200 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



DEBATE ON APPROPRIATION FOR THE FOREST 

 SERVICE. 



The consideration of the agricultural appropria- 

 tion bill in the House of Representatives, which began 

 on March 25, invoked much discussion and lively de- 

 bate, but the feature of the debate which attracted most 

 attention and was unquestionably the most important 

 and interesting at least from the western standpoint 

 was that had on March 30 and 31 on the item in the 

 bill providing for the Forestry Service, and which was 

 participated in by Messrs. Mondell, of Wyoming, Mann 

 and Madden of Illinois, Crumpacker of Indiana, Olm- 

 stead of Pennsylvania, Cushman of Washington, Smith 

 of California, and Bonynge of Colorado, against various 

 provisions of the Forestry appropriation, and by Chair- 

 man Scott, Mr. Pollard of Nebraska, and others in 

 defense of this item. 



Mr. Mondell first called attention to a provision 

 in the paragraph that would authorize the expenditure 

 of the appropriation anywhere in the jurisdiction 

 of the United States. While he did not insist upon the 

 point of order against the provision, Chairman Scott 

 finally agreed that an amendment would be inserted 

 under which the expenditure of any part of the ap- 

 nropriation in Hawaii or the Philippines would be 

 prohibited. 



The next provision in the paragraph to go out was 

 one which would have very largely widened the author- 

 ity of the Forestry Biireau, and under which it was 

 proposed to allow the Bureau to "assist" owners of 

 woodlands in the proper care of the same. Mr. Mon- 

 dell called attention to the fact that under this pro- 

 vision the appropriation could be used to enable the 

 Forester to become "the caretaker, the gardener and the 

 nark director of all timber land in the United States 

 in private ownership." 



The next provision to go out on a point of order 

 was one which would allow the appropriation to be 

 used for extensions of forest reserves "by the purchase 

 of lands or rights." Mr. Mondell. Mr. Madden and 

 Mr. Bonynge called attention to the fact that tinder 

 this provision there would be practically no limit to 

 the authority of the Forestry Bureau to purchase lands 

 for the extension of Forest Reserves even in those 

 states where Congress had prohibited the creation of 

 reserves except by Congressional action, and it was sug- 

 gested that under this provision the purchase of lands 

 might be made in other than public land states for 

 the creation and extension of reserves. 



Protest Against Extension of Reserve Over Owens River 

 Valley. 



While this provision of the paragraph was under 

 consideration Mr. Smith of California, made a very 

 vigorous speech against the attitude of the Forestry 

 Service in a contemplated extension of a reserve over 

 the Owen's River Valley in California, and he declared 

 that the purpose of such extension was to get control 

 of the water rights on that stream and parcel them 

 out to those whom the Forest Service thought ought to 

 have them, in utter disregard of the laws of the State 

 of California. He denounced their attitude as an out- 

 rage, and stated that it was notorious in the Forestry 

 Bureau, "from the women stenographers up, that this 

 extension was not for forestry purposes, but for the 

 purposes he had mentioned." 



In answer to a question by Mr. Mondell, he said 

 that the land which it was proposed to include in this 

 extension of the reserve contained no timber at all, ex- 

 cept a few scattering cottonwood and willow trees 

 which have sprung up in damp places under irrigation. 



The provision in the paragraph authorizing the 

 Forestry Bureau to co-operate with other Federal 

 Bureaus in the performance of the duties imposed 

 upon them by law, after some discussion, was allowed 

 to remain in; Mr. Mondell not making a point of 

 order, because he stated he had no desire to in any 

 way hamper or embarrass the work of the Forestry 

 Bureau, but he was anxious to assist in doing anything 

 and everything that was right in the preservation of 

 the national forests, and inasmuch as there were oppor- 

 tunities for co-operation, stated that he did not desire 

 to prevent friendly co-operation and trusted the author- 

 ity so granted would not lead to a duplication of work. 

 It was suggested, however, during the discussion, that 

 this provision might lead to a duplication of work, and 

 therefore an amendment was offered tending to prevent 

 such duplication so far as possible. 



The next provision to go out on a point of order 

 was that which authorized the Secretary of Agriculture 

 to "Divide and designate lands heretofore or hereafter 

 reserved for national forests as he may deem best for 

 administrative purposes." Discussion of this provision 

 was participated in by Mr. Mondell, Mr. Madden and 

 others, and indicated a fear on the part of several 

 gentlemen that this was an indirect way of endeavoring 

 to secure authority for a further extension of re- 

 serves. 



The next provision to go out on a point of order 

 was that which provided for the issuance by the For- 

 estry Bureau of irrevocable permits, under certain con- 

 ditions, for power plants within reserves. This pro- 

 vision was objected to both by those who objected to 

 the issuance of long-time permits for this purpose and 

 those who objected to any provision whereby the Forest 

 Service should have complete control over all of the 

 industries established within forest reserves. Later in 

 the debate in offering an amendment, Mr. Mondell 

 called attention to the fact that the Forestry Bureau 

 had supplanted the Interior Department in its con- 

 trol of lands in the reserves by issuing hundreds of 

 revocable permits to parties who were entitled under 

 the law to permanent rights of way. It was explained 

 that these entitled to permanent rights of way for 

 ditches, etc., for agricultural and mining purposes would 

 not readily accept temporary, revocable permits unless 

 such obstacles were placed in the way of obtaining these 

 rights of way by the Forestry Bureau that they were 

 compelled to either take revocable permits placing them 

 in the power of the Forest Service or get nothing. 



The next provision to go out on a point of order, 

 was that which authorized the Secretary of Agriculture 

 to exchange lands or stumpage for the purpose of con- 

 solidating National Forests. The point of order against 

 this provision was insisted upon so emphatically that 

 not much time was given for its discussion. Evidently 

 the House had in mind the scandal which had arisen 

 under a former law under which so-called forest re- 

 serves lieu scrip was obtained, and under which val- 

 uable timber lands owned by the Government were ex- 

 changed for comparatively worthless lands owned by 

 private individuals. Attention was also called to the 



