Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

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
Credits

Debits

Credits
Theoret-

Debits-
State

Estimated
ical an-

Credit-
Theoretical
nual reve-
Net gain or Theoretical Theoretical

annual
Theoretical

Total direct
annual

Net gain or Average
Theoretical

Theoretical
nue from

Esti-
loss-Final annual re annual

value of contribu

loss --Final
cost of

annual
tax return

annual

mated total pub

net effect lands venues 110

direct aid
costs of

net effect
protecting

tions to
from lands

payment
lic income

values of
interest
on State
remaining
per cent adminis-

in road
and man-

on State adapted to

State or

to State; from all charge on

additional
financial national
or re-

and trail
tration;
aging lands

county

financial
private

25 per cent
lands in-

capital

benefits
vested

status forest re 80 per cent
in public

revenue

status
ownership
volved

investment
in public
ceipts

and priy-
national

enforce-
ownership

or devel-
forest re-
in costs

ment of forest costs

ileges to owner

ceipts

opment citizens

State laws, programs
ship

etc.
California
$1, 168, 770 $295, 845 $1, 464, 615 $976, 289 +$488, 326 $1, 309, 256 $1, 530, 706

- $221, 450
Oregon
1, 416, 714 109, 181 1, 525, 895

$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

1,528, 260
+910, 945

19, 443
464, 197 886, 256

422, 059
Arizona.
453, 258 38, 657

105, 499 801, 609
491, 915 38,657

907, 108
+453, 258

13, 468
339, 310
Colorado

837, 866

489, 556
395, 953

77, 116
124, 491

624, 091 701, 207 31, 312
520, 444 358, 533 +161, 911 455, 065 572, 220
Nevada.

117, 155
4,516 86, 446

103, 424 537, 751 641, 175
90, 962 60, 513 +30, 449 110, 534

52, 317

75, 821
New Mexico

+34, 713 25, 121
238, 781

166, 185 191, 306
6, 713 245, 494 13, 427 +232, 067

2, 944
168, 723
Utah.

627, 684

-458, 961 38, 346
230, 580 95, 421

416, 554
326, 001

454, 900 51, 127
147, 902 +178, 099 230, 450 279, 386

-48, 936 668, 536 Idaho..

52, 375 332, 345 241, 502 910, 038 1, 207, 510

484, 720 13, 398
297, 472 675, 720 1, 744, 756

-1, 069, 036
341, 580

153, 573
Montana
132, 334 473, 914 1, 058, 669

1, 520, 348 1, 673, 921 88, 933
584, 755 296, 789 1, 527, 362
Wyoming

-1, 230, 573 67, 452
74, 259 151, 620

1,054, 791 225, 879

1, 122, 243
277, 464 --51, 584

43, 641
301, 163 373, 262

-- 72,099
South Dakota
60, 785

68, 446
39,062

443, 411
99, 847

511,857 18, 703
60, 546
+39, 301 123, 310 99, 801

+23, 509

025
Nebraska.

79, 985
11, 121

108, 010
11, 121
26, 773 -15, 652

8,752
12, 177 22, 945

10, 768

768 Michigan.. 787

11, 743 628 1, 415

14, 511
17, 587

302
--16, 172

851
16, 096
699 15, 944

193 Minnesota 21, 425

1, 863 14,071

2, 056
35, 496 85, 362

3,380
-9, 866 34, 069 104, 154 65, 343 -135, 428
Arkansas.

7, 743 72, 750
79, 055
3,619 82, 674

80, 493

18,939
14, 478 +68, 196 85, 194 123, 758 32, 183 -70, 747
Oklahoma

19, 362

68,560 3, 477

87, 922 250 3, 727 1,000 +2, 727

39, 493

6,988 14, 356
Alabama

-7,368
5, 722

1, 588 8,817
5, 722

10, 405

111
+5, 722

745

17, 753 Florida

56, 136 -73, 144

169 8,038 35, 605 35, 605

8, 207 +35, 605 27, 028

2, 956

33, 917 Georgia.

-6, 889

6, 143 12, 506

24, 499 30, 642

929
12, 506
+12, 506 10, 288 35, 420 153, 745

178, 877

338
South Carolina
2, 575

13,954 16, 292
2, 575
+2, 575

2, 682

2, 120 5, 956 North Carolina

22, 648 -26, 484

482
3, 505

3, 987
27, 403
27, 403

893
+27, 403 29, 403 97, 034 303, 935 -371, 566

683
Tennessee

81, 240
19, 978

87, 923 6, 874
19, 978
+19, 978 15, 796 61, 840 203, 214 -249, 258

590
Virginia

31, 048
16, 039
16, 039

34, 638 2,411 +16, 039 37, 474 71, 924 273, 276 West Virginia

307, 723

8,517 55, 527 9, 258

64, 044
9, 258

4, 221
+9, 258

4,067
37, 232 93,496 - 126, 661

924 Maine.

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

4,056

185
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

124

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

[graphic]

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.

COOPERATIVE WORK

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.
Mr. BUCHANAN. That is, not roads for the public?

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?
Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes; that is all right.

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. BUCHANAN. I am 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,
and general surveys and plans.--

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.
Includes "10 per cent fund” derived from national foresi receipts and appropriated for
construction and maintenance of 1oads and trails. Does not include expendituies for the
following items which are not national forest costs:

Research (McNary-McSweeney) and cousi ruction of laboratory at Madison, Wis..
Protection of Oregon & California grant lands.
Cooperative distribution of forest planting stock to States.
Fire cooperation with States..
Examination of water-power sites for Federal Power Commission.
Construction of roads of primary importance to States, counties, or communities within,

adjoining, or adjacent to national forests, by the Bureau of Public Roads.
Maintenance of roads of primary importance to States, counties, or communities within,

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

22, 098.00

13,089, 258. 42

500, 534. 98 1, 838, 181.72

Total.

20, 172, 839. 56

« AnteriorContinuar »