A NATIONAL PLAN FOR AMERICAN FORESTRY 113 



comes produced by these lands. The incomes from property taxes 

 received by local governments are many times this figure. 



This is an excellent example of a case where private forestry 

 would not pay, but where public forestry produces indirect returns 

 many times as large as the costs to the public. 



PRODUCTIVE FORESTS REDUCE PER CAPITA COSTS OF PUBLIC 



FUNCTIONS 



Another way in which productive forests benefit the public as a 

 whole and large numbers of individuals, but only in a small degree 

 the owners of the land itself, is a corollary of the preceding. 



The per capita cost of various local public functions, such as 

 schools, local government, and highway maintenance will to a certain 

 extent vary inversely with the population served. For instance, the 

 cost of maintaining a school for 20 pupils is not appreciably greater 

 than for 3. It has been found in Wisconsin that rural schools 

 with 5 pupils or less cost twice as much per pupil as schools with 10 

 pupils, and six times as much as schools with 25 pupils. A mile of 

 road serving many settlers costs no more to construct and maintain 

 than a mile serving a single isolated farmer. Costs of town and 

 county officers, maintenance of a courthouse, jail, and public records, 

 etc., are about the same whether the population is sparsely scattered 

 or dense. Where, as in many instances, permanent forest industries 

 can result in a settled population 2 to 3 times as great as would be 

 supported by agriculture alone, each individual's or family's share 

 in government costs is correspondingly reduced, or better service is 

 rendered, or both. 



WITH PRODUCTIVE FORESTS, LOCAL UNITS NEED LESS STATE 



AID 



Conversely, the cost of supporting schools and other public services 

 which have been established during a boom period of forest exploita- 

 tion becomes exceedingly burdensome to the remaining taxpayers 

 after the tax base has been narrowed by depletion of the forests and 

 passing of the forest industries. This has happened in hundreds, if 

 not thousands, of communities in every forest region of the United 

 States. In many instances this situation has necessitated an exten- 

 sion of State aid to the financially weak communities, and has thus 

 increased the tax burdens of other communities than those directly 

 concerned. 



One example is the State of Michigan, where almost every county 

 in the cut-over region receives more money from the State school 

 fund alone than it pays in State taxes. Besides this, the State con- 

 tributes large sums for the construction and maintenance of roads. 

 Similar conditions occur in numerous other States. The only way in 

 which such financially dependent counties can become self-support- 

 ing short of complete depopulation or breakdown of essential gov- 

 ernmental responsibilities is by eliminating uneconomic expenditures 

 through more systematic land use and distribution of population so 

 as to avoid unnecessary expenditures for schools and roads, and by 

 increasing taxable wealth or sources of revenue through productive 

 utilization of natural resources, particularly forest land. Unless 

 these things are done, the States can look forward to a steady increase 

 in contributions toward the costs of local government. 



