6 



AMERICAN FORESTRY 



demnities accorded by the general laws concerning pub- 

 lic works. He could reclaim his property within five 

 years after planting had been completed by restoring 

 the indemnities and reimbursing the state for the cost 

 of its work with interest ; or he could regain half of his 

 property by restoring the whole indemnity and giving 

 the state full title to the remaining half. 



Communal lands were dealt with on the same prin- 

 ciple as that followed in the sand dunes. Only the use 

 of the land was appropriated, without indemnity, in 

 cases where the Commune refused to reforest the ground 

 itself. The property was to be restored to the Commune 

 after the forest had been established and its cost to the 

 public treasury had been recouped through the sale of 

 wood. The Communes also could reacquire their lands, 

 after planting was completed, by paying its cost or could 

 reacquire half of the land by deeding the remainder to 

 the state. The requirements and protection of the 

 "regime forestier" were extended to all forests within the 

 boundaries of a restoration project; and any grazing on 

 them had to be sanctioned expressly by the forest offi- 

 cers of the state. 



This drastic invasion of the private and community 

 rights of the mountaineers had the effect that might 

 readily be imagined were a similar undertaking launched 

 in the southeastern mountains of the United States. The 

 activities of the state were looked upon as designed 

 primarily to curtail or prevent the use of the mountain 

 pastures which the sturdy Alpine folk regarded as essen- 

 tial to their livelihood. The Communes also claimed, 

 with a large degree of justice, that the practical effect 

 of the law was to expropriate their lands without in- 

 demnity, for the high planting costs and rigorous climate 

 made the prospect of a restoration of their property, 

 after the state had recouped its outlay, extremely remote. 

 The conditions in these respects were wholly different 

 from those in the Landes. An attempt to appease the 

 local sentiment was made by a supplemental law in 1864, 

 designed to increase the grazing resources of the moun- 

 tain areas by restoring the grass or turf on portions of 

 the denuded and waste lands ; but little appears to have 

 been accomplished under this measure. Under these 

 difficulties, the work progressed slowly and the question 

 of "restoring the mountains" was a mooted one in the 

 French Parliament during the 20 years following the 

 passage of the law. Alarm was occasioned by the tend- 

 ency of the policy to depopulate the mountains, for it was 

 found that certain communities had moved out altogether 

 as the result of its enforcement which simply empha- 

 sizes the complex social aspects of the problem. 



By 1882, the reforestation projects in the mountains 

 had reached a total of some 350,000 acres. This included 

 about 52,500 acres of Communal lands which had been 

 actually reforested. In that year the whole policy was 

 revamped. Under the terms of a new law, the areas 

 where planting and other intensive methods were to be 

 applied were greatly reduced, being limited to the im- 

 mediate channels or slopes where torrential erosion was 

 taking place. Within these restricted projects, all lands, 



private and Communal alike, were expropriated by the 

 state with payment of full indemnities. Outside of the 

 new perimeters, full possession of the ground was re- 

 stored to its former owners, but any forests that had 

 been established on Communal lands were kept under 

 public administration in accordance with the general 

 provisions of the forest code. The restoration areas 

 thus became the absolute property of the state. 



A new and important principle embodied in the law 

 of 1882 was the establishment of large protection belts 

 in the mountains, surrounding the limited water courses 

 in which serious erosion was actually taking place and 

 had to be fought by intensive methods. In these pro- 

 tective zones, designed to prevent the starting of fresh 

 torrents, the public authorities were authorized to forbid 

 any use of land or forest which would destroy the vege- 

 tative cover. And to extend further the general scheme 

 of prevention, in which the earlier law had failed, the 

 grazing of certain Communal pasture lands was placed 

 under public control. 



The difficulty in a straight- forward application of this 

 policy and the desire to harmonize it with conflicting 

 local interests to the last possible degree, as well as the 

 administrative detail involved, are reflected in the slow 

 machinery for putting the law into effect. Local forest 

 officers prepare a minute plan of every proposed restora- 

 tion project, with maps, lists of property owners, and 

 cost estimates. This plan is subjected to (1) a public 

 hearing in every village affected, (2) a review by the 

 municipal council of each Commune whose property is 

 included, with inevitable protests, (3) examination by the 

 Council of the "Arrondissement," or County, (4) ex- 

 amination by the General Council of the Department, 

 (5) examination by a special commission, consisting of 

 the Prefect, or Chief Executive of the Department, rep- 

 resentatives of the Communes affected, representatives 

 of the various local councils, an engineer of "Ponts et 

 Chausses" (bridges, highways and waterways), and a 

 forest officer, and (6) review and approval by the Min- 

 ister of Agriculture ; and, in addition, the establishment 

 of the restoration project must finally be decreed by act 

 of Parliament. The forest officers then proceed to ac- 

 quire the land designated, by friendly purchase if pos- 

 sible within maximum price limits fixed by the Minister 

 of Agriculture, otherwise by public condemnation. Con- 

 demnation is resorted not only to extinguish property 

 rights, but also the innumerable servitudes for use of 

 timber, grazing, sheep or cattle driveways, quarrying, 

 etc., which have so complicated forest administration in 

 France and have often been a serious cause of erosion. 



While the public acquisition and restoration of small 

 areas where the immediate danger from torrents is acute 

 has gone forward steadily on a small scale in spite of the 

 difficulties encountered, little enough has been accom- 

 plished under the other provisions of the law. The 

 procedure for designating and establishing protection 

 belts, "mise en defens," is practically as that required in 

 creating the restoration projects themselves, except that 

 the final word rests with the Council of State rather than 



