Why are you proposing the deletion of these loans?

Mr. PETER MYERS. In fiscal year 1985, construction work on flood prevention and small watershed projects would be limited to contract modifications for work already underway. No new construction starts would be initiated and no projects would be completed. New loans are not proposed for fiscal year 1985 as part of the overall budget reduction.

Mr. WHITTEN. The $26 million authorization has been contained in the bill for a number of years now. For each of the last 10 years, would you please list the number and the dollar amount of the loans made each year?

Mr. PETER MYERS. We will provide a list of the number and dollar amount of the loans made for the last 10 years. [The information follows:]

Mr. WHITTEN. In most years, the number of loans made are far below the authorized level. Why is this so?

Mr. PETER MYERS. The Soil Conservation Service and Farmers Home Administration are cooperating to inform local sponsors on the avilability of watershed loans. With the current financial climate, the local sponsors can often obtain nonfederal financing, either state supported or other funds, at lower interest rates than the current FmHA insured rates.

Mr. WHITTEN. What types of problems are encountered in processing these loans?

Mr. PETER MYERS. FmHA has not experienced any particular problems or delays in processing these loans. We are emphasizing educating project sponsors on the availability of the loan program so they can make their decision on applying for this assistance.

Mr. WHITTEN. How long does it take to process the average application? In other words, what is the average length of time before the borrower receives a check?

Mr. PETER MYERS. FmHA informs us that after an applicant files an application quite a lot of work has to be done in developing the project, such as preparing final engineering plans and specifications, complying with state and local laws, fulfilling loan conditions,

and advertising and bidding the project. The time required varies with each applicant. If the above tasks are accomplished in a timely manner, a check could be delivered in an average of 6 to 8 months from the time the application is filed.

Mr. WHITTEN. What were the three loans that were made during fiscal year 1983?

Mr. PETER MYERS. The three watershed loans made in fiscal year 1983 were Jordan Creek, Indiana, $110,000; Town of Selmer, Tennessee, $453,700; and NcNairy County, Tennessee, $250,000.

Mr. WHITTEN. Have any loans been made to date during fiscal year 1984?

Mr. PETER MYERS. No loans have been made in fiscal year 1984. Mr. WHITTEN. How many loan applications are currently pending?

Mr. PETER MYERS. We have 6 loan applications now pending. Mr. WHITTEN. What is the total dollar amount of these applications that are pending?

Mr. PETER MYERS. The 6 applications total $5,441,000.

Mr. WHITTEN. On page 10-43 of the notes you state that during fiscal year 1983 three loans were made for a total of $813,700. However, on 10g-38 of the notes you say that during fiscal year 1983 three loans were made for a total of $4.9 million. Are you talking about the same loans in both cases, and if so, what is the difference?

Mr. PETER MYERS. Total loans in fiscal year 1983 were for $813,700. There is a typographical error in the sentence. It should read, "In fiscal year 1983, there were 10 applications on hand at the beginning of the year, 1 was received during the year, 3 loans were made for $813,700 and 5 applications were pending at the end of the year for a total of $4.9 million."

EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION

Mr. WHITTEN. Your are requesting only $5 million in emergency funds rather than the traditional $10 million. What is the current unobligated balance in the emergency fund account?

Mr. PETER MYERS. The unobligated balance for emergency watershed protection operations was $13.8 million as of January 31, 1984. However, only $3.3 million of the unobligated balance has not been allotted to the states to start repair work on recently damaged watersheds.

Mr. WHITTEN. You state the reason for only a $5 million request is because, "There has been about $5 million of unobligated funds carried forward for the past few years in this account." Your project statement shows an obligation of only $5 million in this account during fiscal year 1985. That would imply a zero carryover. Is that not inconsistent with the statement in your justifications? Mr. PETER MYERS. It is a little confusing. We suspect that some funds will be carried forward in fiscal year 1985, but we cannot predict the exact amount. Consequently, the budget schedules show all funds available being obligated in fiscal year 1984 and projects zero funds carried over into fiscal year 1985 rather than project a specific amount carried over. The statement in the justification is intended to clarify that a total of up to $10 million could be availa

WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATION'S LOAN PROGRAM

Mr. WHITTEN. The bill language submitted in the President's budget proposes to delete the authorization for $26 million in loans in connection with the watershed and flood prevention operations program. Why are you proposing the deletion of these loans?

Mr. PETER MYERS. In fiscal year 1985, construction work on flood prevention and small watershed projects would be limited to contract modifications for work already underway. No new construction starts would be initiated and no projects would be completed. New loans are not proposed for fiscal year 1985 as part of the overall budget reduction.

Mr. WHITTEN. The $26 million authorization has been contained in the bill for a number of years now. For each of the last 10 years, would you please list the number and the dollar amount of the loans made each year?

Mr. PETER MYERS. We will provide a list of the number and dollar amount of the loans made for the last 10 years. [The information follows:]

Mr. WHITTEN. In most years, the number of loans made are far below the authorized level. Why is this so?

Mr. PETER MYERS. The Soil Conservation Service and Farmers Home Administration are cooperating to inform local sponsors on the avilability of watershed loans. With the current financial climate, the local sponsors can often obtain nonfederal financing, either state supported or other funds, at lower interest rates than the current FmHA insured rates.

Mr. WHITTEN. What types of problems are encountered in processing these loans?

Mr. PETER MYERS. FmHA has not experienced any particular problems or delays in processing these loans. We are emphasizing educating project sponsors on the availability of the loan program so they can make their decision on applying for this assistance.

Mr. WHITTEN. How long does it take to process the average application? In other words, what is the average length of time before the borrower receives a check?

Mr. PETER MYERS. FmHA informs us that after an applicant files an application quite a lot of work has to be done in developing the project, such as preparing final engineering plans and specifications, complying with state and local laws, fulfilling loan conditions,

and advertising and bidding the project. The time required varies with each applicant. If the above tasks are accomplished in a timely manner, a check could be delivered in an average of 6 to 8 months from the time the application is filed.

Mr. WHITTEN. What were the three loans that were made during fiscal year 1983?

Mr. PETER MYERS. The three watershed loans made in fiscal year 1983 were Jordan Creek, Indiana, $110,000; Town of Selmer, Tennessee, $453,700; and NcNairy County, Tennessee, $250,000.

Mr. WHITTEN. Have any loans been made to date during fiscal year 1984?

Mr. PETER MYERS. No loans have been made in fiscal year 1984. Mr. WHITTEN. How many loan applications are currently pending?

Mr. PETER MYERS. We have 6 loan applications now pending. Mr. WHITTEN. What is the total dollar amount of these applications that are pending?

Mr. PETER MYERS. The 6 applications total $5,441,000.

Mr. WHITTEN. On page 10-43 of the notes you state that during fiscal year 1983 three loans were made for a total of $813,700. However, on 10g-38 of the notes you say that during fiscal year 1983 three loans were made for a total of $4.9 million. Are you talking about the same loans in both cases, and if so, what is the difference?

Mr. PETER MYERS. Total loans in fiscal year 1983 were for $813,700. There is a typographical error in the sentence. It should read, "In fiscal year 1983, there were 10 applications on hand at the beginning of the year, 1 was received during the year, 3 loans were made for $813,700 and 5 applications were pending at the end of the year for a total of $4.9 million."

EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION

Mr. WHITTEN. Your are requesting only $5 million in emergency funds rather than the traditional $10 million. What is the current unobligated balance in the emergency fund account?

Mr. PETER MYERS. The unobligated balance for emergency watershed protection operations was $13.8 million as of January 31, 1984. However, only $3.3 million of the unobligated balance has not been allotted to the states to start repair work on recently damaged watersheds.

Mr. WHITTEN. You state the reason for only a $5 million request is because, "There has been about $5 million of unobligated funds carried forward for the past few years in this account." Your project statement shows an obligation of only $5 million in this account during fiscal year 1985. That would imply a zero carryover. Is that not inconsistent with the statement in your justifications? Mr. PETER MYERS. It is a little confusing. We suspect that some funds will be carried forward in fiscal year 1985, but we cannot predict the exact amount. Consequently, the budget schedules show all funds available being obligated in fiscal year 1984 and projects zero funds carried over into fiscal year 1985 rather than project a specific amount carried over. The statement in the justification is intended to clarify that a total of up to $10 million could be availa