1222 A NATIONAL PLAN FOR AMERICAN FORESTRY 



A practical question for consideration then is, What would result 

 through a departure from the concept that the Federal Government 

 should contribute not to exceed 25 percent of the funds needed in any 

 State and should adopt a plan whereby the Federal portion would be 

 increased? Or what if the legal limitation of 50 percent sharing were 

 itself removed? The problem, it must be remembered is to lay down a 

 general rule which will be automatic in action and not appear to 

 involve arbitrary favors to particular States. 



The present policy of the Bureau of the Budget is to approve Federal 

 appropriations for 1 year equivalent to 25 percent of total expenditures 

 in the last, and recent appropriations have been largely so determined. 

 In allotting the funds the Forest Service now matches State expendi- 

 tures dollar for dollar only up to 8 or 9 percent of the adequate amount, 

 leaving the remainder to be distributed on a pro rata basis. 



If it is desired to make the Federal contribution larger in cases 

 where it is more needed, that could be done either through raising the 

 basic 25 percent budget ratio or through adopting a plan whereby 

 each State would be allotted an amount up to the full 25 percent of 

 adequate funds, as fast as it could match the Federal contribution 

 dollar for dollar. Under such an arrangement the States could now 

 match approximately $1,000,000 more than the 1933 allotments. Of 

 the million dollar increase, approximately half would be taken up by 

 States that are in especial need of assistance. The remainder would 

 serve to supply all but 2 or 3 of the other States with the 

 additional funds needed for protection (as shown by the 1930 esti- 

 mates), provided they maintained their own last 5-year average 

 appropriations. A few States might decrease their own appropria- 

 tions. From theoretical calculations it appears that this possible 

 decrease in State appropriations might amount to approximately 

 $250,000. Under this plan, therefore, with a Federal increase of 

 approximately $1,000,000, total expenditures for protection would be 

 immediately increased by about $750,000. 



If, instead of this plan, one were adopted of allotting to States an 

 amount equivalent to State and private expenditures but not to 

 exceed one half of total needs as shown by the 1930 estimates, an 

 increase in the Federal appropriation of approximately $2,500,000 

 would be indicated. But the net increase in total State and Federal 

 expenditures together under this plan would seem to be little greater 

 than from the other, because the first method would furnish sufficient 

 Federal funds to bring up to a full adequacy status most of the States 

 whose expenditures are sufficient to enable them to take full advantage 

 of it, and it would make available to the others all they could now 

 take on a share-alike basis with current appropriations. 



The advantage of the second plan is that it would allow, under 

 existing law, the allocation of the maximum of Federal funds to the 

 States where Federal aid is most needed. Its disadvantages are (1) 

 that it does not constitute an entirely sound Federal fiscal policy 

 because it sets up estimates rather than actual expenditures as a 

 basis for the division of Federal funds between the States, and (2) 

 that it does not constitute a Federal program for complete protection, 

 since it would carry protection in the now greatly underfinanced 

 States only to the point of 50 percent of needed funds. After that 

 point had been reached, all of the remainder would have to be sup- 

 plied by the States and the landowners. It would, however, serve 

 to advance the work during the next decade or more as fast as any 



