an ottico building whoro ponjdo hardly know their neighbors than a depart- 

 ment store or an industrial plant where everybody is fitted into a coordin- 

 ate place and function. 



The Department of Conservation is an attempt on a large scale and I 

 bcli(>ve a successful one. at cocuvlination. Every one of its branches is de- 

 licnding on and co-operating witli the olhcr. 



Charles Richard Van Ilisc tersely says. "The principle of Conservation 

 is not a simple subject which can be treated with reference to a single 

 icsdurce. independently of others: it is an interlocking one. The conserva- 

 tion of one resource is related to that of another. ********* 

 A complete treatment of any part of the subject in all of its ramifications 

 of necessity repeats a iMjrtion of the treatment of another part of the sub- 

 ject." 



It has been the experience of those states that are in the lead of con- 

 servation work — New York, Louisiana and AVisconsin — that no single nat- 

 ural resource can be dealt with separately and independently from the 

 other, and that oidy consolidation of the work makes real results pos- 

 sible. 



The correctness of this theory was proven out in the first six months 

 of our work. Not only did this natural supi)()rt of one Division by another 

 greatly facilitate work, but it also saved a great deal of time and avoideil 

 duplication. It made larger results possible, or. to put it in another way. 

 it got more direct returns out of the nion(\vs appropriated. 



Starting with a well defined policy of self-limitation, it nevertheless took 

 the Department some time to get under way because of the difficulty of 

 limiting the scope of work in a well nigh unlimited field. Requests, if not 

 demands for assistance, were naturally made, which, even if the oflfiee 

 force had been adeipiatc. would have exhausted our funds in short order. 

 Many of these demands were entirely reasonable and in many instance- 

 the people should have had relief where we found it imiKJSsible to help 

 owing to lack of ]K'rsonnel and funds. 



If ever proof was wanted that the State needed a Department to conserve 

 its natui'al resources, the large and xai'iegated coi'icspdndence in our otiice 

 containing i-ei|ne>t< \'<y assistance and ailxice would funnsb it. From 

 topographic survey to |e:n.lenin lands: from analyses of clays, soils and 

 minerals to ideiitilication of relics: from a lonely elm tree to Sand Dunes: 

 from drainagi- projecl^; to the use of cat-tail swamps as fitod producers: 

 from farmers" wo(;d!ots to tlood control: fntm kaolin to coal; from the pro- 

 tection of game and tisii lo tiial of lake levels: from stream pollution to 

 tisli culture: from wheat diseases to sugar supply for ln'ckeepers. and so on 

 without end. 



As the Department advances, these demands will increase. The organi- 

 zation is such that it may be indefinitely enlarged and it is left to the 

 wisdom of our lawmakers to make more extended work possible by legis- 

 lative acti(»n. But before a legislature would be willing to appropriate 

 more funds, it must needs have proof of results. Let me cite a few. 



The working agreement between the Department of Conservation and In- 



