A NATIONAL PLAN FOR AMERICAN FORESTRY 1223 



other plan that has been suggested, and, since there are so many 

 influences that cannot be accurately appraised as this time, it seems 

 impracticable to attempt to provide for them too far in advance. 



Should the Federal Government desire to participate in protection 

 to a greater extent than the half sharing now allowed by law, but with 

 the authorization limit of $2,500,000, the total expenditures in some 

 of the States could obviously be increased without exceeding estimated 

 needs. If, for example, a ratio of 75 Federal and 25 State and private 

 were used, the amount expended would be doubled in the States most 

 needing protection as compared with results under the first plan 

 discussed. To do that, however, would require a Federal appropria- 

 tion of approximately $5,000,000, an amount exceeding that required 

 under the first plan by about $2,500,000, with a resultant total 

 increased expenditure for protection of only about $1,000,000. Aside 

 from this consideration, common business foresight demands that the 

 ratio of Federal participation in protection should be balanced by 

 assurance of results from money expended. Assumption of all costs 

 can be balanced only by complete control, and that can be had only 

 through ownership or strict regulation of use. Assumption of a high 

 percentage of protection costs requires corresponding guarantees as 

 to permanency of the protection project. It is believed that guaran- 

 tees as to protection alone will not in any case warrant a Federal 

 sharing of more than 50 percent of the cost, and that as a general 

 average the Federal percentage should be less than that amount. 



Adherence to the latter policy apparently calls for either a large 

 program of Federal acquisition, or public regulation, Federal or State, 

 or both, if complete protection is to be reached within the near future. 

 The possibilities and merits of public regulation and Federal ownership 

 are discussed in other sections of this report, and conclusions as to a 

 plan of procedure will be drawn in the program section. 



The above discussion of the financial aspects of Federal cooperation 

 and the comparisons made in it are limited to the subject of fire con- 

 trol. The Federal aid system now includes planting and manage- 

 ment of farm woodlands and shelter belts, and other forms of Federal 

 aid are in prospect. The relative need for those activities in the 

 different' States does not necessarily conform to the relative need for 

 fire protection. In several of them, however, the needs are closely 

 parallel, and in view of this fact and the fact that the total of other 

 forms of existing and proposed aid is small in comparison to the cost 

 of fire protection, it is believed that the considerations presented are 

 applicable to the situation in to to. 



STATE AID 



By H. J. EBERLY, District Forest Inspector 



In the preceding discussion the advisability of and justification 

 for Federal aid to the States in forestry have been pointed out in some 

 detail. Passing from the sphere of Federal action to that of the 

 individual States, it is found that the same considerations apply 

 largely to the question of State aid to counties and to private owners. 

 For example, it is good business for the State to have its forested 

 counties grow timber supplies for its agricultural and industrial sec- 

 tions. Likewise, a forest insect epidemic originating on one pri- 



168342 33 vol. 2 12 



