FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 301 
the problem of land utilization because of the fact that their delin- 
quent-tax lands revert to the county rather than to the State. When 
certain counties found themselves the possessors of an increasing area 
of forfeited lands and at the same time began to feel the pinch of a 
diminishing tax base, they were compelled to give their attention to 
the problem of land utilization. 
In 1925 a law was passed providing for a division of rural planning 
in the State department of agriculture. Since that time the agricul- 
tural college, in cooperation “with the United States Department of 
Agriculture, has taken over the direction of the work, which so far is 
entirely in the hands of county officials. 
During the summer and fall of 1928 several counties decided to 
adopt land-utilization programs and requested the United States 
Bureau of Agricultural Economics to advise them how to proceed. 
William A. Hartman of the Bureau prepared for this purpose a plan 
for zoning the lands of a county. The plan outlined a method for 
making a complete inventory of the county and its land resources. 
When this was done the county board was to zone the land and 
attempt to guide the owners in its future use. 
In 1929 the Wisconsin Legislature passed a law which permits the 
county board of any county to regulate, restrict, and determine the 
areas within which agriculture, forestry, and recreation may be con- 
ducted. This restriction is to be accomplished by an ordinance 
sunilar to an urban zoning ordinance. Such an ordinance was first 
put into effect by Oneida County in 1933 (169). 
At about the same time that this zoning law was being passed, a 
series of land use surveys was conducted under the auspices of the 
College of Agriculture of the University of Wisconsin, in cooperation 
with the Wisconsin Conservation Department and other State agen- 
cies (169). Marinette County was the first county to make a survey 
of its lands and formulate a program of action (170). The survey was 
made by a local committee appointed by the chairman of the county 
board, together with certain staff members of the State College of 
Agriculture. A few facts gleaned from this survey throw light on the 
nature of the problem. 
In 1925, according to the United States census, 563,700 acres, or 
62.3 percent of the area of the county, represented cut-over, second- 
erowth, and swamp lands. In the sparsely settled townships many 
farms were abandoned, a majority of the 521 abandoned farms being 
in 4 of the 18 townships. Likewise 58 percent of the tax-delinquent 
land of the county was in 5 townships. 
In a district embracing one-sixth of the entire county, scattered 
settlement and low attendance per school resulted in a rural school 
cost of $177.69 per pupil for the school year 1927-28. The average 
cost for the whole county was $92.35 per pupil, and for the State at 
large, $67.31. One school with only 2 pupils had a cost of $583 per 
pupil, and another with 3 pupils, incidentally all of one family, had a 
cost of $333.46 per pupil. On the other hand, one school in the town 
of Goodman, where there is concentrated settlement, had an average 
cost of $29.29 per pupil. 
Some townships were successfully evading their proportionate part 
of the road taxes. In 1928, $45,000 was levied for county highway 
purposes, divided equally among the towns, but 6 of the 18 failed to 
pay any part of their assessment. However, the entire $45,000 was 
