« AnteriorContinuar »
Comparison between the returns from national forests derived by the States and counties under existing Federal policies and the returns the States
and counties theoretically might derive under alternative forms of public management of the same properties Premise I.--Assume private appropriation of all lands suit- Premise 11.-Assume that without aid from the Premise III.-As against the returns to the able for permanent private management and adequate
Federal Government other than free cession States and counties theoretically obtainable protection and management by States of all lands re
of public lands involved, it had been necessary under premises I or II, contrast the returns maining or revested in public ownership; period July 1,
for the States to create and administer what from the national forests actually derived by 1922, to June 30, 1927
are now the national forests; period July 1, 1922, to June 30, 1927
the States during the period July 1, 1922, to
June 30, 1927, as indicated below
Net gain or Average
value of contribu
mated total pub
net effect lands venues 110
on State adapted to
to State; from all charge on
25 per cent
status forest re 80 per cent
ment of forest costs
ileges to owner
State laws, programs
- $221, 450
$297, 558 $1, 205, 564 $1, 503, 122 $12, 056 346, 105 +1, 179, 790 789, 749 1,020,585
-230, 836 Washington 1, 354, 940 109, 179 1, 464, 119
179, 488 1, 348, 772 553, 174
105, 499 801, 609
624, 091 701, 207 31, 312
103, 424 537, 751 641, 175
+34, 713 25, 121
166, 185 191, 306
-458, 961 38, 346
454, 900 51, 127
-48, 936 668, 536 Idaho..
52, 375 332, 345 241, 502 910, 038 1, 207, 510
484, 720 13, 398
-1, 069, 036
1, 520, 348 1, 673, 921 88, 933
-1, 230, 573 67, 452
1,054, 791 225, 879
1, 122, 243
511,857 18, 703
768 Michigan.. 787
11, 743 628 1, 415
193 Minnesota 21, 425
1, 863 14,071
7, 743 72, 750
68,560 3, 477
87, 922 250 3, 727 1,000 +2, 727
6,988 14, 356
1, 588 8,817
17, 753 Florida
56, 136 -73, 144
169 8,038 35, 605 35, 605
8, 207 +35, 605 27, 028
33, 917 Georgia.
6, 143 12, 506
24, 499 30, 642
13,954 16, 292
2, 120 5, 956 North Carolina
22, 648 -26, 484
87, 923 6, 874
34, 638 2,411 +16, 039 37, 474 71, 924 273, 276 West Virginia
8,517 55, 527 9, 258
19, 369 20, 293 7, 092 7,092 +7,092
6, 124 2, 745 4, 400 24, 336 -25, 991
624 New Hampshire
3, 432 65, 078
+65, 078 34, 940 35, 924 396, 747 398, 731 Pennsylvania 25, 545
7,941 34, 469 25, 545
42, 410 2,388 +25, 545 544 42, 548 72, 304 -114, 308
9, 561 Total
9,685 3,880 6,740, 217 1, 460, 140 8, 200, 357 5, 243, 989 +3,971, 870 5, 568, 698 10, 300, 962 1, 699, 062-6, 489, 548 1, 265, 612 8,979, 781 10, 245, 393 451, 862
Table 1 might create the impression that the States are profiting unduly from the existence of the national forests under the prevailing principles of compensation and cooperation. Consideration should, however, be given to the fact that on lands other than the national forests the States are sharing in the program of forest conservation to a degree greater possibly than would be the case if they did not enjoy the benefits and advantages which accrue through the existence of the national forests. The benefits from the national forests can not properly be regarded as net grants or subsidies to the States. But neither would it be just to assume that through the existence of the national forests the States are being deprived of benefits and advantages which they would enjoy if the national forests did not exist. There are no facts to support such a premise.
Major STUART. The next item is “Cooperative work, Forest Service,” in the amount of $1,676,545 for the fiscal year 1934. It will be remembered that in order to pay out funds used in cooperative work it is necessary to have a special appropriation. This item makes possible disbursements from the United States Treasury of moneys deposited in the United States Treasury by cooperators. The money involved here is money deposited in the Treasury of the United States by outsiders to cooperate with the Forest Service in the performance of work on the national forests, or incident to some particular Forest Service work.
Mr. BUCHANAN. You mean it is money paid in there that contemplates expenditure?
Major STUART. Our cooperative agreements, such as are involved in forest protection work; telephone line construction, and the building of roads, with States, counties, and individuals, provide that they shall place their money, used in cooperation, in the United States Treasury. Those funds can not be disbursed for payment of expenses on
on that cooperative project without this means of appropriation.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Well I thought a portion of this fund, at least, was to cover guaranties by timber purchasers to clean up the brush, and, when the brush was cleaned up, it has to be refunded?
Major Stuart. It is true, in the cooperative fund, that timber-sale operators and others will deposit with the Treasury sums they are obligated to so deposit in order to meet expenditures; but, to get that money out of the Treasury after it is deposited, it requires this particular action by Congress.
Mr. Sandlin. Approximately how much was deposited or will be deposited in 1934, of this $1,676,545?
Major STUART. It is anticipated that all of that will be deposited by cooperators.
PAYMENT TO SCHOOL FUNDS, ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO
Major STUART. The next item is "Payment to school funds, Arizona and New Mexico, national forests' fund," in the amount of $25,000 for the fiscal year 1934. This represents a return to the States of Arizona and New Mexico of the proportionate receipts taken from the joint holdings of the Federal Government and those States, under an agreement by which the States of New Mexico and Arizona have the Forest Service administer their forest lands.
Mr. SanDLIN. Administer their own lands?
Major STUART. Administer their school lands; yes, sir. They are intermingled with national forest lands. Under that agreement those States get a proportionate part of the receipts, based upon the areas involved.
Mr. SANDLIN. You mean it is supposed to be the amounts coming from their own land?
Major STUART. Yes, sir; but it is based upon a general year-to-year plan on a proportionate acreage basis.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Now do they get 25 per cent of the balance?
Major STUART. So far as there are receipts from the national forests; yes, sir. Their compensation under this item is solely in meeting their own equity in their land.
Mr. BUCHANAN. I know, based solely on the income or receipts from their own land.
Major STUART. Yes, sir.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Of course they would get the 25 per cent of the Federal Government's part, under that other act?
Major STUART. True.
ROADS AND TRAILS FOR STATES
The next item is “Roads and Trails for States, National Forests Fund,” in the amount of $370,000 for the fiscal year 1934. This represents 10 per cent of the estimated national forests receipts with legislative furlough deducted for that fiscal year and is money that is to be spent on roads and trails within the national forests.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, is not the money to be spent in the States from which the proceeds are derived ?
Major STUART. Within the particular areas of national forests territory.
Mr. BUCHANAN. It is for trails, too, is it not?
Major STUART. You will recall that the States get 25 per cent of the receipts and, in addition, 10 per cent of the receipts are used by the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Forest Service, for the construction of roads and trails in the particular counties involved.
Mr. BUCHANAN. This is for forest roads and trails, is it not?
Major STUART. Not on high standard roads; it is used on roads and trails that primarily are for the protection, administration, and utilization of the national forests.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Certainly you do not spend it for any through roads?
Major STUART. Not high-standard roads.
Major STUART. The expenditures are made for our minor roads and trails.
Mr. BUCHANAN. It looks to me like it ought to be exclusively for the benefit and protection of the forests.
Major STUART. It is spent directly for the protection, administration, and development of the national forests.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Taking it all in all, how much of those gross receipts are diverted from the Treasury?
Major STUART. Thirty-five per cent.
Mr. BUCHANAN. If 35 per cent is diverted from the Treasury, we are making a big loss.
Major STUART. It should be borne in mind, however, that this 10 per cent money goes directly for the benefit of the property.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes. It merely increases the administrative costs; that is all; 10 per cent more is appropriated, just like we appropriate 10 per cent more of the receipts for administration and travel. So that is a charge on the upkeep of the forests.
Major STUART. Well, it has the other effect, Mr. Chairman. To the extent to which we can improve our road and trail system, no matter what the source of the fund may be, we are going to have better and more economical forest protection.
Mr. BUCHANAN. I understand. I said it adds to the expenses of the administration of the forests just that much in addition to our appropriation for the protection of forests. Mr. Jump. But it is really capital investment in a way.
You are putting part of the proceeds each year into increased capital investment on the property, because these improvements enhance the value of the surrounding forest as these trails and roads are completed.
Mr. BUCHANAN. I wonder, Major, if you could figure out approximately how much these forests are costing us over and above the receipts that are put into and remain in the Treasury, that are not reimbursed?
Major STUART. We can give you a statement, Mr. Chairman, in considerable detail as for the fiscal year 1932.
Mr. BUCHANAN. I do not care about considerable detail; I just want to know approximately.
Major Stuart. May I give it to you by major captions?
NATIONAL FORESTS ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS Major Stuart. For the fiscal year 1932 the cost for the administration of the national forests in that fiscal year was $2,661,876.15; for the protection of those properties $7,234,173.15; for improvement and equipment--that is your capital investment. Mr. BUCHANAN. I know.
Major STUART. For improvement and equipment, it was $20,723,729.58, of which the great bulk was roads. Reforestation was $291,899.49. Extension-that is, land exchange and land acquisition-was $1,838,181.72; general administration, $355,084.65; forestry extension, $133,399.11, and research in all of its phases, including construction of the laboratory at Madison, Wis. ($900,000), was $2,502,669.20.
Mr. BUCHANAN. I want the item for Madison, Wis., taken out and I want the item for the purchase of forest lands taken out. I do not mean the exchange—forest extension, I believe you termed it there.
Major Stuart. Mr. Chairman, may I have the opportunity of submitting for the record a concise statement?
Mr. BUCHANAN. I would rather you would do it that way.
Major Stuart. Which will give the net costs to the Government of these various activities, which I think is what you want.
Mr. BUCHANAN. I would rather you would make a concise statement and put it in the record, showing the amount that it costs the Government-I mean what it costs the United States Treasury-after all of this 35 per cent has been taken out, to administer the forests.
Mr. JUMP. Are you speaking of the national forests?
Mr. Jump. You are not speaking of the Government promotion of the entire subject of forestry?
Mr. BUCHANAN. I am not speaking of the provisions of the McNaryMcSweeney Act.
Mr. Jump. That is what I thought. Haven't you included the research expenditures in those figures?
Major STUART. Yes. The figures I have given you deal with the whole activity of the Forest Service. It would be quite simple to submit to the committee a statement of gross and net costs of operating the national forests' enterprise.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, I want that done; but I want you to subtract from the net result all charges against the Forest Service funds that have to be taken out and refunded to the States and that have to be taken out for improvements of roads and trails in the national forests—those items we have just been discussing. I want that taken out, because that is not net. Those donations States in consideration of the land being exempt from taxation, or additional funds for improvement and protection of the forests, I want them taken out. I want it to show the net cost, or the cost that comes out of the Federal Treasury for administration of the national forests.
Major STUART. Do I understand you do not want included in that statement the funds spent for roads and trails?
Mr. BUCHANAN. Certainly I want it to include roads and trails in forests.
Major STUART. All expenditures of whatever character, that take place and are made by the Federal Government on national forest land, you want set up as a cost?
Mr. BUCHANAN. That is not for the purchase of new land.
Major STUART. We can prepare you such a statement. Statement of Forest Service expenditures on national forests, fiscal year, 1932, showing
net expenditures from Federal Treasury Administration of the national forests, including maintenance of forest service owned improvements..
$4, 658, 651. 73 Less net receipts (after deducting payments to States $589,477.81).
1, 704, 769. 52
2, 953, 882. 21 Protection of national forest lands and timber from fire, insects, tree diseases, and rodents.
17, 234, 173. 15 Capital investments:
Equipment, stores, construction of roads, trails, telephone
lines, buildings, fire-control and range improvements,
5, 895, 445. 85 Total..
16, 083, 501. 21 Less contributed by cooperating agencies.
910, 597. 37 Net national forest expenditures
2 15, 172, 903. 84
1 Includes $4,153,381.26 for fire fighting.
Research (McNary-McSweeney) and cousi ruction of laboratory at Madison, Wis..
adjoining, or adjacent to national forests, by the Bureau of Public Roads.
adjoining, or adjacent to national forests, by the Bureau of Public Roads. Acquisition of lands..
$ 2, 502, 669. 20
85, 744. 22
102, 464. 98 2, 031, 888.04
13,089, 258. 42
500, 534. 98 1, 838, 181.72
20, 172, 839. 56